Food for thought. This topic is now a dead horse.

This topic is now a dead horse but you can't make'm drink.

The problem with modern day stunt plane is concentrated weight. If you think it's not let's try an experiment. While standing arms down with a Satio 72 in one hand and a Aro lite 40 in the other see how much force it takes to raise each one. Now keeping that in mind if you have ever played with a gyroscope. We have two engines that have a gyroscope attached to them spinning at a high rate of speed. The 72 swings a 13 or 14 inch prop and the 40 swings a 10 or an 11 inch prop. Which one will be easier to deflect?

The reason a combat plane turns so good is the engine is drawn back towards the CG. Also swings a 8 inch prop. Not because it has a long tail moment.

You ask yourself why am I spilling all this dribble? Well the rule book says 5 foot radius not 10 and 5 foot bottoms not 9.

I have heard people say over steer well it's not over steer it's no steer. A body in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon an equal opposite amount of force.

Is the answer longer moments? Bigger leverage? It has all been tried. But the base line characteristics are set by weight.

Not my rules!

Edit:

I almost forgot added torque means more roll toward the inboard side.
Edit: It's hard to believe some people will argue with the rules of nature.

I had one fellow tell me that my paint job would present it self good to the judges. What does that have to do with the way the plane fly's? Or I fly for that matter?

I am way out of practice but in a few hundred flights should be right back. If I can engineer a plane that fly's the way I like to fly.
Does any one know if Bob Tucker is still alive? Is he still in Tulsa? If you do know drop me a email as I would like to talk to him again.

Maybe he was just trying to give you a compliment on the nice appearance of your ship. I would think a ship with your color combination might be easier for the judges to focus on against the sky background as opposed to lets say a light blue ship. And if it's easier to see maybe a judge would score a little higher, who knows, Just a thought?

You can afford an Aero40 AND a Saito .72, one for each hand? Impressive . . .

Well, I hardly know where to start - so I won't. But a few things to consider:

The pitch angular rate is a function of the angular acceleration and time. Increasing the angular acceleration increases the pitch rate at any particular time.

The angular *acceleration* is a function of the ratio of the torque to the moment of inertia (what you kind of allude to with regards to combat planes), and the pitch rate. Increase the torque, or reduce the inertia, and it will have higher angular acceleration. The higher the pitch rate gets, the less torque is available.

Heavy engine (making moment of inertia higher)? Well, maybe you ought to increase the torque. How to increase the to torque? Either make the tail larger, or longer (at least to start or stop)

The pitch rate it limited by the angular acceleration falling to 0, as a result of the torque falling to zero, at some pitch rate determined by the tail moment and effective incidence (with the controls deflected).

The turn radius is not a direct function of the pitch rate, its a function of the available lift versus the required lift for a particular radius. The available lift *is* a function of the pitch rate, and many other factors. Excessive pitch rate results in a stall.

Combat planes turn tighter because the wing loading is lower, providing a higher ratio of available lift to required lift. The permits higher pitch rates before a stall.

All airplanes are technically limited by either limited pitch rate, or limited available lift. It's my opinion that any particular airplane is technically ideal when the limits are hit simultaneously.

The real limit on turn radius is not technical - it's the ability of the pilot to consistently control it. All evidence suggests that this is generally far below the technical limits of the airplane.

There's a lot more to the pattern than the 5 foot radius - in fact, the turn radius is perhaps the *least* important factor in stunt competition success. Not irrelevant, but so much less important that everything else that any reasonable airplane it good enough.

>
>Not my rules!

No, just legitimate rules, misunderstood.

As to the journey for the 5ft corner...that has been beat to death here, look in the archives for more informed responses than I could give.

BTW, great looking woodwork you are doing, and FAST. I'm sure you will be a threat in CLPA once you get your feet back on the ground.

A very wise mentor once told me the basics he felt it takes to win in CLPA:

Almost Any Median Modern PA Design - Most planes can out fly the pilot

TRIM TRIM TRIM - A well trimmed Ringmaster will out fly a screwed up SV11. Never stop trimming, and be prepared to do minor re-trim when you travel.

Engine - A Stellar, Consistent, Stunt Engine that handles various conditions well. (I've seen this help mask gross trim problems, not that they shouldn't also be fixed, but it sure does help)

And last and probably most important - Practice & Routine. Practice with that one design. Stick with it until it's an extension of your hand, and have a routine that you stick with so you don't get flustered at contests.

I know there's more, but this is the foundation he felt needed to build on. One thing he never mentioned was a 5Ft corner. A good looking corner, yes, but 5Ft...wasn't mentioned in the equation.

Eric V.

Clearly, we've been flying CL stunt ships for over 55 years now, and you're not the first to have some thought connection to physical concerns. Yes, it is clear that stunt ships can be too heavy to perform well. But there is more than simple mass involved in our concerns.

I invite you to take a serious look at the efforts of our current crop of master fliers and builders. I think you will be impressed, you have to ask yourself what simple obvious things they are missing that would make them and their equipment more competitive. Is the raw weight of a stunt ship or engine the major concern here?

Much has been written and said about 5' radius corners, and we have seen a least a couple of extremely able engineers and flyers who have actually constructed ships (e.g. the Bare Cat) which are capable of such performance. Yet, these efforts do not seem to be emulated! We don't see these ships winning the current competitions, so why not?

Could it be that the 5' radius rule is not the most important aspect of modern CL stunt? Sure, it's in the rule book, but it is far from the most important parameter. I'd even argue that it is of little importance.

Again, if you will observe a Fancher, Buck, Werwage, Walker, or a dozen other top flyers/builders in action, you can learn things! Consider some common features of such people, and one thing is that they are very competitive. Do you think that any one of them wouldn't be emphasizing the very very very lightest weight of ship and/or engine if it were of even the tiniest competitive benefit? It's not like them to ignore such, if there were any benefit!

One thing I have concluded in my limited observations of the champions is that they all have very good power trains! Maybe not the lightest in weight, but clearly the best matched to their ship and its requirements. One can speak of props and gyroscopic effects, but when there is a proper MATCH between power train pieces, you can HEAR it. It's wonderful.

It is simplistic to assume that some major aspect of improvement on our stunt ship design has been ignored and neglected. It hasn't. But please don't stop looking for one!

I've joked with Howard Rush about simply copying the setup of a great flyer like Paul Walker. However, the fact is, it is a tremendously good idea for a starting point! (Far better than copying a Larry Cunningham setup..)

I've watched stunt somewhat since 1987 and I've seen an ongoing evolution of our ships and power trains, and even our flying techniques. And long prior to 1987, great thinkers, scientific and engineering types like Al Rabe were producing great innovations. Al, and several others are STILL sharing their wisdom here with us.

Just be realistic. I encourage you to post your ideas and thoughts, Lord knows I learn a great deal from reading technical discussions on SSWF. But be prepared to listen to good advice!

These guys are champions for a reason. When you start giving them some competition, folks will be more interested in your ideas.

Best regards,

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"When a man's knowledge is not in order, the more of it he has the greater will be his confusion." -Herbert Spencer

Being in agreement with that explanation most people think that the technology at present they are using is the very best and most up to date and performance ready.

Yet, did you LISTEN to his power train? In engineering we refer to impedance matching in systems where power is transferred. That is, there is a driver and a load, and everything in the system between, and they are matched. I remember Bill Werwage's ships as having that wonderful sound of a very good impedance match. You can hear it.

There's another major aspect. I assert that even with Bill's excellent equipment, virtually no one could fly it as competitively as he does. Bill is a guy who devotes a large portion of his LIFE to flying control line stunt. Tremendous skill is involved, and Bill has earned it.

My point is that minimal weight is only ONE factor of the broad equation. And perhaps not even the most important one, in fact, I'm almost sure it isn't!

No, don't neglect it. But pursue all the other factors with equal vigor.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"The man that sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns something that will always be useful and which will never grow dim or doubtful." -Mark Twain

Isn't it good that FAI Stunt didn't evolve the way FAI Combat did? I don't know how you'd fly two airplanes in a flight.

<Which one will be easier to deflect>
Isn't this where wing loading comes into play regardless of engine size??

At the world championships people scored better when they flew a little larger & softer. If the objective is to win a contest then you have to give the judges what they are looking for regardless of what the rule book says. If the objective is to fly a pattern exactly as defined in the rule book then the wing loading will have to be reduced to about 1/3 of what your goal was.

The top pilots do have bottoms at 5 ft, those of use who are still afraid of one point landings on the spinner don't.

First flew shortly before the 1998 NATs - so six years. 62.5 oz with 655 square inches. After repairs to:

left wing - nearly broke off completely after damage on first offiicial flight due to broken prop on takeoff
fin/rudder - ground down in inverted landing shortly before 2001 NATs
right wing - landing gear torn out at 2003 NATs
left stabilizer, left flap filler - broken off completely at end of March 2004 when airplane, with engine out, got flipped up in the air and cartwheeled.

it now weighs 64 oz. Still flies well enough, I think, since the design target weight is 65 oz. But I am working on the replacement, and also a new model that Sparky might approve of - with a target weight of about 38 oz.

Cool.

Will it use the motor that Mr. Rutherford has waxed enthusiastic about in many, many posts?

I was waxing poetic about it for 5 years before Mr. Rutherford - but not at intensely. No, it will not likely use a 20FP. But it may well use a Rustler/Merco 40.

Exactly!

BTW1: Isn’t that model with higher moment also less sensitive in turbulent air?

BTW2: I did not feel too many problems with pitching rate with my Nats model Max which was 150g heavier then the original because of heavy ST60 and +80g in tail to balance it to my preferences. … Just opposite is true, I had to do more opened corners not to slow down that heavy model powered by ST60 instead of lighter powered by piped PA60

No doubt.

So, why don't you ask the best stunt flyer, Bill Werwage, what he thinks of your thesis?

Be sure and add that you are lecturing me on how stunt planes work. Please videotape the response.

Sparky is probably right - assuming that the engine would run the same. Which it *wouldn't*, I might add - thermal mass tremendously effect run characteristics, less thermal mass mght be better, worse, or merely different - but it won't likely be the same.

How they run is FAR more important than how much they weigh. You can handle weight, but if it doesn't deliver the power properly, it's a dead loss.

But I'm reasonably sure that Billy doesn't need a self-styled press-agent, and if he did, I doubt Sparky would be the choice.

One only need to look at the ubiquitous Patternmaster design to see just how well a (so-called) "heavy" stunter can fly. And although the old ST .60 motors are heavy vibrators and not nearly so powerful as a modern piped .65, it is a very workable paradigm.

They are very good wind ships as well.. Line tension is seldom a complaint either.

Multiple techniques exist for feline excoriation.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Results! Why man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand things that won't work." -Thomas Alva Edison

No problem - trim and engine setup make *all* the difference. I have seen far heavier airplanes with far higher wing loading win the NATs. For instance, how about 70 oz on 650 square inches, with a 46VF? Or a Patternmaster at 71 oz with a Double Star 60? Or a 72-ounce 680 square inch Mustang with a Saito 72? 1995, 1996, and 2002, respectively.

All I can say is you can't tell much about airplanes by weighing them, and *do not* give up just because they are a bit portly by 1975 standards.

You can make almost any argument if you only address the facts which support it.The premise is flawed in that the assumption is made that the gyro couple is higher for the larger engine.In fact the larger displacement will ,almost always,develop it's best torque and power at lower RPM.It does not necessarilt follow that a larger prop on a larger engine will produce larger gyro forces.the prop itself is also a huge variable.diameter is only one variable.I've experimentally determined polar mass moments for a number of props with some surprising(to me anyway) results.For instance:Bolly 12.5-6.5 three blade,Ip=.00154;13-6 TF wide blade,Ip=.00234;13-6Rev-Up,Ip=.00128;12-5Rev-UpS3,Ip=.00070.These are all props I used ay one time or another on the same S.T..60 in my Wildcat.they gave about the same lap times ,but at different RPM and each required a different "Rabe"rudder setting.The calculated gyro moments were, respectively:Bolly-26.6in.#; 13-6Rev-Up-24.75 in.# ;12-5Rev-Up-16.06 in.#,for a 5 ft.radius corner at the revs(ground) actually measured for that prop.

When new the wildcat was 64 oz. on 735 sq.in.,and was capable of much more corner than I could fly.

Just my contribution to the discourse,

Things are never THAT simple! Unfortunately.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"At present there are such goings-on that everything is at a standstill." -Sir Boyle Roche

I find many responses to engineering and design questions rather
disappointing. Disappointing in their attitude because they treat
people as if they have nothing worthwhile to say. Nobody has
complete knowledge of everything there is to know regardless
of who they are. If you do everything the same as accepted
practice, then you will only do as well as accepted practice allows,
only as well as others doing the same thing can potentially do.
If you identify the rigth things to do differently in the right way,
you will excell and bring an improvement. The risk is, you may do worse but if you don't innovate, you simply limit your potential
to what current fassion will allow.

Let me give an example.

My family used to be into sailing and we were very competative and successful. Now you would think that in the thousands of years of sailing technique development, accepted practice would be about as
far as it could go. Not so. We looked at accepted practice, considered it carefully and in most cases followed it but in a few
cases, decided it did not stand up and developed some techniques
of our own. Like how to maximise power from the spinaker for
different points to the wind. We set our spinaker contry to
accepted practice. The difference that made was obvious, no one
could touch us in any comp we attended to the highest level for that
class. What we were doing was not so obvious to others but the speed
was. The class we competed in is was not well known so this is not
well known except to a very few. These days I have a smaller boat
and even having such sailing expertise, that little boat has taught
me much about sailing that I did not know before.

Another example is the Rabe rudder which is now part of accepted
practice but was not back then.

So let's adopt a little more humility, listen and take the time to
explain things properly. Please do not show off supperior knowledge
or reputation. If you want people to understand, explain so they can.

I basically agree with what you say.

However, when it comes to useful discussion of physics and engineering topics, a certain technical baseline has to be present. We can make all sorts of subjective, simplistic statements, but ultimately we'll need to resort to some sort of ojective look, almost always involving mathematics.

Broad, sweeping "scientific" declarations are an open invitation to challenge and/or dispute. If you make them, you need to be prepared to defend them. Otherwise, you may be shown to have "a prune in your whiskers"..

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"When those waiters ask me if I want some fresh ground pepper, I ask if they have any aged pepper." -Andy Rooney

I agree Larry, I just object somewhat to the tone of some of the
responses an dnot being very helpful.

Larry

I just realised that as my reply was off your message, it might look like I mean you. That's not the case. Yours was simply the last post at the time I opened the reply.

Bye for now.

Build a model and it has weight parameters. If you exceed them in the too light category, they fall apart. It must be just right, not just real light.

Burn some gas, man. You talk so much about Billy, do what he does. Fly, not BS.

Speaking from watching your past experience, if you build a model that lasts a season we'll all be surprised. You're your own worst enemy. Wake up, people tried to tell you to back off when you showed up. The way you talk on here makes you look like a fool.

Chris McMillin

PS Billy and Bobby were talking about the flamers and BSers on this site as a warning, not a calling.

Shucks McMillin.....does this mean we ain't talkin' physics no more?

While I have no interest is berating my friend Phil any further, having already done so once today, and Sparky's input is proving to be supremely suitable catch-and-release material, Brett has nailed it again. And I just recently had this notion thoroughly reinforced.

We talked about it a bit in the thread about Arlingon, Washington trim/PA contest session (it's the one with Howard's pictures of a PW 51 not built by PW flying with a Spitfire, also not built by PW).

Look, Dave Pellerin is a long-time friend, a great addition to our NW Stunt community, and his Whitely Shoestring was first regarded as good enough to take to the 2004 NW Regionals. Where he crashed it in the sort of accident that simply should never happen to one with his level of experience and while flying a model which is at least close.

Dave fixed it, had it out this last Saturday. He could just barely get it through a full pattern. In fact, at one point he looked in serious danger of putting it in yet again. The model wasn't just out of trim, it was a **load!**

While details were not supplied, nor will be they be listed here, P. Walker got his hands on that sucker. The model wasn't merely improved, it was transformed. It was almost as if Paul had rebuilt it himself using the time-honored practice of beginning with the spinner and adding all-new stuff from there on back.

Mention was made of Dave going on to win Advanced PA the next day, but that tells only part of the story. Early Sunday Dave asked me to launch for him, and he had gone from almost dreading flying the beast to making me stick around for two launches. And he was visibly comfortable at circle center, both in practice and in the contest.

I strongly suggest Phil's friend get someone with lots of CL Stunt experience to take a close look at the Patternmaster, this including a flight or two. There simply must be far more things horribly wrong than "just right."

I have the tape of Bob Baron flying his first qualifying flights when he won the Nats in 1996. His corners are the "deepest" I have ever seen on tape (tape looks softer than even in person) especially his outside squares. The airplane went the closest to 5 feet I have ever seen and simply swiveled.

That was a 71 OZ Patternmaster.

I assume it was "in trim".

...and yes, it is possible to "tranform" a total dog of an airplane into a good one, by simply retrimming correctly. Trimming is so misunderstood there are not words to fully describe how lucky most people are to get the airplane to fly as well as they do (I am certainly a candidate for that club).

Brett I salute your science. I am a believer.

Jose, it was nice hanging out with you at the WC's. Say "hi" to BJ for me. I would like to see his 4 stroke design. I would be happy if he would review my new "Alpha".

http://www.egpworld.com/ultrahobby/download/pattern%20plane%20ALPHA.PDF

It is somewhat of a departure from convention.

I think you are discussing several things, interchangably. I think helpful and accurate advice about how to build light and strong stunt planes would be universally welcomed.

But this thread started as a "physics" lecture - and the points you made, while at least vaguely accurate as far as they went, were a very small part of the whole issue. You were unwilling to defend or argue the point with technical counterpoints over which resolution could be reached. There are *plenty* of people here who would have welcomed such a conversation, and would be imminently well-qualified, in both the technical and competition sense, to participate usefully.

Instead, you decided to rely on a combination of talking down to people, proof by authority, and dropping names. In particular, "proof by authority" really only works when you are an established authority. It *might* work for Paul Walker, Bill Werwage, Ted Fancher, etc. although they wouldn't generally do so. That sort of "argument" sets off the old BS detector in almost everyone. Patently absurd statements like "the VF is too heavy for stunt", when it has one of the most remarkable record of wins in recent stunt history, does not enhance credibility.

Brett

Spark: More powerful, but I am unaware of the lighter part of your statement.

In fact, it seems that motors are getting heavier all the time. And not counting mufflers.

>But I'm reasonably sure that Billy doesn't need a
>self-styled press-agent, and if he did, I doubt Sparky would
>be the choice.
Brett

Please stop Brett, my sides are starting to hurt!!!

Like Greg, I am thinking this is very funny stuff. To wit and from Brett:

"Be sure and add that **you** are lecturing *me* on how stunt planes work. Please videotape the response." *Emphasis added by Dirt.*

I don't buy tapes, never have. But I hereby place my order for this one. You set the price, even it's only a few seconds of Werwage snorting, laughing and giggling. However, Sparky must appear on the tape and be seen making the statement bound to set off riotous laughter from Mr. Bill.

Splish!

Catch-and-release...

That's setting the bar pretty high. I think Sparky has a long way to go to meet that high standard. It's far from unrecoverable.

Bill

Oh, unrelated to the above, my vote is for Jimbo Aaron for finishing editor in Stunt News whenever there is another vacancy.

Uncle Jimby write a column? Ay yi yi, he'll need therapy before he can utter the word "paint" again.

Uncle Jimby is already a professional writer. He could just re-adapt his humor style for a more aged audience I suppose. Mayhaps his thearapy could involve written text on the subject. He does really good paint work though! The Prime Infinity is something to behold!

One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a well. The animal cried piteously
for hours as the farmer tried to figure out what to do. Finally, he decided
the animal was old, and the well needed to be covered up anyway; it just
wasn't worth it to retrieve the donkey.

He invited all his neighbors to come over and help him. They all grabbed a
shovel and began to shovel dirt into the well. At first, the donkey realized
what was happening and cried horribly. Then, to everyone's amazement he
quieted down.

A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally looked down the well. He was
astonished at what he saw. With each shovel of dirt that hit his back, the
donkey was doing something amazing. He would shake it off and take a step
up.

As the farmer's neighbors continued to shovel dirt on top of the animal, he
would shake it off and take a step up. Pretty soon, everyone was amazed as
the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and happily trotted off!

Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds of dirt. The trick to getting
out of the well is to shake it off and take a step up. Each of our troubles
is a steppingstone. We can get out of the deepest wells just by not
stopping, never giving up! Shake it off and take a step up.

Remember the five simple rules to be happy:
1. Free your heart from hatred - Forgive.
2. Free your mind from worries - Most never happen.
3. Live simply and appreciate what you have.
4. Give more.
5. Expect less

NOW -------- Enough of that crap . .

The donkey later came back and bit the $hit out of the farmer who had tried
to bury him. The gash from the bite got infected, and the farmer eventually
died in agony from septic shock.

MORAL FROM TODAY'S LESSON:
When you do something wrong and try to cover your #####, it always comes back
to bite you.

I saw you on the great Biker Build Off! At least I think that was you. I have never seen you but there cant be that many John Jolleys out there. Anyway you have long grayish hair and you work in one the Raddest shops in the country. Awesome!

You had a broken arm at the time(Broken Wing...) What happened?

That was me; I was pretty busted up back then. A woman pulled out in front of me (turned left) and clipped me. I broke my left wrist and dislocated my right shoulder forward, allot of road rash. I still can't fly overhead; my right arm still hurts when I extend it over my head. Having your right arm in a sling and your left arm in a cast makes for some interesting toilet time (smiles).

Easy Rider magazine just filmed us for a TV special that they are going to pitch to the Fox or NBC and hopefully we will get a series of some kind.

I didn't get much airtime on the "Build Off", being doped up on pain medication.

We just bought a new facility its "Huge”, plenty of space in the show room to hang some stunt planes. I'm thinking that I may be able to pitch PAMPA and my Ultra Hobby Products "Impact" or at least wear my "Peabody" tee shirt on an interview. Choppers are almost as "Cool" as stunt planes, a hell of allot easier to build that’s for sure. I'm going to give it a shot.
Hey, Maybe I can organize a motorcycle run to the NATS and heckle the Da Dirt when he flies. Yea, throw wrenches and stuff at him. Well maybe not wrenches, rocks or bolts... (smiles) "And laughter rolled through the crowd"

So you start by taking it upon youself to lecture us all on physics, and when faced with a junior-high level physics discussion, you change to "common sense". Fascinating.

Perhaps you could favor us all with your proposed equations of motion? 2-DOF ( Y translation and pitch rotation) is fine to start.

It's all a moot point as you left out the impedance!!

Over whose eyes do you think you can pull this wool?

SAY WHAT?
Building light models is easy. It's keeping them light when you finish them. Lots of good advice here.

OK, you got me on this one, too. Boiling dope to save weight? All that would accomplish it evaporating off the thinner which is going to cure out anyway. And with most dopes you have to add thinner in order for it to flow out. Now maybe you are trying to thicken it up so it lays on top or something, but that won't save weight. You have got to lay on a good base for the finish. The time honored process is silkspan and filler. A lot of sanding. And think coats of color followed by clear. There are other variants nowadays (like carbon fiber mesh) but boiling isn't going to help and will hurt immensely. Can you put a front row dope finish on a large stunter in less than 7 or 8 ounces from bare wood that will hold up under stress?

We do welcome primers on how someone can demonstrate building techniques, even when they are known. But boiling dope?????

Very dangerous to do, but effective.

And please before you POO POO it try an experment with it it works.
Be careful!!!!!!!! Very Dagerous

Heck I'm no chemist, but I thought Dope was a carrier, a pigment and a thinner to make it brush or sprayable. Evidently there are multiple parts in the carrier one of which you are boiling out?

Oops. Sorry. Let me cut my Baloney Alarm off..

.......

Better.

How's that work again? You're saving weight in the finish by preventing a chemical bond for the color coat? Not letting it "sink in", perhaps, then needing less paint?

<cough>poo poo</cough>

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"I know of no higher fortitude than stubbornness in the face of overwhelming odds." -Louis Nizer

Perhaps you could elaborate. What do you think you are achieving with short flash times?

.. How many hundred times is that, now?

(Sorry, Robert, it just struck me as funny. I'm having trouble taking it very serious.)

Made you look!

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." -Errol Flynn

Have you tried this boiling thing with Brodak dope? Brodak dope is already quite thick. You need to mix it about 1:1 with thinner just to brush it on. If you boil more thinner off you are just going to have to add more thinner back into the mix. What is the point? And have you checked with your wife (and your insurance company) before doing this?

Also, the quickness of the drying time depends on the formulation of the thinner, and not so much on the amount of thinner used (although it can have its effect). SIG dope takes much longer to dry and longer still to cure simply because of the speed of the thinner. This is the same with automotive finishes. You can buy lacquer thinners with various drying times. If it dries too quickly, it may not bite into the under layeres and will eventually peel off. If it dries too slowly you can experience melt-down where the bottom layers will float up into the top.

The whole idea of adding retarder is to allow you to slow the dring time when needed (When the weather is too hot or too humid). But when your dope is already quick drying, boiling off thinner won't help (well, it will help the people who sell thinner.)

You would have confused people less if you had not used the term "boil the dope". I use a lot of finishing techniques both on models and on furniture. I was already familiar with elevating the temperatures of different finishing materials to let them flow better. Oil, Varnish, and Rustoleum among others. I believe there is a thread here on heating the Rustoleum. I sometimes use the heated dope method when I brush it on. I just put a small jar of dope in heated water and allow time for it to warm. As you are using it you can leave the jar in the water to keep it at temperature. I manage to do quite well with hot tap water. The dope will boil at a lower temperature than water. For this reason I shy away from even using a double boiler.

Sparky I'm quite sure you have a lot to offer this forum, but quite frankly you are coming off like a horses patoot. Now in person I might like to sit around and enjoy drinking adult beverages with you and BSing. Here however, it just seems like you have a chip on your shoulder and are trying to pick a fight. It just ain't working.

Great catch Howard! "Game over man, game over".

A ring laser gyro might be a better choice. Low mass photons for the moving parts, better turn rates..

If it all boils down to power to weight ratio, with only 2 degrees of freedom to consider, that ought to yield some elegantly simple equations.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Fishy, fishy, in the sea,
PV = nRT" -- Boyle's Law, remembered using ELI the ICE man method

SoHawaii
Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka 'Aina I Ka Pono
("The Life/Sovereinty of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness")

I am not aware of a single book like you are wanting. A lot of the answer for you, however, depends on the degree of expertise you have already acquired. Are you capable of flying the stunt pattern, or at least the basics? If you are still unsure of your bottoms, fly these high (10-15 feet) until you learn the shapes. Only then try to bring them down.

In the meantime, start with someone else's design that will fit what you are capable of flying. You don't need to build Billy's airplane while you are learning. Start with something simple. And, before someone suggests one of the ARF's, you stated your goal was to learn to build true and fly great. Build a simple design that flies true. Then practice and practice until you can fly great.

Are you still in the profile stage? Do you want to build a full-bodied plane? Are you wanting to use simple engines? Ready for the bigger stuff? You decide. Start with where you are at. Whether you use a kit or scratch build, keep it simple so you can spend your time on the field. And any time you have questions, feel free to ask.

The smoker you drink the player you get.