Montague
Posts: 4632
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Laurel, MD,
Status: offline
|
Scott,
No more biased than anyone, yourself included, of course. Not misinformation, just as I see and experienced it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: sgilkey
Sorry Kirk but after trying to just forget about some of what i believe is misinformation, or at least heavily biased opinion, I feel the need to reply for the benefits of those who may be considering combat but are put off by your remarks:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Montague
Actually, yeah, that is BS. I have numbers over several seasons of combat that show that mid-airs go UP as speed goes down. Slower speeds keeps the planes concentrated into a smaller area of sky in all 3 dimensions. Planes spending more time in a smaller area means more mid-airs.
REPLY: Kirk, in all frankness, you are the mid-air-ingest pilot I've ever flown with in all my years of combat.
That's an odd claim, and I actually disagree. Brian had way more mid-airs early on, but he's gotten better. I'm as good as I'll ever get, sometimes good enough to avoid mid-airs and sometimes not. When I'm having a good day, I do a pretty goo job avoiding mid-airs, when I have a bad day, I still have ok depth perception but bad timing and that makes for mid-airs, sure. But there are plenty of guys who just blindly zoom through the furball and seem to mid-air every round. Do I mid-air more than Brian? On a bad day, yeah, on a good day? no, otherwise I wouldn't give him such a good run for his money. We both you know you can't win at that level, can't score as well as I sometimes do if I mid-aired as often as you state.
quote:
Your data on midairs may be applicable to you, but not necessarily to all.
Actually, it seems to hold pretty well, more in a moment, but we actually agree on more than you might think below.
quote:
I have participated in all 6 classes of combat (Open B, 2610, Limited B, SSC, 2548, and 1/2A) that have been active over the time since 2000 on a regular basis and I don't see such a compelling trend as you assert. I will agree that SSC seems to be worst for midairs, there are often heats where no planes are left flying. But that is not only because of the frequency of midairs, but also because the planes tend to go in more from a hit, because they have less power to pull out of trouble, and the engines are killed more readily. Also the pilot pool in SSC is the biggest, meaning there are more pilots with less-developed skills (by their own admission, those who think they aren't ready, or good enough, to compete in the faster classes) and they lack well-developed skills for pursuit and midair avoidance. Finally, 2548 is very slow, and yet the midair frequency is relatively low, in our experience, which is completely counter to your assertion.
I didn't comment on "last plane standing" so much as mid-air rate, I agree that they are not the same thing at all. Though I actually fly out of more SSC mid-airs than anything else because a mid-air is less likely to take out something critical, and my SSC design recovers from hits and stalls very very quickly. That's not the case for all designs, and I think you're right that on average, an average non-crippled SSC plane is less likely to be recovered by an average pilot than an average non-crippled Lim-B plane.
Which might bias things a bit on all sides, since differing designs just hold up better than others.
But don't compare the rates of crashing vs. recovering to the rates of making any kind of contact at all.
The main point I was making about mid-airs is that it tracks more with density of airplanes than anything else. Airspeed by itself is a big part of how things spread out, but not the only factor. I was glossing over that earlier to avoid getting as long as this post is going to be. Anyway, pack more planes in a tight area, and you get more mid-airs. 2548 is "slower" than some other classes, but the turning radius is such that the planes spread out more than Lim-B planes do, at least every time I've flown 2548. So, yes, 2548 is slower, but has less mid-airs, but actually helps prove my point, not disprove it. Density of the combat box is really critical.
A datapoint, I don't know if you recall a few years ago at Dixie nats, when Mac hadn't mowed the whole left side of the over-fly area? Everyone was making a real effort to pack the combat box to the right to avoid those 6-foot high brambles? Mid-air city, even in 2610 because no one spread out.
Another datapoint. Ever notice that mid-airs go up with a very light (5mph) wind in your face, but goes down with a tailwind or any high winds? Planes get blown all over the place, spreading them out over the adjoining counties and mid-airs go down. Same with days with bad lighting. Guys loose their dept preception and start flying all over the place and the combat box gets HUGE.
Weather conditions and field conditions will often have a much larger effect on mid-air rate than even the class of models being flown, btw. Which is why the whole mid-air conversation gets so confused. We'd really need to track several seasons of data for many seasons, and control for things like field conditions and weather and number of planes in the air at the time of the mid-air (not in the heat, since planes on the ground won't matter). (I don't think planes in the air is much of a factor compared to weather, field, and class, in that order).
If you want to get rid of mid-airs, always fly on days with great lighting and very high winds  , and fly whatever class you want.
quote:
We've flown 1/2A for three years. The action is close in, and it's much easier to see midairs coming. The planes are extremely agile and you can avoid midairs if you care to, better than most other classes. I disagree strongly that all 1/2A heats end with all the planes down.
Now, my experience with 1/2A is more limited, and I've said that. And I didn't say that all 1/2A heats have to end with all planes down, just that it was typical of what I experienced. Also typical was a almost no real damage to the planes.
Anyway, I want to expand a bit about what I think about mid-air rate. As I said, it's all about compressing planes into a small area. But it's not just airframes into volume of space, as airframes are not point-objects. Bigger planes take more volume. And, even more critically, if you measure the space used in a typcial match in terms of time, what you see is that in classes where it takes a while to get from one side of the area used to the other, you get fewer mid-airs. You have more time to see what's going on. If you spread out the 1/2A planes even a little bit, I'm not surprised you find time to avoid mid-airs. When we flew it, that didn't happen, everyone stayed right on top of each other, and we never had any seperation. I'm fairly sure the 1/2A planes we had were not as agile as the Arrow design either, which might play a part.
quote:
Now, you'll note that I didn't comment on the damage from the mid-airs. the .25 planes DO take more damage from mid-airs. That's one reason I DON'T like Limited-B. All the mid-airs of SSC with the damage of Open B. SSC has much less damage, and 1/2A planes ARE very surviveable, at least the airframes are. But from what I've seen, 1/2A planes are hard to set up, don't handle winds well, don't handle streamer mops well, and frankly aren't as much fun for me as SSC. If you have more fun with 1/2A, then fine, go for it.
REPLY: I disagree that Limited B is "all the midairs of SSC with the damage of Open B." It defies physics. Limited B is slower than Open B. You are flying a 4 pitch prop at a max of 14.5k, while in B you typically see a 4 pitch prop north of 19k. Impact energy goes up with the square of speed. B ships cause much more damage in an impact, its plain physics. The Limited B rules have a min weight of 3.25 pounds. That figure was selected because a builder of average skills could build a well-armored plane with full-size servos at that weight. BUT, what has happened is that people are building planes for Open B (that is, light with minimal armor), for max performance in B, and then BALLASTING THEM with up to 4 ounces of DEAD WEIGHT so they can fly the same plane in Limited B by just changing the muffler and prop. So they are sacrificing armor to enable themselves to fly the same airframes in two classes. That is their personal choice, and if they want to complain about the resulting damage, it shouldn't be blamed on the "class rules." They could help themselves by building more armor into their planes, to toughen them up.
Energy does go up with the square of speed, but I've never seen it proven that mid-air damage as we experience it is due primarily to energy and not momentem, which is linear with speed and weight, and puts LimB and OpenB much closer. The damage I have taken at Nats has been very simular in the two classes, pretty much the same depth of dents, the same surviveability. Also, prop cuts do a huge portion of the damage in mid-airs, and the longer prop does not help Lim-B, though I can't say how much of a factor it is or isn't, and neither can anyone else. However, the .25's put a lot more "bite" behind their props than the .15s. You already pointed out how the .15 props are easier to stop, and many guys have commented on how easily those 8x3's break. Stopping the other guy's engine instead of getting all chopped up does affect mid-air damage. Can't say for sure how much, but I will say that prop cuts are the #1 killer of my planes in LimB, OpenB, and SSC. Dents I shrug off, cut spars, wiring, and airframe structure grounds planes.
As a data point, my mid-air damage in Open B and Limted B went down when I went to a more higly tapered wing. Why? because I reduced the rotational momentum in impacts where my wing hit another plane. Didn't change the energy at all, but by tweaking the momentum situation in many mid-airs, I increased my surviveability. You can't explain that in terms of energy.
So, no, it doesn't defy physics, only your assumptions about what part of the pyhiscs to apply. I believe your assumptions are wrong at least in part, since your expected result does not match my observations in practice.
I'm not saying that energy isn't a factor either. Just that it is not the whole story when two flying objects hit
each other.
Anyway, is the damage in Open B and Lim B identical? No, I really wasn't saying that. However, LimB is much closer to OpenB than SSC in damage, it's not even close. Just as SSC is much heavier in damage than 1/2A.
In terms of damage:
OpenB > LimB >> SSC >> 1/2A
For the record, I use the same design in both classes, with no modification and no ballast necessary (ballast? sheesh, that is a bad idea). I don't have time to build seperate airframes for both classes either, so I designed for the overlapping weight in the rules. And I think my planes have had a resonable track record in both B classes (except for one issue with really hot weather causing my fuse to warp, but that's not mid-air related, even if it did ground two planes on me at Nats. gotta fix that).
quote:
On the plus side, Limited B engines are much more reliable and simple to operate than SSC engines. {snip} Limited B is much easier to set up, for both airframe and engine, than SSC, for a newcomer or casual competitor.
Here I agree with you, mostly. the OS .25 is miles better than any SSC engine. But the OS .15LA and new Magnum are miles better than the 1/2A engines I've seen.
In general, larger planes will do better in winds and are easier to setup, launch, and trouble shoot. LimB is easier than SSC which is easier than 1/2A to fly.
quote:
My son Brian utterly dominated Limited B last year, winning RCCA NPS as well as the NATS, and he flew TWO PLANES all season, one of which flew 90% of his heats. Both of those planes are still airworthy and will be flown at our next meet. He is an aggressive pilot and will go after the tiniest streamer. But he is also excellent at avoiding midairs. He gets on someone's tail and chases them down, which keeps midairs to a minimum. Side swipes and other high-risk attacks are prone to more midairs. "Furball" fliers are going to have more midairs.
Brian IS an amazing pilot, with skills that few other pilots are even close to. You know I fly the same general style that Brian does, I'm just not as good at it on most days. I also try to avoid the high-risk attacks, I'm just not quite as good at getting out of the way sometimes.
However, I find it amusing that you call me biased, and then use the best pilot in the country to back up your assertions about what an average pilot might experience. If Brian doesn't skew things, I don't know who does.
Sure, Brian is that good and can fly around stuff better than I can, and I can fly around people better than 90% of the other pilots out there. Frankly, what works for Brian and me simply doesn't always work as well for others.
And Lim-B from what I've seen, has the mid-air frequency very close to SSC, but with more damage than SSC. And for pilots who are mid-level and below, they will have fewer mid-airs in Open B. If you wonder why the Ohio guys are so eager to fly Open B and hate Lim-B, now you know why. They can't (yet?) fly around targets, so they need things to spread out to reduce the chances of a mid-air.
Put another way, Brian doesn't rely on "chanes" of a mid-air, he uses skill. More skill than most pilots will ever dream of having.
quote:
Oh, and if you're "jousting" and making head-on passes, you need to work on your piloting skill. Really. Head-on passes are something to avoided in any class at any time. One if the key differneces between the guys who win contests and the guys who don't is simply avoiding stupid things like head-on passes at people. Take that extra split second to go around your target and get behind them, no matter what class you fly. The only time I hit anyone head-on in any class at any time is when I screw up.
REPLY: A similar argument can be made for midair frequency. You're an excellent pilot, but recklessly agressive. Put some of that skill to midair avoidance, your fellow pilots will thank you. Showing up with 6 ready-to-fly planes and going thru them like Sherman through Georgia is not necessarily the way most normal humans like to fly combat. Some do it out of necessity. We'd all breathe easier if the carnage went down, and folks were less reckless in the air.
I disagree that I'm any more aggressive than many other pilots, Brian included, nor am I unusually reckless. I AM somewhat inconsistant with my flying though. I can be really good. Or I can be off, way off. When I'm hot, I'm agressive as hell, but able to fly around people, and I fly like Brian. Our styles are very simular in that way. However, when I have a bad day, I don't lack in aggression, but I do lack in skill and timing, and that's a bad combination. If I ever get figure out how to be more consistant it would help. (actually, I HAVE done a lot. You've known me long enough, that if you think about it, you'll realize that I'm a TON more even tempered and more consistant now than not long ago. I ain't perfect though.)
And no one, not even Brian sees all mid-airs coming. It's rare that I actually hit the guy I'm trying to cut, it's usually someone else. (not that it doesn't happen, it's just rare for me).
However, if you're trying to lay all the carnage on me, you're really reaching there. I'm no more agressive or reckless than many other guys, and more conservitive than many, from what I've seen. And I DO try to avoid the head-on shots and so on, and usually do a pretty good job of it. We've flown together enough that I'm actually surprised you think that way. I should note that I DO turn it up a notch at Nats. I'm more likely to take a chance in a late round at Nats that I wouldn't take elsewhere.
And I don't recall my fleet being any bigger than what I've seen you and other guys with as well. Never have had 6 airframes in any class. I do often go heavy on the spare wings because I fly better if I'm relaxed and not repairing between rounds. I'd rather have spares and not need them than need to be repairing. Makes for less stress and better flying.
Now, I might actually have 6 SSC planes this year at Nats (but probably only at Nats) because my old ones just keep on flying, but are getting heavy and not turning as well. So the ones that were built before the 2004 Nats will probably be "emergency use only" this season.
_____________________________
Kirk Montague Adams
RCCA 560
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> RC Combat >> RE: 1/2a combat 
RE: 1/2a combat - 
bed of foam, to dampen vibration. It's the vibration, and resultant 
