LargeScale88

What types of manuevers do you have to do for flying to get judged? Is it just simple barrel rolls, loops, photo pass, ect?

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

oh that type of realism... my appologies. guess I had it confused with craftsmanship.

ProScaleRc

Hi all,

I'm a qualified aeronautical engineer by trade; although I my job these days is a marketing executive. To say that just shrinking a plane down it should fly fine is totally incorrect. "Scale effect" can change flight characteristics dramatically, hence why model aircraft have to be slightly modified to fly well.

To put it simply, you are making the plane smaller, but the air molecules around it are staying the same. It'd be like shrinking down a tennis player, saying he can play tennis the same with a ball that is now the size of a basketball.

Basically the air reacts differently across a scale model. For one example the air needs to travel 5-10m from a planes wing to the tail wing, yet on a model the air only travels about 30cm. On a real plane air is disturbed by the wing, but smoothes out before it hits the tail wing. On a model the air doesn't have time to smooth out and hits the tail wing with lots of 'wash' in it.

This is just one example of how air reacts differently on a model. There are at least another dozen other areas on a plane that air flow changes when you scale it down.

Hope all that made sense? [&:]

All I can say is, just enjoy the planes for their beauty and don't wast time complaining about a slight difference on a wingtip or cowl.

Cheers,

James

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

makes perfect sence. question though... then why make scaled down models and use them to collect
data in wind tunnels? also, with scaled down models, flying at scale speeds, would the airflow act the
same as full size? you see numerous examples of this, from cars, to boats, trains, etc.

ProScaleRc

Good question


When they take data on prototype models they account for scale effect. These days a computer does all that. Secondly, the air in wind tunnels is controlled, humidity and density is kept at a constant, ensuring that the molecules are at the smallest possible state, ie, the air isn’t thick and heavy.

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

so on a very low humidity day, ie: very stilldry air, a scale down version should act much more like its
full sized counterpart? also, how do you guys scale down the weight? I'm sure its not as simple as
divideing full size weight by scale size.. which leads to how much of arole does weight play in scaled
down models? wouldcloser to scaleweight make the model more stable? sorry for all the questions,
I find this stuff very facinating.

CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

I don't care about judging, I don't even compete at scale contests. I DO care what my warbird looks like tho, and I build mine to look as much like the full scales as I am capable of. In the case of Top Flite Corsairs, that means completely re-doing the wingtips. I do it because I can tell the difference, and anybody who knows a lick about Corsairs can too.
Top Flite reason for making them so in-accurate is totally without reason: Even the Hangar 9 Corsair (which IS most definately stand-off scale/ fun scale) has much more accurate looking wingtips than the Top Flite version, and by all accounts: it flies better too.
And the Mustang cowl: I don't see any logical reason for that either, it just doesn't hace the sexy curvature that the full scale does, or even the new Hangar 9 one does.

Fili

Aint it funny how some people have nothing better to do than bash and complain... cj's been complaining for years, and has done nothing to improve the situation....

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

I pretty much agree.. but I'll adddon't like how the "pro's" judge an event. as far as Top Flite and wing tips.. bang on.
with the P-40 they want you to sand the Top of the wing tip curving down... when it should be flat. bottom of the tip
should curve up. ALSO they completely omit on how to do the stab fillets. thats when a good 5-view comes into
play.

da Rock

You know, it's not always bashing.

It's often the passion getting out a bit. Whenever anyone starts talking about models that're supposed to BE the airplane, and are not, and for no good reason, I have a hard time keeping quiet myself.

A release of a P40 awhile back had advertising that crowed about how accurate the sucker was. And the canopy frame was just awful. Didn't match the version, nor any version for that matter. And that wasn't even one of their big blunders. It makes no sense to sell something as authentic when such obvious details aren't. And it started an awful fight. Which is understandable when you realize some of us really sickos really think it's important to get history right, whether it's written history or replicas of historic aircraft. We're passionate. And vocal. That company never stopped claiming their model was almost museum quality. And those who knew better, AND obviously CARED more, never stopped trying to tell it like it should have been. Who's to blame. The mis-advertiser? or the guys who know and care?

Somebody starts threads like this one all the time. They want to know. Because people care about the details. kewl............

Fili

I hear that, but kit bash, dont bash the kit. make the changes your complaining about...BUILD!

CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

Really? What would you suggest, in addition to the thread that I started several years ago, which discusses the wingtip situation AND other scale indiscrepencies AND how to correct them. I posted drawings which highlight the difference between Gold Edition, Red Box, and actual scale, and provided intructions on how to make the wings right. So what would you suggest that I do, in addition to what I've already done?

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

ahhh the joys of pleasing people....

~ plane not accurate.. need more accurate for less money
~ plane now accurate.. but costs too much
~ plane needs retracts.. but needs to be cheaper
~ plane has retracts.. but too expensive
~ plane needs retooling.. but keep it cheap
~ plane been re-tooled.. now it costs more

~ hobbiest goes and fixes plane
~people still complain plane not fixed

And the beat goes on.........

dvs1

Well I can only speak for myself but I think Top Flite makes very good ARF's, and with a little work can be made pretty scale unless your a purist. I'm very happy
with how my P-51 is turning out. It took some time and a little planning, but you can be the judge.

saramos

Is that Flite Metal or similar product? Looks like a well done application, but out of the factory, the wings were painted and only the fuselage was natural Aluminum finish. Is that the flying prop?
Definitely better looking than the average ARF.

I built this Top Flite Spitfire which I've displayed at the AMA convention for the past few years. As I learned more about the Spitfire, I learned the good and bad of the scale accuracy of the kit.
The outline of the fuselage and wing is actually pretty close with the exception of the rudder, which is 25% larger than scale. The big inaccuracies are, the position of the landing gears. They are way too wide apart. There are no inboard flaps. and the wings don't have that scalloped curve where they meet the fuselage. Knowing what I do now, I probably would build from plans. or scratch for a truely scale plane.

Scott

saramos

Sorry, Don't know why the photos are loading like that.

Scott

ProScaleRc

Looks pretty good to me...[8D] hey can you please post a pic of your inner gear doors?

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

first pic standard Top Flite P-40 rudder. Second is the same but moddified to Brian Taylor specs, with a
few more details added by me.

dvs1

The prop is static which i know they didnt use uncuffed till after the war, will probably switch out for cuffed.

Here is some of the pics I have of the doors. The only problem is the inner doors should have a slightly closer gap of about 3/8 of an inch. You cannot do
that with a Top Flite mustang without completely rebuilding the landing gear mounting structure and moving everything inboard. Since mine is not 100% scale it did
not matter that much.

hairy46

My Feedback: (1)

Great thread! I have offten wondered about this subject myself, Thanks!

ARUP

If you are building for non-competiton, then 'no worries' if you build it the way you want it to look. If someone has negative comments then let them know you will glady exchange yours for theirs and they can 'fix' it! If building for competition then find 'good' documentation, understand the 'rules of engagement' in scale competition, compete, learn and have fun. Personally, I'm not 'into' competition because they are all 'pretty'. Just like beauty pagents... most of the contestants are very attractive- not too many unattractive ones!

jkr_1100

My Feedback: (15)

OK just take down the Chandelier above the front door and hang the P-51 there. Looks great. would you sell it to me for $200 shipped? Sorry.

luckyb

I agree with the guys who say "build to please yourself". There are some seroius issues with scale competition. There are aircraft models out there molded out of composites whose outlines, panel and rivet details, etc are pre-molded. The almighty dollar has had its' way with radial engines, turbines etc. So goes the popularity of " Pro- Am" and the like. True scale" build it yourself" modelers are becoming scarce.I fly scale warbirds(semi) because I like them. The Top Flites are for the masses, and are designed( I think) to fly well at a reasonable weight and with reasonable power at a reassonable cost ( the diff in cost between Sierra gear and Robart). There is an ass for every seat, and in the immortal words of Dave Platt" No scale model is ever completely done".

tenacious101010

My Feedback: (97)

Recently I entered my Top Flite P-47 in a scale masters qualifier event. I didnt build it for team scale, but we already had a plane entered in fun scale and just went for it to learn about judging and competition. The P-47 was highly modified, the canopy was a Yellow Aircraft part, I made many of the "plastic" kit supplied components from scratch, they just didnt look like the real thing. One of the things that kinda bothered me was the judge asked me if it was a kit and what kind. I really think that has no place in judging, I feel that it should be judged as a P-47 against my documentation. I really feel like my answer that it was a Top Flite kit, didnt help at all. I believe there is a bit of preconception involved. The question should never be asked in competition. I realize that many of the comments were valid, but I didnt understand all of them. In the pictures below the tailwheel doors were not installed and on the last picture you can actually see the lower outboard main gear door come off in flight.
All in all, it was a great experience and we will have a couple planes ready for Top Gun, my son was invited this year. We will do our best to use what we learned and will not worry about how it goes after that. At least the finish should be a max score, the BT-13 is covered with real aluminum sheeting and I will use the same paint as the full scale plane I am modeling. The owner is providing me the paint samples from the cans he painted the plane with.

I-fly-any-and-all

My Feedback: (1)

now if you want true to scale go with royal otherwise known as marutaka.