Line Break

This is what happens to a plane when a line breaks in level flight. Virtually nothing. I put a few drops of CyA on some of the tail hinges, strapped the tank back on, and put on a new prop.

It was probably about an 8 ft radius turn, since it hit pretty much straight in and I was flying a bit high. The plane can move the controls a LOT faster than I can!

[photo not recovered: 29558.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Virtully nothing??? I beg to differ .
You are lucky.

>This is what happens to a plane when a line breaks in level
>flight. Virtually nothing.

If you call breaking the engine in half,making splinter of the wing, and cork out of the fuselage virtually nothing you are correct. From my experience a lot of bad happens to the aircraft not to mention the 1/4 inch deep hole in the concrete.

>>This is what happens to a plane when a line breaks in
>level
>>flight. Virtually nothing.
>
>If you call breaking the engine in half,making splinter of the
>wing, and cork out of the fuselage virtually nothing you are
>correct. From my experience a lot of bad happens to the
>aircraft not to mention the 1/4 inch deep hole in the
>concrete.
Right you are. Just ask Dan Banjock what happened to his Mustang
when the cable inside his handle broke!
It only took a year to rebuild the sirplane - - - -
DAT

Which line broke?

Loss of the down line caused the demise of my late, lamented Aeroflyte Spitfire back in 1984. The result was a series of loops, each one a bit lower than the last, with the last one intersecting the ground at about 45 degrees & wiping out the model.

One of the guys at our club broke a down line on a Nelson 36 powered Russian ARF Fast plane right in front of the spectators. You never saw a bunch of old fogies dive under tables and behind trees so fast. The loops were probably about 8-10 feet in diameter, each a little lower until it pancaked into the grass at a shallow angle with only minor damage. The same guy has had at least one flyaway that I'm aware of. A person hit by a flyaway Nelson would not be a minor matter. The control systems in the Russian ARFs are WAY underdesigned IMHO.

Kim Mortimore

>One of the guys at our club broke a down line on a Nelson 36
>powered Russian ARF Fast plane right in front of the
>spectators. You never saw a bunch of old fogies dive under
>tables and behind trees so fast. The loops were probably
>about 8-10 feet in diameter, each a little lower until it
>pancaked into the grass at a shallow angle with only minor
>damage. The same guy has had at least one flyaway that I'm
>aware of. A person hit by a flyaway Nelson would not be a
>minor matter. The control systems in the Russian ARFs are WAY
>underdesigned IMHO.
>
>Kim Mortimore

Maybe they're underdesigned with respect to putting a Nelson 36 on it, but plenty strong enough for a FORA 15.

This weekend one of my Vikos was bashed in a match. Broke both lines and the handle, but not the control system in the airplane.

[photo not recovered: 29560.jpg]

Remains of the up line breaking. Good thing the field had just been watered. Was my son on the handle...."what happened" After inspection of the lines he wiped his forehead off and said cool.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

I lost a new (2nd flight) Montgomery models Stiletto when the up leadout broke. Unsalvageable!

I saw an FAI combat model break a down line. It ran out the tank doing about 10' loops, on each one the outboard wingtip would brush the ground, but not hard enough to put the model off line. AMAZING!!

One of Phillip Granderson's tricks was to fake a broken line in a combat match. When his opponent let his guard down, Phil would pounce on him. Phil would have to wait a few years between broken-line fakes until we forgot about previous instances.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

> . . .
> . . . When his opponent let his guard down, (Granderson) would pounce on him. . . .
> . . .

By contrast, I saw “ferocious” Phil C. flying against a “Nervous Newbie” in a local match. “Ferocious Phil” had a less than stellar engine run.

Ferocious Phil “took advantage” of the situation in a very unusual way – he used it as an opportunity to “coach” the newbie, setting himself up for cuts, and giving verbal advice and encouragement to the newbie all the while.

I happened to be the center marshal during the match, so I had a better view of what was actually going on than others.

The recollections from my combat days is that chivalry in the center of a combat circle is fairly rare event.

Larry Fulwider

It broke the up line. Actually, the line didn't break, it was an even sillier stupid mistake. but the plane did a 90 deg. turn into the ground, breaking the prop and popping a few of the mylar hinges out. I just wanted folks to see what improvement can be made in design and construction without sacrificing performance or poundability.

Contrary to Dirty Dan's snide comments, it is an 18.5 ounce airframe, including the wheels, 52 in. span. As a stunt trainer, it is plenty strong. I could build it 2-3 ounces lighter, but then it would break. No good for training. If I don't fly into the ground at least once a month I either forgot my meds or I'm not trying hard enough.

Larry, The Streak III is the next generation Core House kit. The laser is cutting parts as I write.

Scott, The lines were steel. They didn't actually break, is was a stupid mistake on my part that let one line slip off the clip on the handle.

>This is what happens to a plane when a line breaks in level
>flight. Virtually nothing. I put a few drops of CyA on some
>of the tail hinges, strapped the tank back on, and put on a
>new prop.
>
>It was probably about an 8 ft radius turn, since it hit pretty
>much straight in and I was flying a bit high. The plane can
>move the controls a LOT faster than I can!
> . . .
>[photo not recovered: 29558.jpg]
>

Mr. C --

That is a good looking design! Lots of TVC. If that is a kit, who makes it? Obviously pretty sturdy, also.

Larry Fulwider

This is really funny. Years ago, in his FM column on Combat, Phil had a mildly smart-assed comment that the CL Stunt Guys were "...finally getting serious..." about the weights of their models as a few had broken wings in flight at the previous Nationals.

Now he is on SSW pointing out that his own models are so hideously over-built they survive a ground-pounder, the likes of which must have been relatively impressive from the description given.

Yes, very funny indeed...

Dan

Your so cute DD xoxoxoxo

>Your so cute DD xoxoxoxo

Phil,

That's it! "Your so cute DD." And the first word isn't even spelled correctly.

I was hoping for so much better from you...

Dan

>This is really funny. Years ago, in his FM column on Combat,
>Phil had a mildly smart-assed comment that the CL Stunt Guys
>were "...finally getting serious..." about the
>weights of their models as a few had broken wings in flight at
>the previous Nationals.

Oh, really? Did he think the "folding wing" models were too heavy or too light?

Brett

>>This is really funny. Years ago, in his FM column on
>Combat,
>>Phil had a mildly smart-assed comment that the CL Stunt
>Guys
>>were "...finally getting serious..." about the
>>weights of their models as a few had broken wings in
>flight at
>>the previous Nationals.
>
> Oh, really? Did he think the "folding wing"
>models were too heavy or too light?
>
> Brett

Good question, although my memory is a bit shaky on the context.

Were I to go with my feelings, factor in Phil's general negative 'tude toward many things Stunt, as a group the Stunt Crowd was being harangued for building needlessly heavy models. The fact that a few folded in flight was purported to be evidence that some of the guys were lightening their structures.

Dan

I just go along with Howard on this. If it never breaks it's too heavy. Keep lightening the design until it breaks, then beef up just that area and try lightening somewhere else. Probably the best airplane design advice I've ever heard, whether you are building airliners or stuntliners.

>I just go along with Howard on this. If it never breaks it's
>too heavy. Keep lightening the design until it breaks, then
>beef up just that area and try lightening somewhere else.
>Probably the best airplane design advice I've ever heard,
>whether you are building airliners or stuntliners.


You wait for an airliner to crash, then beef it up? Hope you have good lawyers! I don't think Howard designed airliners that way.

Of course, Just because it merely stays together doesn't mean it's stiff enough to fly well or consistently. In general, with conventional or even marginally exotic constructon techniques, "just strong enough to hold together" is FAR FAR too flexible and will make a terrible stunt plane no matter how light it might turn out.

There is no such thing as "stiff enough" when it comes to a stunt plane. It's a compromise between stiffness and weight, and the better engine you have the more the balance tips towards stiff.

And, by the way, the wings began folding when we got piped or other high-power engines, which greatly increased the cornering loads even at the same or less overall speed than before. Coincidentally, some designers began producing greatly beefed-up designs.

Why, it's almost like somebody analyzed the problem and then began producing models more appropriately suited for the available power!

Brett

>Probably the best airplane design advice I've ever heard,
>whether you are building airliners or stuntliners.


I'm sure glad you DON'T design our commercial airliners!!

These days you don't have to design an airliner that way. Most of the crashing is done via computer design programs. But it did happen quite a bit as recently as the late 1950's. And right now most of the F-15 fleet is grounded because of airframe fatigue problems in a couple key longerons. And how many times has the FAA sent out notices of required fixes on all sorts of different airplanes where a design defect has shown up? Something not quite strong enough, not quite stiff enough, like cracking spars, skin cracks, bolts cracking, and on and on. Planes have to have stringent inspections because they have to be built as light as possible for most economic performance. Fortunately they do a pretty good job of catching problems before they cause too many deadly incidents.

But, as usual, most of you are missing the point. Larry F. didn't. The plane is a stunt trainer. Stunt flyers often crash learning the pattern. A stunt trainer has to hold up to crashes. You can't build a plane with this size, weight, and performance using solely balsa and plywood. Just look at Bob Costido's picture. The foam wing, and a few other key design features, make the Streak III much more crash resistant than an all-balsa plane.

I feel I have to speak up here, well, because,


CRASHING IS MY SPECIALTY!!!


I think it is chance, honestly if all else is equal.


Flite streak straight in from twenty feet - demolished


Sorta ringmaster (barn door wing made with a copy of the inside rib) same style crash, just had to wipe the dirt off the engine


That plane is the gotcha 460, I think, - and it is light and tough, I have two like it - mine are a ringmaster and a me109.

There are kits for this plane

Phil also makes the cores - good stuff for sport flying

>I think it is chance, honestly if all else is equal.
>
>
>Flite streak straight in from twenty feet - demolished
>
>
>Sorta ringmaster (barn door wing made with a copy of the
>inside rib) same style crash, just had to wipe the dirt off
>the engine
>

Not if you fly over concrete as I do, minor damage doesn't occur. Any non wheel landing requires mucho glue before next flight.

Carl

Phil,
Were you using steel lines or the spectra lines you have been advocating if it was spectra where did the line break ?

Scott

For quite some time and via the discussions of numerous issues, Phil has shown over and over that his is a thumbless grasp when it comes to CL stunt.

However, and while I have enjoyed the thread, we can't leave it at that.

Look, Phil has a real strong background in CL combat, a background which I admire and respect. Phil has years and years of experience in cutting foam wings, designing combat models, kitting various designs. And of course he has developed a fine touch for what is important and what is foof when it comes to the treatment given to the airframes of both combat and sport models.

So. Were I in the market for a CL stunt trainer I would surely buy one of Phil's kits, probably two of them. Were a newbie and/or retread to come up to me this weekend while we are flying, again Phil's offerings would be strongly suggested as not merely competent designs, quality kits, but also exceedingly appropriate to the application: Little work, good price, durable, flying abilities way beyond those of the pilot.

Dan

>
>So. Were I in the market for a CL stunt trainer I would surely
>buy one of Phil's kits, probably two of them. Were a newbie
>and/or retread to come up to me this weekend while we are
>flying, again Phil's offerings would be strongly suggested as
>not merely competent designs, quality kits, but also
>exceedingly appropriate to the application: Little work, good
>price, durable, flying abilities way beyond those of the
>pilot.
>

Absolutely true, they are excellent trainer designs and can fly very well.

I think this is an illustration of another more general sort of thing - while a lot of us get into arguments over some fine points, sometimes to the point of absurdity, the basics are not in dispute. We are all working from the very same basic set of facts that we all agree on. Straight, stiff, reasonably light, and powered properly, almost anything will work fairly well.

Brett

> . . .
> . . . Absolutely true, they are excellent trainer designs and can fly very well. . . .
> . . .

The pic of the Gotcha Streak III rather caught my eye from the git-go, as it didn’t look quite like the other CoreHouse offerings. It rather reminded me of something you wrote somewhere, some time back comparing various serious (not necessarily trainers) flapless designs. You indicated a preference for the Fancher Medic size / penetration approach compared the more floaty Doctor approach – even though the inherent design numbers are essentially identical.

One doesn’t have to be much of math whiz to figger out that 25% empennage area and a tail moment of two (MA) wing chords gives a TVC = 2 * .25, or a .5 ish TVC. This design eyeballs in that territory for sure, which makes the numbers a tad more Medic flavored than typical stunt trainer flavored.

The airfoil appears to have more combat genes than Walker Cup genes, but the Teosawki has shown that a thickish straight-to-TE-from-on-high airfoil and longish tail moments can result in very competitive performance in Profile and even in Advanced. That seems in line with your “penetration” comment.

The overall approach impressed me enough I ordered one. Does it sound like I’m trying to justify that to myself?

Larry Fulwider

Dan, thanks for the compliments on my planes, designs, and experience.

I can't understand or ignore your "to the man" personal attacks though, with words such as "his is a thumbless grasp when it comes to CL stunt". While you may personally not like how I have presented some ideas and arguments, they were all based on long-term and well-founded observations. I have flown CLPA, or stunt, for many years, at the Nationals and many other places. I think I have as much standing as anyone to comment on the state of the event.

Your use of personal attacks in place of reasonable discussion undeservedly tarnishes your own reputation.

>Dan, thanks for the compliments on my planes, designs, and
>experience.
>
>I can't understand or ignore your "to the man"
>personal attacks though, with words such as "his is a
>thumbless grasp when it comes to CL stunt". While you
>may personally not like how I have presented some ideas and
>arguments, they were all based on long-term and well-founded
>observations. I have flown CLPA, or stunt, for many years, at
>the Nationals and many other places. I think I have as much
>standing as anyone to comment on the state of the event.
>
>Your use of personal attacks in place of reasonable discussion
>undeservedly tarnishes your own reputation.

"Thumbless grasp" is a really clever way to put things even though I robbed the phrase from Jonah Goldberg. I've been looking for a good application for weeks.

Besides, I merely stated an opinion. You disagree. That's fine. I don't regard your rebuttal as any more of a "personal attack" than you ought see my initial comment as a personal attack.

Believe me, were I of a mind to make an actual personal attack, you'd know it and so would everybody reading same.

Dan