Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
07-17-2009, 01:17 PM
#26
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
Yep, guys like to talk mumbo-jumbo about these planes like they were "designed to be snappy, pitch sensitive, etc"., it's all BS. The planes are just simply too heavy for their intended mission. None of the "magic cures" like wash-out, aileron reflex, chasing the CG around, etc., will change the simple fact that heavy models are less forgiving of slight errors in judgement. A fully bombed up P-47 pilot could feel trouble in the seat of his pants before the RC pilot can see and react to his .60 sized model entering a stall.
The smaller in scale you try to take some of these "air show" designs, the harder it becomes to build them light enough to be good all around flying models. This is why some guys say, "bigger flys better". Until we come up with a way to scale down gravity and air molecules, this will be true for the most part.
The smaller in scale you try to take some of these "air show" designs, the harder it becomes to build them light enough to be good all around flying models. This is why some guys say, "bigger flys better". Until we come up with a way to scale down gravity and air molecules, this will be true for the most part.
07-17-2009, 03:35 PM
#27
My Feedback: (15)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: La Vergne,
TN
Posts: 3,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Yep, guys like to talk mumbo-jumbo about these planes like they were ''designed to be snappy, pitch sensitive, etc''., it's all BS.
Yep, guys like to talk mumbo-jumbo about these planes like they were ''designed to be snappy, pitch sensitive, etc''., it's all BS.
While I'll certainly agree that it's probably quite rare that the designer of an ARF sits down and says "I'd like to make a snappy airplane", there is absolutely no question that airplanes are, indeed, designed to have various traits. More or less "pitch sensitive", or more readily able to snap, whatever. Fundamental rule...what we pilots would call 'stability' is inverse to maneuverability. No question, some airplanes are designed to be one, some the other.
It is not, then, "BS", that reasonably accurate models of the aircraft would exhibit some of the same tendencies.
The planes are just simply too heavy for their intended mission.
An Extra with precisely the same wing loading as an equivalent Edge will snap more readily, and do it more cleanly. While it's certainly true that a heavier model (in terms of wing loading, etc) will be less forgiving, as you mention below, simply making it lighter will not change what it is. A Mustang is a Mustang no matter how light or heavy it is, and as such, has certain tendencies...certain things it will do better/worse/sooner/later than other models with precisely the same 'aerodynamic numbers' but different designs.
None of the ''magic cures'' like wash-out, aileron reflex, chasing the CG around, etc., will change the simple fact that heavy models are less forgiving of slight errors in judgement.
07-17-2009, 04:25 PM
#28
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No City,
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
From my experience you and CP are both right, and nitpicking aside, saying pretty much the same thing. My Edge drops like a rock because it's too heavy (thanks HighPlain). There's not enough wing.
Post #2 is relevant. The thread didn't head in the direction of post #2 but I'd like to add some thoughts on PilotFighters post. I purposefully change up which airplane I fly at the field. Landing my Extra and landing my Edge is a night and day difference, a difference I enjoy.
Taking PilotFighters post down another road, I think it's also true that peak performance, or being "on" that day, is important. It's the same thing for me with motorcycles. If I got on my bike right now and went into the same corners at the same speeds as I've done in the past when I was riding well, at moments of peak performance - if I went into those same corners this afternoon I guarantee I'd kill myself or end up in the hospital.
Same thing with flying RC. I know what it feels like to line up full throttle and watch my Extra fly by (fast but looks like slow motion because you enjoy it so much) in a high speed pass in front of me. It's safe, I feel safe. A peak performance day. But I wouldn't go to the field right now and do it. No way. That's the point, I'm average, I need more practice. I can't pull it out of the hat.
It's practice, practice, practice. Particularly when you're average, or less than average like me. And you have to push yourself a little bit - not every time you fly, but enough times to get better. Because that's how you get better.
To further illustrate and yes I know this post is boring but there's a point - I've spent too much time in a school yard lately flying my little electric MUS - a whole field to land in. I've become lazy and as a result my landings at the club field with my "real" model airplanes (no offense to electrics!) have been awful for the past couple of months. Really terrible landings. I've had fun and it's relaxing, just as relaxing as flying my LT-40, but it doesn't advance my proficiency.
Post #2 is relevant. The thread didn't head in the direction of post #2 but I'd like to add some thoughts on PilotFighters post. I purposefully change up which airplane I fly at the field. Landing my Extra and landing my Edge is a night and day difference, a difference I enjoy.
Taking PilotFighters post down another road, I think it's also true that peak performance, or being "on" that day, is important. It's the same thing for me with motorcycles. If I got on my bike right now and went into the same corners at the same speeds as I've done in the past when I was riding well, at moments of peak performance - if I went into those same corners this afternoon I guarantee I'd kill myself or end up in the hospital.
Same thing with flying RC. I know what it feels like to line up full throttle and watch my Extra fly by (fast but looks like slow motion because you enjoy it so much) in a high speed pass in front of me. It's safe, I feel safe. A peak performance day. But I wouldn't go to the field right now and do it. No way. That's the point, I'm average, I need more practice. I can't pull it out of the hat.
It's practice, practice, practice. Particularly when you're average, or less than average like me. And you have to push yourself a little bit - not every time you fly, but enough times to get better. Because that's how you get better.
To further illustrate and yes I know this post is boring but there's a point - I've spent too much time in a school yard lately flying my little electric MUS - a whole field to land in. I've become lazy and as a result my landings at the club field with my "real" model airplanes (no offense to electrics!) have been awful for the past couple of months. Really terrible landings. I've had fun and it's relaxing, just as relaxing as flying my LT-40, but it doesn't advance my proficiency.
07-17-2009, 04:54 PM
#29
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
ORIGINAL: gboulton
It's hardly BS. Come on...some of the Extra versions were, indeed, quite SPECIFICALLY designed to snap better, cleaner, and easier than their aerobatic counterparts.
While I'll certainly agree that it's probably quite rare that the designer of an ARF sits down and says ''I'd like to make a snappy airplane'', there is absolutely no question that airplanes are, indeed, designed to have various traits. More or less ''pitch sensitive'', or more readily able to snap, whatever. Fundamental rule...what we pilots would call 'stability' is inverse to maneuverability. No question, some airplanes are designed to be one, some the other.
It is not, then, ''BS'', that reasonably accurate models of the aircraft would exhibit some of the same tendencies.
While I certainly agree with you that lighter = better = ''more forgiving'', that's hardly the simple explanation.
An Extra with precisely the same wing loading as an equivalent Edge will snap more readily, and do it more cleanly. While it's certainly true that a heavier model (in terms of wing loading, etc) will be less forgiving, as you mention below, simply making it lighter will not change what it is. A Mustang is a Mustang no matter how light or heavy it is, and as such, has certain tendencies...certain things it will do better/worse/sooner/later than other models with precisely the same 'aerodynamic numbers' but different designs.
We're in complete agreement here. Build it lighter, it'll be more forgiving...and no ''magic trick'' will make up for extra weight.
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Yep, guys like to talk mumbo-jumbo about these planes like they were ''designed to be snappy, pitch sensitive, etc''., it's all BS.
Yep, guys like to talk mumbo-jumbo about these planes like they were ''designed to be snappy, pitch sensitive, etc''., it's all BS.
While I'll certainly agree that it's probably quite rare that the designer of an ARF sits down and says ''I'd like to make a snappy airplane'', there is absolutely no question that airplanes are, indeed, designed to have various traits. More or less ''pitch sensitive'', or more readily able to snap, whatever. Fundamental rule...what we pilots would call 'stability' is inverse to maneuverability. No question, some airplanes are designed to be one, some the other.
It is not, then, ''BS'', that reasonably accurate models of the aircraft would exhibit some of the same tendencies.
The planes are just simply too heavy for their intended mission.
An Extra with precisely the same wing loading as an equivalent Edge will snap more readily, and do it more cleanly. While it's certainly true that a heavier model (in terms of wing loading, etc) will be less forgiving, as you mention below, simply making it lighter will not change what it is. A Mustang is a Mustang no matter how light or heavy it is, and as such, has certain tendencies...certain things it will do better/worse/sooner/later than other models with precisely the same 'aerodynamic numbers' but different designs.
None of the ''magic cures'' like wash-out, aileron reflex, chasing the CG around, etc., will change the simple fact that heavy models are less forgiving of slight errors in judgement.
07-17-2009, 05:22 PM
#30
My Feedback: (15)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: La Vergne,
TN
Posts: 3,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Designing a plane that snaps well is no great accomplishment, in fact it is the badge of shame that many planes have earned unintentionally.
Designing a plane that snaps well is no great accomplishment, in fact it is the badge of shame that many planes have earned unintentionally.
07-17-2009, 05:47 PM
#32
Senior Member
Thread Starter
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
No argument from me. You`re turning that big baby on final, you better know what you`re doing! Not for someone with shaky nerves, that`s for sure.
07-17-2009, 06:43 PM
#34
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
Flying unfortunely is one of thoes aquired skills, like Golf or tennis ect, that some people will never master. We all know some one that has been flying RC for any number of years and still arn't very good at it. The best thing to do is stickto the plane U feel comfortable with. It can't be any fun if your knees are shaking all the time.
07-17-2009, 09:18 PM
#36
Senior Member
Thread Starter
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
HoundDog, one of the interesting things about this hobby, at least for me, is that some days I might feel like relaxed flying but at other times I like the feeling of a bit greater accomplishment, even if I`m more nervous. For example, although it`s more challenging, I enjoy a scale takeoff, a nice scale flight and a smooth landing with my PT-19. To do that requires that I "fly better".
07-17-2009, 09:41 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pueblo West,
CO
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
my list of "bad" models that I've flown are:
BH .40 size Cub (unflyable without extensive modifications)
Great Planes 1.20 size Giles 202. (way too heavy. easy to takeoff & fly, but nasty to land)
China models extra 260 (hyper sensitive elevator, nose heavy & under-proped it's okay, set up any other way it's a handful)
models that fly well with some practice(skill):
Great planes .40 size Cub (bad ground manners, once you get a feel for it, it flys Great)
Great planes .40 size P-51 arf( mild ground manners, tail dragger experiance a must. easy to fly, fast landing speed)
more to come...
BH .40 size Cub (unflyable without extensive modifications)
Great Planes 1.20 size Giles 202. (way too heavy. easy to takeoff & fly, but nasty to land)
China models extra 260 (hyper sensitive elevator, nose heavy & under-proped it's okay, set up any other way it's a handful)
models that fly well with some practice(skill):
Great planes .40 size Cub (bad ground manners, once you get a feel for it, it flys Great)
Great planes .40 size P-51 arf( mild ground manners, tail dragger experiance a must. easy to fly, fast landing speed)
more to come...
07-17-2009, 10:13 PM
#38
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
07-17-2009, 11:55 PM
#39
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
ORIGINAL: gboulton
Go design one that does so as cleanly, predictably, and precisely as an Extra then.
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Designing a plane that snaps well is no great accomplishment, in fact it is the badge of shame that many planes have earned unintentionally.
Designing a plane that snaps well is no great accomplishment, in fact it is the badge of shame that many planes have earned unintentionally.
I've already done so, but since then I've learned how a well engineered model should behave.
Ever fly a Goldberg Ultimate set up at 9.5 pounds with 2.5 HP? You will not find any "snap happy" talk about this plane, but you will not find a plane that can execute the manuever any easier and be any easier to fly as a model.
Magic? Hocus Pokus?
No, just good sound engineering and dutyfull respect to wing loading.
Anyone who buys into the "it was designed to fly that way" mentality about their models will only continue to support the model plane industry and keep the trashcans full at the flying field.
07-18-2009, 01:22 PM
#40
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
From experience I feel the lighter the aircraft (Wing loading) the better it fly’s. My top flight P-40 is a bear, I must keep power up base to final or she will enter a spin and crash (about 60" wingspan and weighs about 8lbs) Ugly tendencies. Every other plane I have has much more stable characteristics than my P-40. My ¼ scale Tequila Bipe lets you know just before a stall, aileron use becomes ineffective, so I hit the throttle quick and use rudder! My 80†P-51 fly’s beautiful but I always keep the throttle up as the aircraft approaches stall speed. My 60†F-4U tip stalled 1 1/2 foot in the air on final once, because I chopped the throttle too much. Trainers are too easy for me now, just set up on final, keep your nose down, flair on landing and they almost land themselves. Keep the power up, keep them light, watch what they are telling you and you can never go wrong, Well maybe…
Steve
[8D]
Steve
[8D]
07-18-2009, 06:51 PM
#41
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
ORIGINAL: gboulton
And there's the danger of a G202 for anything but the most experienced of pilots, imo...they are, quite literally, DESIGNED to surprise you like that.
The fact of the matter is, a stall is dependent not upon speed, but rather upon Angle of Attack. Pass the critical AoA for the airplane, and it ain't gonna fly any more.
The problem with the Giles is ''many-fold''. First, its design and ''normal'' setup lends it to some awfully sensitive tail surfaces. Even on what passes for ''low rates'' on nearly every ARF I've encountered of it the elevator is quite capable of exceeding the critical AoA in the blink of an eye...it's just that sensitive.
Next, look at the wing! It's like they took an Edge wing, and reversed it. Hrmm..let's see here...the Edge is notoriously STABLE and FORGIVING at high alpha...low/no wing rock harriers, that sort of thing. So...let's build a wing exactly the OPPOSITE of that! Yes! Quite literally, it was DESIGNED to fall apart at the first hint of a stall, and to do so with a vengeance.
Finally, while many of us ''know'' it, how many of us REALLY think about the fact that the airplane weighs more in a turn? It simply isn't a big deal for 99% of the aiplanes we've ever flown, or ever will fly. Sure, we know about G-Loading, but we just don't have it at the front of our minds normally. The Giles, however, is SO sensitive to the critical AoA, SO unforgiving to exceeding it, and SO easy to exceed it with...
It's a recipe for exactly what you saw...and airplane that looks like it simply dropped out of the sky (because it did), and was, to every observer, going ''way to fast to have stalled''.
============
I'm not saying they CAN'T be flown well...they absolutely can. And they are, in some regimes, one of THE most aerobatic things on the planet. In the right hands, they're capable of some things that make every other aerobat in the world sit up and say ''Err...wut?''
I certainly wouldn't ever agree with ''Don't buy a Giles!'' either. They can offer the right pilot a mind boggling array of fun.
But they ABSOLUTELY demand that you understand every one of their ''quirks'', why they exist, and how to avoid having them bite you.
The thread asked about which airplanes required the most skill to fly well...and I'd put a Giles up against anything out there for that title.
ORIGINAL: TideFlyer
The only Giles I`ve ever seen fly, that I can recall, actually just fell out of the air in a turn. I clearly recollect that the plane had lots of airspeed on at the time, so I don`t know. They are apparently a bear to fly, though.
The only Giles I`ve ever seen fly, that I can recall, actually just fell out of the air in a turn. I clearly recollect that the plane had lots of airspeed on at the time, so I don`t know. They are apparently a bear to fly, though.
The fact of the matter is, a stall is dependent not upon speed, but rather upon Angle of Attack. Pass the critical AoA for the airplane, and it ain't gonna fly any more.
The problem with the Giles is ''many-fold''. First, its design and ''normal'' setup lends it to some awfully sensitive tail surfaces. Even on what passes for ''low rates'' on nearly every ARF I've encountered of it the elevator is quite capable of exceeding the critical AoA in the blink of an eye...it's just that sensitive.
Next, look at the wing! It's like they took an Edge wing, and reversed it. Hrmm..let's see here...the Edge is notoriously STABLE and FORGIVING at high alpha...low/no wing rock harriers, that sort of thing. So...let's build a wing exactly the OPPOSITE of that! Yes! Quite literally, it was DESIGNED to fall apart at the first hint of a stall, and to do so with a vengeance.
Finally, while many of us ''know'' it, how many of us REALLY think about the fact that the airplane weighs more in a turn? It simply isn't a big deal for 99% of the aiplanes we've ever flown, or ever will fly. Sure, we know about G-Loading, but we just don't have it at the front of our minds normally. The Giles, however, is SO sensitive to the critical AoA, SO unforgiving to exceeding it, and SO easy to exceed it with...
It's a recipe for exactly what you saw...and airplane that looks like it simply dropped out of the sky (because it did), and was, to every observer, going ''way to fast to have stalled''.
============
I'm not saying they CAN'T be flown well...they absolutely can. And they are, in some regimes, one of THE most aerobatic things on the planet. In the right hands, they're capable of some things that make every other aerobat in the world sit up and say ''Err...wut?''
I certainly wouldn't ever agree with ''Don't buy a Giles!'' either. They can offer the right pilot a mind boggling array of fun.
But they ABSOLUTELY demand that you understand every one of their ''quirks'', why they exist, and how to avoid having them bite you.
The thread asked about which airplanes required the most skill to fly well...and I'd put a Giles up against anything out there for that title.
So here's where we're at: Italian Cantz, Global Tequila Sunrise, Global Tecate, and finally the Giles 202. I'd like someone to say that the Top-Flite Mustang is tough to fly, but I beg to differ after playing with the one on the simulator. I know of one Giles at my club, and no warbird has that plane's reputation for scary surprises!
NorfolkSouthern
10-23-2009, 09:37 AM
#44
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
Personally I think any plane that has to be landed fast to keep from stalling is a challenge
What every airplane demands for landing is attention to the angle of attack that the wing is operating at. Airspeed is not important if you maintain the proper angle of attack to prevent the wing from stalling. If you are having difficulty landing, you need to practice slow flight.
10-23-2009, 09:52 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Guelph,
ON,
Posts: 711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
I would say one of the delta's or any speed plane capable of 180+mph are hardest to fly. They can get hard to see, launching is interesting with the high pitch props, and only one chance to land. They fly well but require a lot of focus.
10-23-2009, 10:19 AM
#46
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rochester,
NY
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
To the original question, I would vote for the Corsair. I've seen a good number of them in our club, various sizes and makes, and seen very good pilots crash most of them. Don't have one myself but may someday when I'm looking for the challenge.
10-23-2009, 10:35 AM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
I can't nominate a specific candidate but will relate a conversation that I had with the staff of my local hobby shop.
We were yarning about ARFs and the dearth of traditional modelling (as you do!) whilst my mate was drooling over a large, shiny box of Cap/Edge/Extra something-or-other.
Anyway, the guy in the shop started to rub his hands; a bit like Fagin. Then he said that most of these things are sold to people who can't really handle them... with the result that they are soon back in the shop buying new ones. Great for business.
We were yarning about ARFs and the dearth of traditional modelling (as you do!) whilst my mate was drooling over a large, shiny box of Cap/Edge/Extra something-or-other.
Anyway, the guy in the shop started to rub his hands; a bit like Fagin. Then he said that most of these things are sold to people who can't really handle them... with the result that they are soon back in the shop buying new ones. Great for business.
10-23-2009, 12:40 PM
#48
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
ORIGINAL: captinjohn
NorthfolkSouthern, do you have a link to the meanest sportplane? Thanks Capt,n
NorthfolkSouthern, do you have a link to the meanest sportplane? Thanks Capt,n
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_83..._1/key_/tm.htm
NorfolkSouthern
10-24-2009, 01:02 AM
#49
Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Waxahachie,
TX
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
Years ago, I had a Pilatus Turbo Porter model similar to the one in the picture. But , unlike the real airplane which had a shock absorbing strut mounted to the side of the fuselage, my model had a solid piece of piano wire. It transmitted the shock form landing straight into the fuselage and also managed to deny the landing gear any ability to flex. It was like trying to land a ping pong ball.
Also the nose is very, very long. With the engine mounted so far away from the CG there is a certain amount of rotational inertia about the pitch axis. To exacerbate this inertia problem, the plane has a tiny elevator.PLUS, the airplane has a high aspect ratio wing which means it has a very narrow landing speed envelope.
So to stitch the entire picture together : You have very sluggish pitch response. You must touch down at just the right speed. If you are too slow or too fast the model will be bounced back into the air by gear that are unable to absorb any shock at all. And remarkably, this model was consequently a ball tofly !!
Also the nose is very, very long. With the engine mounted so far away from the CG there is a certain amount of rotational inertia about the pitch axis. To exacerbate this inertia problem, the plane has a tiny elevator.PLUS, the airplane has a high aspect ratio wing which means it has a very narrow landing speed envelope.
So to stitch the entire picture together : You have very sluggish pitch response. You must touch down at just the right speed. If you are too slow or too fast the model will be bounced back into the air by gear that are unable to absorb any shock at all. And remarkably, this model was consequently a ball tofly !!
04-16-2010, 08:32 PM
#50
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Most Skill Required To Fly Well?
ORIGINAL: biplane bill
I think I'll get no argument that a heavy Top Flight Corsair would rank near the top of the list.
I think I'll get no argument that a heavy Top Flight Corsair would rank near the top of the list.
Mine weighs 13 1/2 pounds should have weighed 10 pounds finished but live and learn.