SV 22 Warren Truss wing

Got back from the WC And had to start my new plane. If any one has ever built a loss foam wing you'll understand that the form of building is far superior to any jig wing. However it is a lot of prep work. But once done it goes pretty fast.
The king of molding in my opinion (AL RABE) has sent me to some wonderful links to help me along in my molded fuselage. when trying to drop off 10 oz from the original you must go to some extremes. I am just hoping that I am not going to sacrifice strength for weight.
It is my opinion the for performance aircraft if the weight for a 60 inch wing span (735 sq in) is above 54 oz there is a loss.
I will post pics and updates as it progress.

> It is my opinion the for performance aircraft if the weight
>for a 60 inch wing span (735 sq in) is above 54 oz there is
>a loss.

I am not questioning you one bit. I just want to know why you would think a wing that has that much area would lose performance if it goes over 54oz.? That is really light wing loading.

If I remember correctly SV series foil are not very thin and should carry weight in the 60s just fine???

Question? Have you ever flown a 38 oz airplane 550 SQ IN ? Thats why.. I would really like to have it 48 oz but I dont think it's possable to have it look worth a darn. Nothing flys like a plane under 40 oz.

Bob,
It would be a lot better if you would build a couple of models and fly them at least a couple hundred flights this time a round in the hobby. Then you can experiment with other stuff.
735 squares will do well with a lot of weight. Remember the Golden Falcon? It weighs 75 ounces and flies just fine, still. There is no sense in light for light sake. Paul Walker just wore out his number 1 model in practice at the Worlds. It disintegrated in flight. He figures not enough structure.
Remember the post that said to you that you are fine with an SV22 at 60 or so ozs. Pay attention to the experts and work your way up with the model you have.
In case you don't know who Moon is, he was in the Walker Fly-Off after a very short time in the hobby, so this time listen and enjoy.
This forum is not a contest of words. Guys are just trying to help and learn. Be advised.
Chris McMillin

THANKS BUT NO LARGE BARGE FOR ME!

>THANKS BUT NO LARGE BARGE FOR ME!

Don't be yelling at us over this.

Back when he was flying Impacts and building a new one for some pretty substantial contests the models were all *intentionally* built to right around 62 ounces. This after building what we used to refer as "The Light One," an Impact in the low 50s.

If I am wrong you can correct me, but I think you mentioned going to Muncie recently. Might go back for U.S. Nationals. Look for one Howard Rush and his white/orange Impact, a model I have seen fly quite a lot.

You watch it fly, and then without talking to Howard about it, you come back on here and take a guess as to how much this model weighs. You know, based upon its in-air performance.

Bottom Line: Chris gave you some really good advice. I suggest you take it to heart.

Thats the nice thing about this hobby. You have your likes I have mine.
You cant lead when you folowing someone. I didn't listen then as now. Been building planes sinse 1965. There just getting beter and beter.

>Question? Have you ever flown a 38 oz airplane 550 SQ IN ?
>Thats why.. I would really like to have it 48 oz but I dont
>think it's possable to have it look worth a darn. Nothing
>flys like a plane under 40 oz.

Build small planes. That seems to be the reasonable thing for guys who like 40 oz planes.

I have personally never seen a low wing loading plane such as you describe fly worth a darn, at least not lately. Most are 10 to 11 oz per sq foot wing loadings, some are even more.

It is a fact that all of the US Nats are won with airplanes that are in excess of 10 oz wing loadings.

Well how much do you think Bills plane weighs?

Uhmmmm...

I think, that what the guys are trying to get across to you, is that you don't (Seem to.) realize that the path that you are going down has been trod before, by recognized expert explorers. Said path leads to a mine but there is no gold therein, only dissapointment. Each one who has gone before you, has come back empty handed but wiser and each has been generous enough to share thier experiences with the rest of us. That way, we can put our energies elsewhere.

Of course, you are perfectly free to go there if you must. It's your hobby!

As far as Billy's plane goes... Lets see... He builds pretty light. As I understand it, the Balsa Fairie brings him lots of 4lb C-grain wood while he sleeps . His plane must weigh... I dunno, 16oz RTF? You tell me!

Low to mid 50tys

Personally, I think a computer generated, laser cut, ribset will be much more accurate than the Lost Foam method. Also like the Tom Morris jig system, for several reasons. Both yeild more accurate wings. Combine both, it'll be better yet. Steve

I also have the Tom Morris jig. But I really like this lost foam system better.

>Personally, I think a computer generated, laser cut, ribset
>will be much more accurate than the Lost Foam method. Also
>like the Tom Morris jig system, for several reasons. Both
>yeild more accurate wings. Combine both, it'll be better
>yet. Steve
>
>http://www.nwskyraiders.com/index.html

Steve I have combined them and it was a DREAM!

I have a Geo Bolt lost foam jig. Well I got real tired of making rib sets. Seeing as how I was going to do this eleven times! So I traced the root and tip and sent it along with the spacing for a straight ribbed wing to my laser cutter. He cleaned up my rib tracing and sent me a set of ribs two days later. While he was doing that I did the leading edge molding and had it ready to go. When I got the ribs I had the wing completed minus cap strips and controls in one evening! It was the easiest wing I have ever built. I have worked repeatedly with him to try to get truss type ribs but his 3-d program just doesnt work right for some reason. The lost foam jig is the best by far because you can actually work on the wing and press on it or get your hands in there and since it is not suspended it doesnt move. Suspension wings work very well but the fully supported lost foam is the best for me.

Now if I can just get those truss ribs from the laser it is ON!

I think we've got a full-blown whack job on our hands.

Sparky, I've got a Netzeband-designed BareCat, very stout VA .049 for power. It has 360 square inches of wing. It weighs 11.25 ounces, all-up but no fuel.

You calculate the wing loading.

Now with this information at hand, can you tell if it is a good flying model? Have you ever flown *any* CL model with a loading this low? Are you even capable of building such a model?

And for reference, yes I am following PW's lead, not the other way around. For your edification, there is no shame in following a 9-time Nationals Champion, many-time FAI Team Member, previous World Champion.

When you come even within 10% of such a record, maybe I'll follow you! Not...

Please don't. So what I forgot a punctuation mark. Ask Gerald S in your area if I can build. He knows.
As far as getting wrapped up in this bickering. I'm not. If you don't like what I have to say turn the page.
People will keep wondering and I'll keep building!

Bingo!

Poor spelling skills, and equally poor reading comprehension.

Assuming equally poor math skills, the wing loading on my BareCat is 4.5 ounces per square foot.

You have how many models which fall within, say, 20% of this type of loading?

This is going to be a lot of fun...

You know while I was at the WC talking to the greats they said don't waste my time here and they were right. Just build and I will. Lets see one of yours?

Enough is enough.

Lets get back to talking about WHY a plane is automatically going to perform better because it is lighter.

Well first off you get to have a whole host of ways to setup your motor.

Heavier planes tend to demand certain type of engine run. Needing more out of the hard corners.

Second you can fly it at a variety of speeds and still have very good performance.

Heavier planes tend to hold you into a tighter lap time area. However with the newer motors on the market I have seen 70oz Impact at 5.8 laps on 70' lines fly pretty darn good.

However there are couple of drawbacks.

First off building ultra light is really pains takingly slow.

The structure will suffer a bit. A BIG bit if you(general Joe Flyer) doesnt know what and where to save weight.

If it is too light in certain areas the paint job can actually warp the model at the end of the build.(see it happen, no fun)

Extremely light models dont penetrate as well in the wind either. There just isnt that much energy. Lots of out thrust is used to combat this (See Chinese and their 48ozers. with 6 degrees of engine offset!) Build a model this large in the 48oz range and you might travel this road. I am not saying you will but you might.

Having said all of that I guess it really comes down to what you like. Just as you said. However you might get it heavy according to you(normal weight for others) and find out trimming it for ALL conditions to be a much easier thing to do. It will be alot less touchy on how you set it up from weather to weather.

You keep on talking about Bill's planes. Well I know alot about Bill's planes. I dont know if I know more than you about them but I know alot. How do I know? I have had the pleasure of working with and becoming great friends with Bob Gieseke ever since the first day I got into this hobby. This man can build a stunt plane lighter than anyone on this planet BAR NONE! Billy just happens to be one of his best friends. I think they flew on 8 world teams together. Anyway he has taught me the ways of building light and strong and I can do it repeatedly and with precision.

I built a Gieseke Bear 685sqrs at 52oz new. Yeah it kicked #####, still does! I built it's bigger brother 714sqrs using a Geo Bolt wing at 58.75oz, not the lightest but light enough, and it landed me in the Top 5 at 02 Nats. I am not trying to brag just showing you that I have done my research AND practiced it! However I flew Windy's MAII at 70oz and it was a dream. Mike Scott 2000 Adv Champ built the Same Geo Bolt Bear that I built at 70oz and I flew it for a week and I felt I had it just as good as mine. The whole design dictates whether you need it really light or not. Planes that carry a 25% tail, with a moderately thick airfoil dont have to be insanely light to perform or even WIN the NATS! Just check Ted Fancher's Purple People Eater, 66 I think at only 630 active sqr inches. The tail and the wing work together to carry the model. If the tail is large enough it will make the heavy model turn and you wont know it was heavy. When I was building Gieseke Bears only they had to weigh less than 54, this was said so by the master himself(5 time Nats champ and 1 time WC) This was due to the 18-19.5% tail section and relatively thin airfoil, sharp leading edge I might add. The tail section will not be strong enough to support the plane during hard coners. It will stall. Get a slightly larger tail on the same plane and add three oz and it will make those turns. How do I know this? Guess. You are building a plane that does not demand it be built as light as possible to perform as best as possible. Further more building TOO light, not done very often I might add, will add another whole set of trim issues.

In days of old building ultra light was like a badge of honor. I fully understand and can complete the task in that order. As I often brag to my buddies when I build one really light. I am advocate of building as light as possible myslef. But once the builder can build light and straight going for a target weight is what should be done for the best ALL around performance. As the power is more available and usable power goes up building to a target weight becomes more the norm. Kind of like real airplane designers do. They have a set of parameters and go for a specific range for the best performance. They get there through research.

You might want to do a little research yourself before you just make a planket statement.

I can respect your opinion. But please respect mine. Look in the 1994 Oct issue on model aviation. You will find a pic of my plane I thought that flew the best in OCT issue. It was 50 oz on a pipe. (Viper Super Glide)I beam wing molded fuse.I sold it to John Lowery at Fox. Wish I still had it.

When did I not respect your opinion? Did you not read my post in the middle I said it really just comes down to what you like. Just like you said.

I like to talk planes and why they do what they do. So I wanted to talk about why lighter is or isnt always better.

Then you made that remark about wasting your time here. Why would you say that? Len goes through alot of headache to provide this site. It is very helpful and very informative. Some of the stuff I learned here helped me get to the Top 5. Those who think it is counter productive are caught up in the arguements about rules. They think it makes CLPA look bad. Well "newsflash!" those arguements happen right in the pages of SN so what's the difference.

Your little tag line is very antogonistic. The first time I read that I thought you typed that right to me. I took that kind of personally like you were saying I had no idea what I was talking about.

> The king of molding in my opinion (AL RABE) has sent me to
>some wonderful links to help me along in my molded fuselage.
>when trying to drop off 10 oz from the original you must go
>to some extremes. I am just hoping that I am not going to
>sacrifice strength for weight.
> It is my opinion the for performance aircraft if the weight
>for a 60 inch wing span (735 sq in) is above 54 oz there is
>a loss.

Trying to save weight is a great goal as long as the strength remains. With modern powertrains weighing @22oz, a painted finish @ 8oz, control system @2oz, landing gear @3oz, and 2-3oz of tipweight you only have 18-19oz left. A wing loading of 10.5oz was low in the day of the 35s.

Get back with Al, he doesn't try to build the lightest planes around as he has mentioned in several posts here. Ask him about his profile bearcat which weighed in the 50+ ounce range

Even in the days when the common engine was a Fox 35 people like George Aldrich commented that some of his mid 30oz Noblers came out too light and planes in the 40+oz range flew better, especially in the wind.

I have seen several cases of wings folding in level flight, bellcranks pulling out on pull tests, stress cracks throughout the plane, and landing gear pulling out from normal landing on asphalt (one case 43oz 670sq" plane with 10-11oz powertrain).

All that said I'm looking forward to future reports, especially the flying ones.

Thank you for your civil reply. The 22 oz I mentioned earlier in my posts is a total combined weight. So I have a little more room for wood. Thank god. I will keep you posted on the progress. You could expect to see it done in the next month.
Oh by the way at the WC Bill W is in 3rd. Not bad for a light airplane.

yep not bad for a light airplane. Just some thoughts on my part,
if you take into account, 50years experience, burning 70+ gals of
fuel/yr, meaning 100's of flites a yr. He has said that it takes
about a year for him to build a competative plane. Bobby Hunt thinks
Billy is one of the worlds best builders, heck I wish I was the best
builder in my block. like I said just some thoughts.

You got that right I think he's the best too.

Sparky, I am just wondering why you are getting so angry at the responces YOU have asked for? When you showed your picture of your first SV 22 you asked for everyones opinions. Now you are getting them. If you don't like what you read thats your perogitive. Somehow I just can't see any of those guys at the WC telling you that this forum is a "waste of time" seeing as how I have read posts from almost all of them one time or another.

Well I got to tell you I not going to get mad. Just see all of you at the nats in 2005.
For the open minded people if you think that weight doesn't matter build 2 planes one heavy and one light then tell me which one fly's better. I know this will be difficult for most people, but for the few who understand performance,you will.

I believe its the way that you respond on here that sets people off. Your sarcastic, challenging, "Ï'm better than you" attitude ain't making it. Back off and learn from those that have offered you advice. If your so knowing about everything about building I don't know why you asked for anyones opinion in the first place.

Constructive criticism like Doug Moons is welcome.

>Get back with Al, he doesn't try to build the lightest
>planes around as he has mentioned in several posts here.
>Ask him about his profile bearcat which weighed in the 50+
>ounce range

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Or his Nats winning Sea Fury at 73oz on (if I remember correctly) 610sq.in.

What is unconstrutive about what I said? You can blast everyone that says anything contrary to your beliefs but you can't take it when its laid on you. Grow up.

Build light . It will help!

Don't take it personally Bill. You've said it all anyway.
Chris...