Overweight?
04-23-2006, 12:09 AM
#1
Overweight?
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_41...tm.htm#4198786
Check out this all-metal fifty pound Tigercat that crashed moments after takeoff.
My take on it was the wing loading on this 87" model was so absurdly high, and there were many known problems with the plane, including a 20% radio range reduction issue, that it was downright irresponsible to try to fly it.
Evidently, the pilot is actually the moderator on the Twins forum where the original post is, so we can't discuss it there.
He said "see! it flies!" But turning into a pile of wreckage moments after takeoff is not "flying", in my book, and when I look at the overall situation, I find a SERIOUS lack of judgement on the part of the pilot, a guy who really should know better...and I keep looking at that pic of the plane going in...and the road with cars on it right nearby.
And I think nothing at all was proven...with a 28 pound bare aiframe, and 50 pound finished weight, the plane was unflyable, period. Even if it HAD survived the first ten seconds of flight, the high-speed stall and spin was inevitable. I'd guess the wing loading to be 133 ounces or more per square foot. The pilot won't say anything except "forty pounds of thrust with a fifty pound plane should be fine".
I keep hearing all these "attaboy", "hey, it's only a hobby!", and "kewl!" comments, but in my own mind, the comentary is somewhat different. "Glad nobody got hurt, what was this guy thinking?" is what goes through MY mind...
Check out this all-metal fifty pound Tigercat that crashed moments after takeoff.
My take on it was the wing loading on this 87" model was so absurdly high, and there were many known problems with the plane, including a 20% radio range reduction issue, that it was downright irresponsible to try to fly it.
Evidently, the pilot is actually the moderator on the Twins forum where the original post is, so we can't discuss it there.
He said "see! it flies!" But turning into a pile of wreckage moments after takeoff is not "flying", in my book, and when I look at the overall situation, I find a SERIOUS lack of judgement on the part of the pilot, a guy who really should know better...and I keep looking at that pic of the plane going in...and the road with cars on it right nearby.
And I think nothing at all was proven...with a 28 pound bare aiframe, and 50 pound finished weight, the plane was unflyable, period. Even if it HAD survived the first ten seconds of flight, the high-speed stall and spin was inevitable. I'd guess the wing loading to be 133 ounces or more per square foot. The pilot won't say anything except "forty pounds of thrust with a fifty pound plane should be fine".
I keep hearing all these "attaboy", "hey, it's only a hobby!", and "kewl!" comments, but in my own mind, the comentary is somewhat different. "Glad nobody got hurt, what was this guy thinking?" is what goes through MY mind...
04-23-2006, 12:53 AM
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: Overweight?
I’ve been asked to copy a post I made in another thread to this one. Here it is:
Now for a correction or two. The bare airframe weight was 10 kg, 22 pounds. And as stated in the quote it was 81†span.
And to repeat, the crash was caused by aileron hinge failure and not a stall/spin.
Bill.
OK, some real numbers. Wing span was 81â€, root chord 18.75†and tip chord 10.5 inches. This gives us 592 square inches area, or 4.113 square feet.
Dividing the weight by the area we come out to a little less than 11½ lbs/foot area. In ounces per square foot it was 182.8 loading. I’ve flown many planes with higher loading. I have to admit a MODEL with that loading is extreme though.
This airplane demonstrated that it was capable of flight. It probably would not have been a fun plane to fly, but I’m confident that had there not been a part failure Twinman would have landed it safely. Granted, probably never to fly again.
Concerning the failure. Twinman and I talked back and forth about the plane through the prep for flight, he was doubtful about the hinges and had planned to replace them. The builder of the plane wanted to try them, and we see what happened. Had the hinges been reinforced or replaced we might have had an entirely different result.
Dividing the weight by the area we come out to a little less than 11½ lbs/foot area. In ounces per square foot it was 182.8 loading. I’ve flown many planes with higher loading. I have to admit a MODEL with that loading is extreme though.
This airplane demonstrated that it was capable of flight. It probably would not have been a fun plane to fly, but I’m confident that had there not been a part failure Twinman would have landed it safely. Granted, probably never to fly again.
Concerning the failure. Twinman and I talked back and forth about the plane through the prep for flight, he was doubtful about the hinges and had planned to replace them. The builder of the plane wanted to try them, and we see what happened. Had the hinges been reinforced or replaced we might have had an entirely different result.
And to repeat, the crash was caused by aileron hinge failure and not a stall/spin.
Bill.
04-23-2006, 01:02 AM
#3
RE: Overweight?
A typical lightplane might have a wing loading of 20 pounds per foot. The air don't scale up or down, according to Mr. Reynolds...so unless the model had a span and chord typical of a 36 foot span lightplane, the fact that full scale planes fly at those levels is not really relevant.
182 ounces per square foot on a six and one half foot span plane? That's not flyable. If the aileron had not failed, it would still have spun in sooner than later.
Anybody else?
182 ounces per square foot on a six and one half foot span plane? That's not flyable. If the aileron had not failed, it would still have spun in sooner than later.
Anybody else?
04-23-2006, 01:09 AM
#4
RE: Overweight?
ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_41...tm.htm#4198786
Check out this all-metal fifty pound Tigercat that crashed moments after takeoff.
My take on it was the wing loading on this 87" model was so absurdly high, and there were many known problems with the plane, including a 20% radio range reduction issue, that it was downright irresponsible to try to fly it.
Evidently, the pilot is actually the moderator on the Twins forum where the original post is, so we can't discuss it there.
He said "see! it flies!" But turning into a pile of wreckage moments after takeoff is not "flying", in my book, and when I look at the overall situation, I find a SERIOUS lack of judgement on the part of the pilot, a guy who really should know better...and I keep looking at that pic of the plane going in...and the road with cars on it right nearby.
And I think nothing at all was proven...with a 28 pound bare aiframe, and 50 pound finished weight, the plane was unflyable, period. Even if it HAD survived the first ten seconds of flight, the high-speed stall and spin was inevitable. I'd guess the wing loading to be 133 ounces or more per square foot. The pilot won't say anything except "forty pounds of thrust with a fifty pound plane should be fine".
I keep hearing all these "attaboy", "hey, it's only a hobby!", and "kewl!" comments, but in my own mind, the comentary is somewhat different. "Glad nobody got hurt, what was this guy thinking?" is what goes through MY mind...
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_41...tm.htm#4198786
Check out this all-metal fifty pound Tigercat that crashed moments after takeoff.
My take on it was the wing loading on this 87" model was so absurdly high, and there were many known problems with the plane, including a 20% radio range reduction issue, that it was downright irresponsible to try to fly it.
Evidently, the pilot is actually the moderator on the Twins forum where the original post is, so we can't discuss it there.
He said "see! it flies!" But turning into a pile of wreckage moments after takeoff is not "flying", in my book, and when I look at the overall situation, I find a SERIOUS lack of judgement on the part of the pilot, a guy who really should know better...and I keep looking at that pic of the plane going in...and the road with cars on it right nearby.
And I think nothing at all was proven...with a 28 pound bare aiframe, and 50 pound finished weight, the plane was unflyable, period. Even if it HAD survived the first ten seconds of flight, the high-speed stall and spin was inevitable. I'd guess the wing loading to be 133 ounces or more per square foot. The pilot won't say anything except "forty pounds of thrust with a fifty pound plane should be fine".
I keep hearing all these "attaboy", "hey, it's only a hobby!", and "kewl!" comments, but in my own mind, the comentary is somewhat different. "Glad nobody got hurt, what was this guy thinking?" is what goes through MY mind...
In my eyes this thread needs closed as it is nothing more than argumentative and a continuation of another thread already in progress.
04-23-2006, 01:17 AM
#5
RE: Overweight?
ORIGINAL: bubbagates
As was said before this was a test. 40lbs of thrust most certainly will fly a 50lb plane. Your conclusions are based on conjecture and even the original post mentioned the failure and the reason for it.
In my eyes this thread needs closed as it is nothing more than argumentative and a continuation of another thread already in progress.
ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_41...tm.htm#4198786
Check out this all-metal fifty pound Tigercat that crashed moments after takeoff.
My take on it was the wing loading on this 87" model was so absurdly high, and there were many known problems with the plane, including a 20% radio range reduction issue, that it was downright irresponsible to try to fly it.
Evidently, the pilot is actually the moderator on the Twins forum where the original post is, so we can't discuss it there.
He said "see! it flies!" But turning into a pile of wreckage moments after takeoff is not "flying", in my book, and when I look at the overall situation, I find a SERIOUS lack of judgement on the part of the pilot, a guy who really should know better...and I keep looking at that pic of the plane going in...and the road with cars on it right nearby.
And I think nothing at all was proven...with a 28 pound bare aiframe, and 50 pound finished weight, the plane was unflyable, period. Even if it HAD survived the first ten seconds of flight, the high-speed stall and spin was inevitable. I'd guess the wing loading to be 133 ounces or more per square foot. The pilot won't say anything except "forty pounds of thrust with a fifty pound plane should be fine".
I keep hearing all these "attaboy", "hey, it's only a hobby!", and "kewl!" comments, but in my own mind, the comentary is somewhat different. "Glad nobody got hurt, what was this guy thinking?" is what goes through MY mind...
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_41...tm.htm#4198786
Check out this all-metal fifty pound Tigercat that crashed moments after takeoff.
My take on it was the wing loading on this 87" model was so absurdly high, and there were many known problems with the plane, including a 20% radio range reduction issue, that it was downright irresponsible to try to fly it.
Evidently, the pilot is actually the moderator on the Twins forum where the original post is, so we can't discuss it there.
He said "see! it flies!" But turning into a pile of wreckage moments after takeoff is not "flying", in my book, and when I look at the overall situation, I find a SERIOUS lack of judgement on the part of the pilot, a guy who really should know better...and I keep looking at that pic of the plane going in...and the road with cars on it right nearby.
And I think nothing at all was proven...with a 28 pound bare aiframe, and 50 pound finished weight, the plane was unflyable, period. Even if it HAD survived the first ten seconds of flight, the high-speed stall and spin was inevitable. I'd guess the wing loading to be 133 ounces or more per square foot. The pilot won't say anything except "forty pounds of thrust with a fifty pound plane should be fine".
I keep hearing all these "attaboy", "hey, it's only a hobby!", and "kewl!" comments, but in my own mind, the comentary is somewhat different. "Glad nobody got hurt, what was this guy thinking?" is what goes through MY mind...
In my eyes this thread needs closed as it is nothing more than argumentative and a continuation of another thread already in progress.
The plane did not "fly". It managed to get off the ground.
I'm not being argumentative, it's simply a case of pointing out how NOT to do things, and how all it takes is one really stupid act to either hurt someone, or get us regulated, or whatever...
What do you think a judge, jury, or insurer would think if someone got hurt, of the following facts:
1. A known radio range issue.
2. A KNOWN problem with the hinges.
3. The canopy TAPED on.
4. An unproven design.
5. A wing loading FAR beyond any accepted standard.
Tell me how ANY of those factors, save for number four, are acceptable, with a fifty pound metal model? Tell me that is being responsible?
With 48 ounces of fuel aboard, was this plane over 55 pounds, too?
, that was a huge help
