What Do YOU Consider 3D?
10-28-2005, 10:46 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Woodlands,
TX
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Do YOU Consider 3D?
As a long time RCU user and a 3D pilot, I am concerned that 3D flight is getting confused.
Is there more to 3D then hovering? IMO yes. It seem many people have 3D and hovering confused, I have a SuperStar Select trainer that I can hover, does that make it a 3D plane?
This is in response to the hundreds of threads asking about 3D planes and recommendations that seem to come from people who have no clue to how a good 3D plane is suppose to fly.
I know we all have our own views on this, however I am throwing this out to you, RCU:
How should a 3D plane fly?
What makes a good 3D plane?
What should a 3D plane do (maneuvers), to make it a good 3D plane.
If someone wants to get into 3D, is a scale plane the way to go or a true 3D plane (IMO there is a difference)?
I have my views on all this, however it seems my views differ from others, what are yours?
Is there more to 3D then hovering? IMO yes. It seem many people have 3D and hovering confused, I have a SuperStar Select trainer that I can hover, does that make it a 3D plane?
This is in response to the hundreds of threads asking about 3D planes and recommendations that seem to come from people who have no clue to how a good 3D plane is suppose to fly.
I know we all have our own views on this, however I am throwing this out to you, RCU:
How should a 3D plane fly?
What makes a good 3D plane?
What should a 3D plane do (maneuvers), to make it a good 3D plane.
If someone wants to get into 3D, is a scale plane the way to go or a true 3D plane (IMO there is a difference)?
I have my views on all this, however it seems my views differ from others, what are yours?
10-28-2005, 11:25 AM
#2
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Posts: 3,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
I too agree that 3D has become confused with aerobatics. I consider 3D hovers and harriers. Aerobatics may include rolling circles, snaps, walls, and loops. A 3D plane should have more than a 1:1 power to weight ratio. A 3D plane is better for learning 3D than a scale(Extra/Ultimate/Giles/Etc.)plane is, but as you progress you should get into large scale aerobatics planes as you budget allows.
Woops
Woops
10-28-2005, 11:35 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SantiagoReg Metropolitana, Providencia, CHILE
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
I think Harrier is the key... a plane that is well behaved below stall can open a door to thousands of new aerobatics and combination of them not just hovering, so , to complete this you must have a plane that behaves well in KE too , IMO a fat wing and a boom is not a 3d plane
10-28-2005, 12:11 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lewiston, ID
Posts: 1,706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
yeah, I've had some planes that would barely pull out of hover, yet were great 3d planes because they could do harriers, helicopter like tic tocs, stationary flips and pirohettes (sp) and all kinds of graceful, flowing moves at below what is considered stall speed. Hover and TR are part of it, but not the whole picture. I consider the harrier and its variations to be the doorway into 3D. Beyond that its exploring possibilities and imaginatively pushing the boundries of what an airplane can do. Don't get me wrong, I like power to weight stacked in my favor, I just think we at times overlook what might be by over emphasizing that aspect of it.
10-28-2005, 12:12 PM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Idaho Falls,
ID
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
Interesting question/comments. I think 3D is hovering but more. It starts with hover. And certainly that would not be consider standard aerobatics. I think waterfalls are 3D, harrier certainly is 3D, KE is questionable in my mind. I think that falls under aerobatics (pattern), blender is 3D if done right.And here's where it gets questionable. Of course everyone is gonna say that "thick wing with a boom" aren't 3D planes. IE: UCD, TWIST, PROFILES, ETC. ETC. ETC. But I think they are the true 3D planes. The others are modified pattern planes or scale. To me the difference is in the way they flat spin. I've said this many times in many forums. A 3D plane will do an ultra flat flat spin and just stay there. Some call this a pinwheel. To me this is a maneuver that seperates the planes. The true 3D planes will do them the aerobatic/pattern/scale will not. That was my beef with the Yak, the Showtime, and many others. They do harriers, KE, etc well but won't do the pinwheel.
So if you're gonna say a fat winged, boomed, plane isn't a 3D plane but they will do a "pinwheel" then what are they? And if a Yak does great KE and good Harriers but not a good flat spin. What is it?
These forum will start a lot of heated discussion. Should be interesting.
Thanks
Barry
10-28-2005, 12:14 PM
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Richmond,
WI
Posts: 3,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
I have always understood 3D to be flying in a stalled state--not on the wing or high speed KE like conventional flight. This puts the plane in a High Alpha attitude as it is flying on vectored thrust. (Elevators are stalled & HE for the path of the plane)
Most planes that are powered correctly can hover. Does that make them 3D? Yes, that means they can do a 3D maneuver. Does that mean they are a good 3D plane? No.
By some peoples definition 3D is suppose to seemingly "Defy the laws of Physics". ( I think from the Ultimate 3D dvd http://www.jpmediainc.net/ultimate3d.html )
This means that the plane has to look scale before it can really be considered good 3D.
I like my 3D planes to look scale and be IMAC legal. I like them to be able to fly IMAC a sequence precise, but still be able to fly nicely in a 3D stalled state--to be capable of flying a Freestyle routine. Why? Probably no reason other than vanity. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder I guess.
Most planes that are powered correctly can hover. Does that make them 3D? Yes, that means they can do a 3D maneuver. Does that mean they are a good 3D plane? No.
By some peoples definition 3D is suppose to seemingly "Defy the laws of Physics". ( I think from the Ultimate 3D dvd http://www.jpmediainc.net/ultimate3d.html )
This means that the plane has to look scale before it can really be considered good 3D.
I like my 3D planes to look scale and be IMAC legal. I like them to be able to fly IMAC a sequence precise, but still be able to fly nicely in a 3D stalled state--to be capable of flying a Freestyle routine. Why? Probably no reason other than vanity. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder I guess.
10-28-2005, 12:19 PM
#7
Senior Member
My Feedback: (61)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bradenton , FL
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
3D is high alpha flight.. i.e. the plane is "flying" only on thrust from the prop moving over the surfaces. The wing (or fuselage) is not generating lift by forward flight... hovers, waterfalls, harriers, KE Harriers, blenders, flat spins, elevators, harrier circles, etc....
Here's a good measure ... its 3D when you cut the throttle and the plane drops like a brick!
DP
Here's a good measure ... its 3D when you cut the throttle and the plane drops like a brick!
DP
10-28-2005, 12:24 PM
#8
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Richmond,
WI
Posts: 3,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
ORIGINAL: Barry Cazier
Interesting question/comments. I think 3D is hovering but more. It starts with hover. And certainly that would not be consider standard aerobatics. I think waterfalls are 3D, harrier certainly is 3D, KE is questionable in my mind. I think that falls under aerobatics (pattern), blender is 3D if done right.
And here's where it gets questionable. Of course everyone is gonna say that "thick wing with a boom" aren't 3D planes. IE: UCD, TWIST, PROFILES, ETC. ETC. ETC. But I think they are the true 3D planes. The others are modified pattern planes or scale. To me the difference is in the way they flat spin. I've said this many times in many forums. A 3D plane will do an ultra flat flat spin and just stay there. Some call this a pinwheel. To me this is a maneuver that seperates the planes. The true 3D planes will do them the aerobatic/pattern/scale will not. That was my beef with the Yak, the Showtime, and many others. They do harriers, KE, etc well but won't do the pinwheel.
So if you're gonna say a fat winged, boomed, plane isn't a 3D plane but they will do a "pinwheel" then what are they? And if a Yak does great KE and good Harriers but not a good flat spin. What is it?
These forum will start a lot of heated discussion. Should be interesting.
Thanks
Barry
Interesting question/comments. I think 3D is hovering but more. It starts with hover. And certainly that would not be consider standard aerobatics. I think waterfalls are 3D, harrier certainly is 3D, KE is questionable in my mind. I think that falls under aerobatics (pattern), blender is 3D if done right.And here's where it gets questionable. Of course everyone is gonna say that "thick wing with a boom" aren't 3D planes. IE: UCD, TWIST, PROFILES, ETC. ETC. ETC. But I think they are the true 3D planes. The others are modified pattern planes or scale. To me the difference is in the way they flat spin. I've said this many times in many forums. A 3D plane will do an ultra flat flat spin and just stay there. Some call this a pinwheel. To me this is a maneuver that seperates the planes. The true 3D planes will do them the aerobatic/pattern/scale will not. That was my beef with the Yak, the Showtime, and many others. They do harriers, KE, etc well but won't do the pinwheel.
So if you're gonna say a fat winged, boomed, plane isn't a 3D plane but they will do a "pinwheel" then what are they? And if a Yak does great KE and good Harriers but not a good flat spin. What is it?
These forum will start a lot of heated discussion. Should be interesting.
Thanks
Barry
10-28-2005, 12:28 PM
#9
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Idaho Falls,
ID
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
STG...I agree, high alpha KE is 3D. That's why I said it was questionable. Pattern planes do great KE but not at stalled, high alpha. There are many 3D manneuvers. Many planes will do many maneuvers. Hardly any planes, maybe none, will do them all.Gonna be a fun topic.
Thanks
Barry
10-28-2005, 01:13 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mullingar, IRELAND
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
Basically any manoeuvre where the model is stalled is what I term 3D. Funnily enough hovering doesn't come into that category as the wing definitely is not stalled, but I still consider it a 3D move of course.
What do I look for in a 3D model? Well it's got to do normal pattern moves very well for starters. Pure 3D models really are not my bag. After two flights I'm bored out my mind and are craving for some nice graceful pattern (much more challenging and rewarding in my book hence it keeps my interest). I’m about to buy a 50cc QQ Yak which should do both well, that's my idea of a good 3D model.
Angus
What do I look for in a 3D model? Well it's got to do normal pattern moves very well for starters. Pure 3D models really are not my bag. After two flights I'm bored out my mind and are craving for some nice graceful pattern (much more challenging and rewarding in my book hence it keeps my interest). I’m about to buy a 50cc QQ Yak which should do both well, that's my idea of a good 3D model.
Angus
10-28-2005, 08:13 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Paducah,
KY
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
Hows the wing not stalled in a hover? It's not getting any airflow over much of anything but the roots, and that's from prop wash. The wing at that airspeed would definatly NOT support the weight of the plane.. Hovering is just like sitting on the runway with the engine running as far as airspeed goes.. Hope everyone got that last sentence
10-28-2005, 09:03 PM
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Woodlands,
TX
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
ORIGINAL: Angus Balfour
I’m about to buy a 50cc QQ Yak which should do both well, that's my idea of a good 3D model.
Angus
I’m about to buy a 50cc QQ Yak which should do both well, that's my idea of a good 3D model.
Angus
Anyway, I agree with you big time on the QQ Yak. It is a pattern plane with BIG control surfaces, light and powerful and that make a great 3D plane.
I am glad many of you see how the having the ablity to hover does not indicate a good 3D plane.
10-29-2005, 12:42 AM
#13
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
I can hover my LT-40. But, it's not a 3D plane.
Thats not to say that hovering is not 3D. I think that hovering IS 3D.
It's just that ANY plane will hover if you put enough HP on the firewall. Thats a 3D maneuver--but it doesn't make that particular plane a good 3D plane.
The LT-40 doesn't just hover either. It will inverted flat-spin and do some REALLY sloppy HA knife-edge at slow speed. More like walking it sideways with the rudder--but it looks like a 75* knife-edge. But it's not a 3D plane.
Just about ANY plane can do a few of the 3D moves--but that doesn't mean they do it well and it doesn't mean they are a decent 3D plane.
Does that make sense?
I guess I kinda feel like STG:
I like my planes to look scale. I don't really fly "models" anymore. Only scale planes. Well--there's a couple in the fleet that aren't scale--but thats just the trainer and a U-Can't-Do 3D DOG (what a POS). Seeing a scale plane perform well at 3D is something that makes my heart go pitter-patter.
I guess I'm vain (sp?) too. If it ain't scale--then I don't even care if it does really good 3D. It's not scale.[&o]
But--thats just how I feel about it. Doesn't mean I'm right and your all wrong. I just happen to be passionate about scale planes. Thats all.
Thats not to say that hovering is not 3D. I think that hovering IS 3D.
It's just that ANY plane will hover if you put enough HP on the firewall. Thats a 3D maneuver--but it doesn't make that particular plane a good 3D plane.
The LT-40 doesn't just hover either. It will inverted flat-spin and do some REALLY sloppy HA knife-edge at slow speed. More like walking it sideways with the rudder--but it looks like a 75* knife-edge. But it's not a 3D plane.
Just about ANY plane can do a few of the 3D moves--but that doesn't mean they do it well and it doesn't mean they are a decent 3D plane.
Does that make sense?
I guess I kinda feel like STG:
I like my planes to look scale. I don't really fly "models" anymore. Only scale planes. Well--there's a couple in the fleet that aren't scale--but thats just the trainer and a U-Can't-Do 3D DOG (what a POS). Seeing a scale plane perform well at 3D is something that makes my heart go pitter-patter.
I guess I'm vain (sp?) too. If it ain't scale--then I don't even care if it does really good 3D. It's not scale.[&o]
But--thats just how I feel about it. Doesn't mean I'm right and your all wrong. I just happen to be passionate about scale planes. Thats all.
10-29-2005, 02:55 AM
#14
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
Wow, this thread is an opinionated persons dream....
3D =not flying on the wing=wing stalled and staying in the air due to sheer power and prop wash.... or desceding rapidly due to a lack thereof but in an artistic, controlled manner..
3D =not flying on the wing=wing stalled and staying in the air due to sheer power and prop wash.... or desceding rapidly due to a lack thereof but in an artistic, controlled manner..
10-29-2005, 04:05 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mullingar, IRELAND
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
Well, in my most humble of opinions the wing is not stalled, as there is no angle of attack. For the wing to be stalled it has to be past it's critical AOA and for the airflow to of separated from the surface. During hover it is at zero AOA therefore how could the airflow of separated from the surface of the wing? Unless of course you're letting it torque round quite quickly, then I would say there is every possibility the airflow has become detached.
Just because the airspeed of the model is below that required for the wing to support the model does not mean that the wing has to be stalled, not by any means. It's purely down to AOA.
Angus, waiting for some self proclaimed "aerodynamic expert" to try to put right my aerodynamic misnomers.
Hows the wing not stalled in a hover? It's not getting any airflow over much of anything but the roots, and that's from prop wash. The wing at that airspeed would definatly NOT support the weight of the plane
Angus, waiting for some self proclaimed "aerodynamic expert" to try to put right my aerodynamic misnomers.
10-29-2005, 05:26 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
IMHO 3D is simply the way you fly any given plane. It's funny because some planes are called sports planes and others are called aerobatic. Personally I don't see the difference between the two but the point is the way you fly either plane is what you call it at that time.
10-29-2005, 06:39 AM
#17
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
Well, in my most humble of opinions the wing is not stalled, as there is no angle of attack. For the wing to be stalled it has to be past it's critical AOA and for the airflow to of separated from the surface. During hover it is at zero AOA therefore how could the airflow of separated from the surface of the wing?
BTW I'm not an "aerodynamic expert", but I have cracked a few books about planes and stuff.
10-29-2005, 06:46 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
Really has nothing to do with opinions as flight is no longer a theory, it's a fact based on aerodynamics and physics and there are plenty of books and journals about airflow, airfoils and stalls etc.
10-29-2005, 07:01 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mullingar, IRELAND
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
Ok, but the wing can still be unstalled when the model is flying at less than it's minimum stall speed, just the same as the wing can be stalled way above what would normally be called it's minimum stall speed. That is without doubt and it's dependent on the AOA of the wing.
Does anyone actually really care if the wing is stalled or not during a hover? I sure as hell don’t. Stalled or not it's a dam cool manoeuvre and I feel we are digressing from the posters original question of what do you consider 3D.
3D = model in stalled attitude
Does anyone actually really care if the wing is stalled or not during a hover? I sure as hell don’t. Stalled or not it's a dam cool manoeuvre and I feel we are digressing from the posters original question of what do you consider 3D.
3D = model in stalled attitude
10-29-2005, 07:04 AM
#20
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
ORIGINAL: RC-FIEND
but yet you went on explaining the theory of flight instead of the theory of 3D flying [:-]
Really has nothing to do with opinions as flight is no longer a theory, it's a fact based on aerodynamics and physics and there are plenty of books and journals about airflow, airfoils and stalls etc.
3D = model in stalled attitude
3D is not just flying beyond/in/on a stall. If I'm flying a [link=http://www.shockflyer.com]Shock Flyer[/link] straight and level in circles, I'm flying it on stalled wings. A [link=http://www.shockflyer.com]Shock Flyer[/link] and other foamies don't have airfolied wings, so the wings are always stalled. So now this brings up an entire new discussion on 3D and stalled wings.
l would be more then happy to tell some of the old farts that fly foamies at my field that they are flying 3D when they are cruising their foamies around in circles. They'd get a big kick out of that. Heck maybe they would even learn the secret 3D handshake.
10-29-2005, 08:35 AM
#21
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Idaho Falls,
ID
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
ORIGINAL: Rcpilet
I can hover my LT-40. But, it's not a 3D plane.
Thats not to say that hovering is not 3D. I think that hovering IS 3D.
It's just that ANY plane will hover if you put enough HP on the firewall. Thats a 3D maneuver--but it doesn't make that particular plane a good 3D plane.
The LT-40 doesn't just hover either. It will inverted flat-spin and do some REALLY sloppy HA knife-edge at slow speed. More like walking it sideways with the rudder--but it looks like a 75* knife-edge. But it's not a 3D plane.
Just about ANY plane can do a few of the 3D moves--but that doesn't mean they do it well and it doesn't mean they are a decent 3D plane.
Does that make sense?
I guess I kinda feel like STG:
I like my planes to look scale. I don't really fly "models" anymore. Only scale planes. Well--there's a couple in the fleet that aren't scale--but thats just the trainer and a U-Can't-Do 3D DOG (what a POS). Seeing a scale plane perform well at 3D is something that makes my heart go pitter-patter.
I guess I'm vain (sp?) too. If it ain't scale--then I don't even care if it does really good 3D. It's not scale.[&o]
But--thats just how I feel about it. Doesn't mean I'm right and your all wrong. I just happen to be passionate about scale planes. Thats all.
I can hover my LT-40. But, it's not a 3D plane.
Thats not to say that hovering is not 3D. I think that hovering IS 3D.
It's just that ANY plane will hover if you put enough HP on the firewall. Thats a 3D maneuver--but it doesn't make that particular plane a good 3D plane.
The LT-40 doesn't just hover either. It will inverted flat-spin and do some REALLY sloppy HA knife-edge at slow speed. More like walking it sideways with the rudder--but it looks like a 75* knife-edge. But it's not a 3D plane.
Just about ANY plane can do a few of the 3D moves--but that doesn't mean they do it well and it doesn't mean they are a decent 3D plane.
Does that make sense?
I guess I kinda feel like STG:
I like my planes to look scale. I don't really fly "models" anymore. Only scale planes. Well--there's a couple in the fleet that aren't scale--but thats just the trainer and a U-Can't-Do 3D DOG (what a POS). Seeing a scale plane perform well at 3D is something that makes my heart go pitter-patter.
I guess I'm vain (sp?) too. If it ain't scale--then I don't even care if it does really good 3D. It's not scale.[&o]
But--thats just how I feel about it. Doesn't mean I'm right and your all wrong. I just happen to be passionate about scale planes. Thats all.
I suppose even a scale plane will do some 3D. But they really look out of place doing it. Give me the trusty UCD, Mayhem, Showtime, etc for real 3D. I can fly these in a vertical "stalled" condition for about as long as I want. And the UCD will do a rising inverted flat spin, something I've yet to see a scale plane do. If you want to dabble at 3D go scale, I guess. If you want to really get after it go with a "made for 3D" plane. The UCD is a great example.
Thanks
Barry
10-29-2005, 08:43 AM
#22
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Idaho Falls,
ID
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
Another thing I was noticing about scale models. They really aren't scale. Yeah, they kinda look like a "real" airplane, but if they are very aerobatic (read 3D) they have much greater aileron, rudder, elevator control surfaces than the real thing. So,....I guess they aren't scale either. If they were truly scale I think most modelers would be very disappointed in the 3D performance. I doubt even Kyle or Barry Flick could 3D a Hanger 9 Corsair or a P51 or a Cessna, or a?????Anyways, we haven't even discussed the profiles or the foamys. Are they the real 3D planes? My guess is the more specialized they plane is the better it flys 3D and the less like a "real" airplane it is.
I'm just passionate about 3D planes.
Thanks
Barry
10-29-2005, 08:52 AM
#23
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Idaho Falls,
ID
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
Don't mean to take up all the posts...but another thing I was thinking about is balance. If a model is truly scale wouldn't it be balanced the same as the plane it's patterned after? Boy that would stop all the 3D capabilities of a "scale" plane. The real deal wouldn't be balanced anywhere near as far back as we modelers do.The nice thing about a 3D specialized plane is I don't feel guilt at all for my balance, large control surfaces, overpowering the plane (another thing a scale plane isn't, is overpowered to the same proportion a RC plane is) etc. etc. etc. They aren't patterned after any airplane, they just are built to fly 3D.
Now...can anybody tell me why you don't see retracts on 3D airplanes?
Thanks
BArry
10-29-2005, 08:59 AM
#24
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
There are plenty if scale models that can 3D even with the same scale dimensions on the control surfaces of the real planes. Our RC models will 3D much better then full size planes because the scale weight on RC planes is much lower proportionally. Some of the RC designers just like to push the envelope. The reason why the big planes won't put the larger control surfaces on their planes is not because they don't want too, it's because it will rip their planes to shreds in high speed, full deflection manuevers.
10-29-2005, 12:01 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SantiagoReg Metropolitana, Providencia, CHILE
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: What Do YOU Consider 3D?
so, to have a plane you can "move" in a 3D space with authority you need to have command (almost equal) in the 3 axes that`s why I was say`n a boom does not make a 3d plane, you need SIDE FUSE AREA, and surely a profile have a lot (and flys good too).
To track straight and 3d too ... I think longer tails with massive surfaces are the solution ... like the composite arf yak 55sp, the plane of my dreams...
To track straight and 3d too ... I think longer tails with massive surfaces are the solution ... like the composite arf yak 55sp, the plane of my dreams...