HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Hate building with a passion, CA is not my friend even though it "Sticks like Glue" ... Thank God for RCU and swap meets and auctions. People call me a HORDER, There are always at least 4 to 5 planes in my Van. Tell ya how bad this affliction is, I recentally purchaced another vehicle ( Dodge Caravan w/ STO 'N' GO). Those seats will never seen again. While transferring things from the old 99 / 214000 mile Chrysler Van to the newer Van I found things I hadn't seen in 5 years. Last year had to leave 2 planes here in Arizona because even though I had a trailer brought out from Wisconsin, I lacked room. Just too many swap meets last winter. Been to too Swaps already this year and managed only one ME-262 and a NIB DLE 20. and they came off RCU Locally. A long winter swap season.to go.

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

I don't build, but hopeully one day will give it a try so maybe I am missing the point here and if so, accept my apology and just disregard. I do not understand the mentally that each plane I build/buy has some sort of magical expiration date on them. I have sean in various threads several posters make that type of comment.

I fly with some guys that have planes that are 30 plus years old that were scratch built and yes at times they do have to go over them and re-cover if the covering has worn out. When they do I think they check glue joints and things like that and of course any elec/mechanical that needs fixing.

Also of extra note, I have one ARF that has scored around 600-700 flights and the plane did expire because I started to fly it with more reckless abandone than ever before because I wanted to see just how much this plane would take. Even then I could have fixed it the small amount of damages however I chose not to as I was just tiring of it.

Maybe the expiration date theory is based on the fact that I just wore the plane out.

sensei

I also don't necessarily agree with all our R/C airplanes have an expiration date because I have also just quit flying some of my models and simply retired them. I will say this though, they are all expendable, at least to me, so I have never felt any kind of attachment to any of them. If I smoke one of mine in I really don't care because it is just a few materials shape to look and fly like an airplane and I will just build another...

Bob

stevegauth30

I understand what there saying, I think. I look at it this way, to me, any plane can crash at any time, and for any reason, weather it's pilot error, equipment failure, Yada, Yada,... But, we all know the guy still flying his first plane from fifty years ago without a single bad landing. On the same token, I saw a guy total a scratch built plane that took him more than a few years to build, due to signal loss, after less than one season. Who knows? Could happen to any of us, at any time. I don't think people mean that your guaranteed to loose a plane, just that there's no guarantee you won't. I'm rambling, I'll shut up now. Steve.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

I am gonna weigh back in on Bobs thread after a quick comment about weight in the first page and these are strickly my thoughts on several matters that this thread has covered.

First the fence question thing. I don,t really consider there being a fence between building and What? ARFs or whatever the current nomenclature may be. They are each a means to an end and to me since day one that means building is the means to acheve the type of airplane your buds will never have or acheve an airplane that tugs at your sense of beauty no matter how ugly and perhaps a type of airplane you will never see as a kit, arf etc. Add to this list of why I build is also perhaps to experiment wth different construction techniques or different aerodynamic ideas, sure its pretty hard to do anything in aviation perhaps impossible that has not already been done but it sure is fun, no its even a passion reinventing the wheel myself (you could call it just my personal education).

Now there are obviously different levels of building and even in the modern vernacular just assembly of an arf is now called building like it or not and I think I have participated since the middle fifties in just about every building discipline possible You know what I don,t care what the discipline is or a mix of them if they will help me acheve the kind of airplane I mentioned in the first paragrafs above I don,t care.

Kit bashing is an old modelers art form that in my twilight modeling years I find most enjoyable and that is using any of the building arts and any kind of existing ARF, kit or wreackage to acheve something totally unique in looks, form or aerodynamics.

So to sum it up I have many types of airplanes and all forms of constructions, You name it and I am not ashamed to have it from scratch to RTF. I do keep on average around 50+ plug and play airplanes of all disciplines and I LOVE them all. I am also a self confessed trader and I seldom ever sell an airplane but am constantly involved in barter, my fleet and projects on the table are very fluid and constantly changing.

Just two more last thoughts, first on the expiration date thing. I never use that phrase simply because it does not fit. Total losses for me are rare and I frequently rebuild as well as frequently rebuild others folks wreaks so there is no real expiration date. One fantastic example is a 124 span giant Super Buccaneer that I love and fly now albeit with a modern OS gasser was built in 1974!

The last thing I want to mention is the quick post I made on page one of this thread was: Light Flys Better & Light Crashes better. Light definitely flys better and that is the most obivious thing that I have learned over the years if nothing else. Someone argued that if the wing loading becomes to lite the airplane will not fly well in wind. Well the solution to that is obvious: reduce the wing area.. Light does fly better ask any pylon racer say in 422 or 428 the difference three ounces can make.

Now to the last part of that phrase and that is that Light Crashes better. Well its simple physics and no I am not any kind of expert but the higher the structural density is the more servere the damage, whatever that may be is going to be. That is what I also have seen over the years with all model disciplines and structures. The vast majority of reinforcements that I see from new folks only serves to make things worse and contribute to what may already be overweight airplanes. Yes sometimes for some types of airplane and some tiypes of missions certain mission some reinforcement may be a good idea but this often abused to the point of the airplane turning into a real flying Turd.

Excellent thread Bob

John

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

For what it's worth I hate building for the simple reason I'm no good at it. and Glue (CA) hates me. Spent over 30 years as a Tool and Die maker and can machine anything so log as I can screw it together and not have to glue it. Again thank god for RCU and swap meets and auctions.
The answer as to all these things we fly all have a number (Termination Date) U all know whoget's the ones with the low numbers every club has a couple of these guys. Then there is the guy that's had his plane for 800+ flights and 30 years. Someday it's number will come up. Just a fact of life.

brockettman

I built a FourStar 120 with a few modifications. I did do a little “research” concerning flight characteristics and construction ideas that had been posted by other builders. This led me to adding additional webbing to the wing to stiffen it up and adding some reinforcement to the fuselage behind the wing. I was actually thinking about the additional weight on this build and didn’t think the “overbuilding” would pose a problem. I also added solid balsa wingtips, which added a few more ounces. I wasn’t building to crash however I wanted a good structurally sound airframe. The plane flies great, however, for me, and the way I want the plane to fly, I think reducing the wing area is something I’m going to do. So, I hope by taking out a bay at the end of the wing and reducing the wingspan, the plane will fly a little less “floaty”.

This thread has got me thinking, that when we build to fly it could mean building the plane to fly in a way that suits our style… Soaring high, flying fast and low, or knife edging across the field.


Ben

mattnew

My Feedback: (2)

If I reduce the wing area I'm no longer "building lighter b/c lighter flies better", I'm "building smaller", and with that the comparison becomes apples/oranges.
as for the pylon racer…. lighter makes it easier to go faster… faster can equal better, but I wouldn't argue they is always the case.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Reducing wing area and therefore increasing wing loading does not necessarily make an airplane smaller, Its all about the wingloading and not about the size. so all is not so simple in the orange/apple grove.

So Mattnew I do agree to disagree. For all the types of airplanes I have flown and that has been a pretty broad spectrum Lite even it is a heavy wing loading Flys better and Lite definitely Crashes better!

John

oliveDrab

"Floaty" is right. Remove a wing bay on each side and the plane will be a more spritely performer. I performed this surgery on my 4*60 and it worked very well.

sensei

There are a few other design stability details that do come into play besides the dampening you get from an extremely light airframe. The airplane in this video is extremely light loaded for what is at a 150" span with a 25.6 oz. wing loading and a cubed loading of only 4.6, most would probably say it should be a handful in windy/gusty conditions but this is not the case with this airplane, it dampens and smoothes out the bumps on its own so fast it feels like cheating to fly. This was the second flight ever and in gusting up to 38 mph winds. http://vimeo.com/22211697

Bob

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Its always about the mission, here is the opposite senario where I increased the span on this ship about ten inchs to enable what is now a .65AX powered airplane and not just get it barely off and around the pattern but to fly very well and with good manuverbility carrying a hundred and fifteen ounces of fuel.






John

mattnew

My Feedback: (2)

It might not be disagreement, but more along the lines of you and I have different preferences for how a plane should fly. Which is perfectly fine. I actually agreed with almost everything you said. I just think there is a "too light" point, most builders never get there, but I think there is one. I'm not sure I follow how if you make the flying surface area smaller on a particular plane that you haven't in effect made a smaller plane. You can have the same body and same engine… but the part that matters and makes it a plane is smaller, so in my mind that means the plane is smaller. at the end of the day its probably splitting hairs and not really an interesting conversation….

Sensei; interesting video, that plane needs to eat a cheeseburger just kidding, not being there, not being on the sticks, with high winds and it being the planes 2nd flight, its probably not fair to make any judgements. There were some points where I thought I saw things that were very pretty , and a couple of moments in there that I said "ugh thats ugly". I definitely liked the level hover into the wind of a plane that large.. that was cool to see and definitely made easier with the light wing loading.

With our "lighter flies better" and "bigger flies better" rules of thumb… I am thinking and doubting if a .40 sized plane with similar wing loading would fair similarly as the 52%. One of those things you mentioned that help to "dampen" winds is definitely the size of the plane. momentum = mass * velocity, reduced mass = reduced momentum. or a reduced ability to resist a chance in your current direction.


apologies for the thread hijack, but I don't think its too off course… the original question was basically "do you build your planes as light as possible or build heavier to withstand accidents"
I think this falls into discussion of the merits of building as light as possible.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Within tolerances I agree with that thesis. However, I also know how *I* fly and what I am normally doing which means there are places where I spend a little weight to gain either rigidity or resilience.

I like solid landing gear 'boxes' with the loads distributed over a fairly large portion of the air frame. That means I tend to put some reinforcement there. I also hate it when the tail feathers twist (it makes me shout but more importantly it is amazing how many birds actually do that - you gotta pay attention!) so I tend to put some bracing to keep those from moving around,. I also hate it when the engine departs the airframe - which I have seen others do and decided I did not want to do that which means I tend to pin the firewall and insure it has some attachment the gear plate and or wing tube/structure. My own personal 'golden triangle'.

Rubbernecker

My Feedback: (22)

Gene, that was a "10". Hope others were there to see that. Would have been a waste if you were the only one to see it. Someone stated about silk and dope, all that would have done is given you a nice bag to carry the pieces in. I build to fly and reinforce areas prone to breaking (firewalls and landing gear).

John

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

To prove a point. Last week I was float flying the swoose. I had just made the turn for a slow and low photo, when I opened my right eye the double vision hit and I was a mite confused as to what plane I was flying. The plane had been level but all of a sudden it gave a slow yaw to the right? I pulled up and left but the right float hit just a little. The float came off and the plane flipped over, the wing came off. The photos show the wing mounting blocks are still on the wing. The front of the fuse opened like a ripe banana. The blocks were really in there, they were glued/epoxy to the hardwood formers and had angle stock bracing them. When the wing went and removed the blocks they did all the damage.
Here's the deal. The plane is fully sheeted and glassed but when a crash happens there is nothing that you can build into it to save it. In this case I only have a bit of repair work to do.
I decided on my other swoose I will use rubber bands to hold down the wing. It's also electric and isn't near as over powered as this little beast. This one will stay as a glow powered plane but land use only.
After cleaning all the equipment I found the reason for the YAW. I used HS 81 servos for the ailerons so they would fit into the wing and be out of the water. The left aileron servo has the main gear cluster completely striped away from the gear post. No teeth broken but the motor just keeps spinning away. I was doing rolls and loops to test how the plane handled on floats before this happened. I will be going over to metal gears in both planes. My BAD!!!!!
And this plane was built stout!!

sensei

I am real sorry to see this Gene, I now you put in heart and soul when you were building her, but as you have explained no airframe constructed light or robust is a match for the ground or water, so we may as well keep em light...

Bob

Avaiojet

I build and I build.

I couldn't care less if I fly. Currently I don't! I've sold most of my R/C stuff because I went back to my modeling roots. Control Line!

Some of my models can be converted to CL, the rest are gone or almost gone.

I don't miss R/C flying at all. The guys were great at R/C. The guys are great at CL also, just modelers enjoying this great hobby in their different ways.

I've designed in R/C and I'm designing in CL.

Currently I'm designing a Gee Bee R3. Built so I can go electric or nitro. And yes, it could be converted to R/C quit easily!

Here's a quik peak at some of my gear.

stevegauth30

Don't matter what you do, or how you do it. Just as long as you enjoy yourself, and get away from the daily crap that life throws at us. At least that's why I do it.. Nice planes btw.

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

Bob, your still not going to get me to weigh the wood before I build!!! That broken swoose was built a bit heavy because of the engine I was using but the other one is a light weight because of the electric power. I did watch every stick that went into it. It's all open bay, only sheeting is the fuse and no glassing. I really had to keep the aft light.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Build to fly! I always hand select all my wood. Between my wife and mom in law I get lots of coupons from Michaels craft store. There are times when I am able to get 20% off a good size pile of wood. Once you fly a light aerobatic airplane and realize just what you can get away with in the air, it's difficult to go back to Average wing loadings. Then again on my pylon airplanes where we have minimum weight requirements I do tend to place heavier wood where it will yield more strength. So do we dare open the box that says a heavier airplane handles wind better? My vote is no.

sensei

I know better so my vote is no as well.

Bob

stevegauth30

Why is that? I would also like to know better. I was under the impression that, in most cases, more mass and momentum meant better in the wind.indulge me please.

mattnew

My Feedback: (2)

p = mv;

more mass = more momentum = higher resistance to changes in motion…If you could make all other things equal a 15lb plane would handle a 10mph wind better than a 10lb plane would… But, and this is key... you can't make all other things equal, if you had two identical planes and one weighed 10lbs and one you added weight so that it was 15lbs, you'd increase the stall speed, increase the wing loading, and change the overall flight characteristics of the plane. You'd need more power out of the engine for the same performance since you'd need more force. So "all other things" would no longer be equal.

"better" is too subjective a word for any of this discussion…

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

QFT!

When you compare apples to oranges the 'heavier is better' crowd might look better, but when they are both apples it does not stack up that way.