quote:

ORIGINAL: darth heli

I was thinking I would wrap it around the prop. Anyways, any real advise? Is this a dumb question?

Jb

quote:

ORIGINAL: darth heli

I was thinking I would wrap it around the prop. Anyways, any real advise? Is this a dumb question?

Jb

quote:

ORIGINAL: sensei

You should always care about weight on an airplane. There is an old saying that goes like this; looks like a piano and flies like one too...

Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeScale88

Its not a bad idea, I have put coats of straight resin on alot of airplanes I have, but I would say use .75 oz cloth. You will not add much thickness and I don't care about weight, so i would use the cloth also.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sensei

I don't think anyone has mentioned it but if you are really planning on going electric, weight reduction should be your primary consideration.

Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zor

I am trying hard in my mind to compare a 3 or 5 lbs model to a 28 or 36 to 48 lbs model flying in a wind blowing at 15 to 30 mph and perhaps being gusty.

I just think it cannot be compared.

Please do no tell me to try it; I do not have any models heavier than 11 lbs.
I also do not fly like what I saw in the link.

That type of flying with an engine-prop combination producing thrust may be twice or more the model weight has no appeal to me at all.

I am glad some fellows enjoy this.

Zor

It all has to do with wing loading/cubed loading and of course those Reynolds numbers and the smaller the platform is, the more critical weight becomes, and one other little fact; lighter flies better in all around conditions.

It is the assumption by many that a heavier airplane has better penetration qualities, well guess what; a lighter airplane will dampen out the effects of wind/gusts faster than a heavy airplane, so what does this mean; two identical airplanes flying side by side in the wind, one heavy, one light, you will not see the lighter version bouncing around more than its porky counterpart, but from your post I am thinking most of what I am stating is falling on deaf ears.

Not that you probably noticed or even care but that 40 % airplane was performing on a 100 cc power plant, the norm is 150cc-170cc, also you did not notice how easily the airplane was back on the wing at very slow speeds. Now just because I was asked to abuse the airplane in flight for that video does not mean it can't be flown precision or in just circles if that is your flying style.

Here is another video of the ultra light 260 in 30 mph+ wind, nothing but fun.

http://www.icanflyrc.com/JRFlyin/JH_Rice_2008/slides/Bob260.html


Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: kochj

One would think there is a-bit of a dif when comparing 4-6 lbs planes to a 30-40-lb plane... Just like a 10oz plane to a 40oz plane..
3-4lbs added to a 5lb plane is huge.... I think this would make a dif. in it's ablity to fly when lighter planes are grounded do to 15mph winds..
I can't argue either way, because I don't have any personal experience on the subject matter...
I am only speculating...


Here is a good question:
Is weight a consideration, or is it the overall aircraft shape (including wing profile) that makes the dif. in wind penitration and stabilization?
Or a combination between the 2?

Wouldn't one be able to mix micro balloons/ or sim., in with the epoxy to reduce weight gain? rather than heavy bondo filler???

Also, does anyone know what all the ARF manufactures use ontop of there fiberglass cowls, pants ect?
It is a lightweight coat, that is bonded to the fiberglass, and is painted. It is White in color.
This dosn't fill the weave, but rather is a layer that is flat bonded to the fiberglass, and gives it it's strength.
You see this materal everytime you bust up the fiberglass on the ARF's....
The paint will flake off it very easily once the crack or break occurs...????

Any ideas????

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zor

I am trying hard in my mind to compare a 3 or 5 lbs model to a 28 or 36 to 48 lbs model flying in a wind blowing at 15 to 30 mph and perhaps being gusty.

I just think it cannot be compared.

Please do no tell me to try it; I do not have any models heavier than 11 lbs.
I also do not fly like what I saw in the link.

That type of flying with an engine-prop combination producing thrust may be twice or more the model weight has no appeal to me at all.

I am glad some fellows enjoy this.

Zor

quote:

ORIGINAL: sensei


It all has to do with wing loading/cubed loading and of course those Reynolds numbers and the smaller the platform is, the more critical weight becomes, and one other little fact; lighter flies better in all around conditions.

It is the assumption by many that a heavier airplane has better penetration qualities, well guess what; a lighter airplane will dampen out the effects of wind/gusts faster than a heavy airplane, so what does this mean; two identical airplanes flying side by side in the wind, one heavy, one light, you will not see the lighter version bouncing around more than its porky counterpart, but from your post I am thinking most of what I am stating is falling on deaf ears.

Not that you probably noticed or even care but that 40 % airplane was performing on a 100 cc power plant, the norn is 150cc-170cc, also you did not notice how easily the airplane was back the wing at very slow speeds. Now just because I was asked to abuse the airplane in flight for that video does not mean it can't be flown precision or in just circles if that is your flying style.

Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: sensei

I don't think anyone has mentioned it but if you are really planning on going electric, weight reduction should be your primary consideration.

Bob