All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
04-25-2006, 10:36 AM
#51
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
ORIGINAL: bubbagates
I'll ask this question of everyone involved then give my opinion.
If the wright brothers never experimented, where would we be right now?
In my opinion, none of us would even be having this discussion.
I'll ask this question of everyone involved then give my opinion.
If the wright brothers never experimented, where would we be right now?
In my opinion, none of us would even be having this discussion.
This model represents the absolute antithesis of what the Wright Brothers did. The polar opposite. The reason the Wright Brothers were successful where so many were not is because of the cool and methodical way they did their experimentation and math and solved each problem, one at a time. The Wright Brothers built a wind tunnel, and tested many various airfoils in model form, then built gliders to prove their math was correct. They would NEVER have tried to fly this model. They would have said "the wing loading is not acceptable, not even close, let's build another one, no need to waste materials, money, and time, proving that a configuration that our projections say is unflyable is unflyable." It was a looooong process of thought and experimentation to get what they got, but they were indeed scientists, and they did their homework before going all the way out to Kill Devil Hill with their gear to live in tents so they could prove thier math correct.
04-25-2006, 10:41 AM
#52
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
PS robby...show me the "false accusations and statements". Because the only one I can see is that the canopy WAS secured other than with tape, and the pics show only tape. Otherwise, what false statements or accusations were made? Aside from your false accusation of false accusations!
The child a few feet from the plane being held up for the engine test, well, does not matter if he has AMA or not, he should not be there. A different issue from the airplane itself, but shows an attitude towards safety that is very telling, to me. I'm sorry, but there is no way you can justify him being there, he's not flying the plane, he's not tuning the engines, he should not be on the flightline, but somewhere safely away. Does not matter if it's a twin engined tigercat or a zipposport 40, it's just common sense.
The child a few feet from the plane being held up for the engine test, well, does not matter if he has AMA or not, he should not be there. A different issue from the airplane itself, but shows an attitude towards safety that is very telling, to me. I'm sorry, but there is no way you can justify him being there, he's not flying the plane, he's not tuning the engines, he should not be on the flightline, but somewhere safely away. Does not matter if it's a twin engined tigercat or a zipposport 40, it's just common sense.
04-25-2006, 10:44 AM
#53
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
You completely missed the point I was making and have become so focussed on just a few items you appear to have closed you mind unless someone agrees with you. I'm not saying those are bad things, but having an open mind has helped me to see things I never saw before.
I am now out of this conversation
I am now out of this conversation
04-25-2006, 10:56 AM
#54
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
ORIGINAL: bubbagates
You completely missed the point I was making and have become so focussed on just a few items you appear to have closed you mind unless someone agrees with you. I'm not saying those are bad things, but having an open mind has helped me to see things I never saw before.
I am now out of this conversation
You completely missed the point I was making and have become so focussed on just a few items you appear to have closed you mind unless someone agrees with you. I'm not saying those are bad things, but having an open mind has helped me to see things I never saw before.
I am now out of this conversation
04-25-2006, 12:37 PM
#55
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
ET:
You have said it...
and said it...
and said it...
and said it...
and said it...
and said it...
and said it...
NOW DRY UP!!!
Bill.
You have said it...
and said it...
and said it...
and said it...
and said it...
and said it...
and said it...
NOW DRY UP!!!
Bill.
04-25-2006, 02:54 PM
#56
My Feedback: (60)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Litchfield Park,
AZ
Posts: 7,677
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
23 Posts
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
ORIGINAL: William Robison
OK, some real numbers. Wing span was 81â€, root chord 18.75†and tip chord 10.5 inches. This gives us 592 square inches area, or 4.113 square feet.
OK, some real numbers. Wing span was 81â€, root chord 18.75†and tip chord 10.5 inches. This gives us 592 square inches area, or 4.113 square feet.
04-25-2006, 03:04 PM
#57
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hastings,
MN
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
Hate to throw in on this...but what the heck! I have to agree totally with E.T., his questions are being dodged and even worse, he's told to "Dry Up!".
When I look at this test flight I'm reminded of Rick Moranis in "Space Balls". "I WANT LUDICROUS SPEED NOW!!!" At least Rick was wearing a helmet at the time. The flight really appeared to be rushed, with common sense thrown right out the window. Bill states that the canopy was held on by means other than the tape. How was it held then?? The only thing Twin says that was holding it was the tape. Was Bill there? Did he attach it himself? When asked just how it was attached he just tells E.T. that his argument was "proven specious". Proven by whom??? I still don't know HOW it was held on.[sm=confused.gif]
As to the child present during run-up, c'mon what was his purpose in being there?? The fact that he's an AMA member is totally irrelevant. There were "responsible adults" present that should've made sure he was at a safe distance. Judging by the size of the kid, he looks to be between 6-9 years old. Not old enough to recognize a potentially dangerous situation, and to blow it off with "He's an AMA member" is just silly.
I find it comical that even experienced pilots are just as quick to come-up with any exuse they can, rather than just admit they stalled it. I don't blame Twin for stalling it, anyone would've stalled it because it wasn't suppose to fly. It was said that maybe they should've went to a more remote area to test "fly" the ugly beast. May I suggest the Moon? It's out of the way and the gravitational environment would have made the wing loading about 35oz per square foot (that seems more in line with a model of this size!).
I think all E.T. is looking for is for SOMEONE to take some responsibilty. Just say "Ya know, It was poor judgement. I shoulda told Mr. Phan to find someone else." He wants people to see the "Big Picture". To understand that even taking all the precautions you can(which obviously wasn't done in this case), a bad idea is still a bad idea. I think what needs to be learned is to listen to our brains instead of letting excitment get the best of us.
Mike
When I look at this test flight I'm reminded of Rick Moranis in "Space Balls". "I WANT LUDICROUS SPEED NOW!!!" At least Rick was wearing a helmet at the time. The flight really appeared to be rushed, with common sense thrown right out the window. Bill states that the canopy was held on by means other than the tape. How was it held then?? The only thing Twin says that was holding it was the tape. Was Bill there? Did he attach it himself? When asked just how it was attached he just tells E.T. that his argument was "proven specious". Proven by whom??? I still don't know HOW it was held on.[sm=confused.gif]
As to the child present during run-up, c'mon what was his purpose in being there?? The fact that he's an AMA member is totally irrelevant. There were "responsible adults" present that should've made sure he was at a safe distance. Judging by the size of the kid, he looks to be between 6-9 years old. Not old enough to recognize a potentially dangerous situation, and to blow it off with "He's an AMA member" is just silly.
I find it comical that even experienced pilots are just as quick to come-up with any exuse they can, rather than just admit they stalled it. I don't blame Twin for stalling it, anyone would've stalled it because it wasn't suppose to fly. It was said that maybe they should've went to a more remote area to test "fly" the ugly beast. May I suggest the Moon? It's out of the way and the gravitational environment would have made the wing loading about 35oz per square foot (that seems more in line with a model of this size!).
I think all E.T. is looking for is for SOMEONE to take some responsibilty. Just say "Ya know, It was poor judgement. I shoulda told Mr. Phan to find someone else." He wants people to see the "Big Picture". To understand that even taking all the precautions you can(which obviously wasn't done in this case), a bad idea is still a bad idea. I think what needs to be learned is to listen to our brains instead of letting excitment get the best of us.
Mike
04-25-2006, 03:10 PM
#58
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
Chad:
Doggoned if you aren't right again. Went back and checked since I still had the model in memory, I was indeed checking the half span. 1160.55 square inches. Makes it 93.3 oz/ft at 47 pounds.
Hopefully that will cut ET's fussing by one half also.
Haw.
Bill.
Doggoned if you aren't right again. Went back and checked since I still had the model in memory, I was indeed checking the half span. 1160.55 square inches. Makes it 93.3 oz/ft at 47 pounds.
Hopefully that will cut ET's fussing by one half also.
Haw.
Bill.
04-25-2006, 07:17 PM
#59
My Feedback: (14)
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
Okay People, What would you do if some guy showed up to the field and asked
you to help him with 8 lbs GB trainer? The control surfaces are loose fitting
Dubro hinges that are glued in Elmer’s glue-all. Would you fly as is or make the
guy go home and fix the problems? Cheap brass hinges (which look like cabinet
door hinges) that were known to be loose from the start. I would have replaced
them just for my own peace of mind.
Now here one that no one has comment on and I’m sure a unknown to twinman.
From the photos the wing appears to be a one-piece wing. From the crash photos
we now have a two-piece wing. For a 40+ lbs all aluminum aircraft I feel this
should not have happen. It appears to me (JMHO) that maker did not put enough
thought into the center section sparring/dihedral bracing. If the wing was a two
piece wing where’s the center dihedral brace. Being that this is a prototype I
would think there would have been overkill in this area and not underkill. Still
looking at the crash photos. Here a 40+lbs. model that has just crashed, the fuse
is still in one piece. Now I’m going into the EasyTigre mode. What if TwinMan did
get it airborne, with the state of the hinges maybe he would not have had the best
control of the aircraft. Maybe with a couple of high G pullouts the wing as I see it in
the photo could/would have folded. Now we have a 40+lbs all aluminum bullet that’s
not going to break apart (like a balsa or fiberglass model would) falling from the
sky. No man, car or possibly fence is going to survive the impact (even at half the
weight). JMO
I’m like most here and I would have flown this aircraft only after the hinges had
been replaced. If the maker told me to fly it as is, I would have found me a side
country road to it just to play it safe. I hope the maker thinks about wing center
section. Also I would like to see a construction thread on this aircraft just to see
how the metalwork is done. Would I buy one I don’t think so. If someone was at
the field flying one of these I think I would pack my stuff and head home.
Again JMO,
Ron
you to help him with 8 lbs GB trainer? The control surfaces are loose fitting
Dubro hinges that are glued in Elmer’s glue-all. Would you fly as is or make the
guy go home and fix the problems? Cheap brass hinges (which look like cabinet
door hinges) that were known to be loose from the start. I would have replaced
them just for my own peace of mind.
Now here one that no one has comment on and I’m sure a unknown to twinman.
From the photos the wing appears to be a one-piece wing. From the crash photos
we now have a two-piece wing. For a 40+ lbs all aluminum aircraft I feel this
should not have happen. It appears to me (JMHO) that maker did not put enough
thought into the center section sparring/dihedral bracing. If the wing was a two
piece wing where’s the center dihedral brace. Being that this is a prototype I
would think there would have been overkill in this area and not underkill. Still
looking at the crash photos. Here a 40+lbs. model that has just crashed, the fuse
is still in one piece. Now I’m going into the EasyTigre mode. What if TwinMan did
get it airborne, with the state of the hinges maybe he would not have had the best
control of the aircraft. Maybe with a couple of high G pullouts the wing as I see it in
the photo could/would have folded. Now we have a 40+lbs all aluminum bullet that’s
not going to break apart (like a balsa or fiberglass model would) falling from the
sky. No man, car or possibly fence is going to survive the impact (even at half the
weight). JMO
I’m like most here and I would have flown this aircraft only after the hinges had
been replaced. If the maker told me to fly it as is, I would have found me a side
country road to it just to play it safe. I hope the maker thinks about wing center
section. Also I would like to see a construction thread on this aircraft just to see
how the metalwork is done. Would I buy one I don’t think so. If someone was at
the field flying one of these I think I would pack my stuff and head home.
Again JMO,
Ron
04-25-2006, 10:18 PM
#60
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
ORIGINAL: Chad Veich
That's actually 592 squares per wing panel, for a total area of 1184 square inches. That gives a 50 pound Tigercat a wing loading of ~97 ounces per square foot. Not good, but a darn sight better than previously quoted.
ORIGINAL: William Robison
OK, some real numbers. Wing span was 81â€, root chord 18.75†and tip chord 10.5 inches. This gives us 592 square inches area, or 4.113 square feet.
OK, some real numbers. Wing span was 81â€, root chord 18.75†and tip chord 10.5 inches. This gives us 592 square inches area, or 4.113 square feet.
97 ounces per square foot on a six and a half foot plane (add 48 ounces of fuel, too) with a pretty narrow chord is still unacceptable, and it still points to a very basic tipstall on takeoff, not the aileron hinges or anything else. Being that the wing is already parted in the crash picture, it's entirely possible the aileron was in place at impact, it's hard to say from the pic.
Can you calculate roughly what the stall speed would be? My guess is over 70mph.
04-25-2006, 10:25 PM
#61
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
ORIGINAL: Hellephant
Hate to throw in on this...but what the heck! I have to agree totally with E.T., his questions are being dodged and even worse, he's told to "Dry Up!".
When I look at this test flight I'm reminded of Rick Moranis in "Space Balls". "I WANT LUDICROUS SPEED NOW!!!" At least Rick was wearing a helmet at the time. The flight really appeared to be rushed, with common sense thrown right out the window. Bill states that the canopy was held on by means other than the tape. How was it held then?? The only thing Twin says that was holding it was the tape. Was Bill there? Did he attach it himself? When asked just how it was attached he just tells E.T. that his argument was "proven specious". Proven by whom??? I still don't know HOW it was held on.[sm=confused.gif]
As to the child present during run-up, c'mon what was his purpose in being there?? The fact that he's an AMA member is totally irrelevant. There were "responsible adults" present that should've made sure he was at a safe distance. Judging by the size of the kid, he looks to be between 6-9 years old. Not old enough to recognize a potentially dangerous situation, and to blow it off with "He's an AMA member" is just silly.
I find it comical that even experienced pilots are just as quick to come-up with any exuse they can, rather than just admit they stalled it. I don't blame Twin for stalling it, anyone would've stalled it because it wasn't suppose to fly. It was said that maybe they should've went to a more remote area to test "fly" the ugly beast. May I suggest the Moon? It's out of the way and the gravitational environment would have made the wing loading about 35oz per square foot (that seems more in line with a model of this size!).
I think all E.T. is looking for is for SOMEONE to take some responsibilty. Just say "Ya know, It was poor judgement. I shoulda told Mr. Phan to find someone else." He wants people to see the "Big Picture". To understand that even taking all the precautions you can(which obviously wasn't done in this case), a bad idea is still a bad idea. I think what needs to be learned is to listen to our brains instead of letting excitment get the best of us.
Mike
Hate to throw in on this...but what the heck! I have to agree totally with E.T., his questions are being dodged and even worse, he's told to "Dry Up!".
When I look at this test flight I'm reminded of Rick Moranis in "Space Balls". "I WANT LUDICROUS SPEED NOW!!!" At least Rick was wearing a helmet at the time. The flight really appeared to be rushed, with common sense thrown right out the window. Bill states that the canopy was held on by means other than the tape. How was it held then?? The only thing Twin says that was holding it was the tape. Was Bill there? Did he attach it himself? When asked just how it was attached he just tells E.T. that his argument was "proven specious". Proven by whom??? I still don't know HOW it was held on.[sm=confused.gif]
As to the child present during run-up, c'mon what was his purpose in being there?? The fact that he's an AMA member is totally irrelevant. There were "responsible adults" present that should've made sure he was at a safe distance. Judging by the size of the kid, he looks to be between 6-9 years old. Not old enough to recognize a potentially dangerous situation, and to blow it off with "He's an AMA member" is just silly.
I find it comical that even experienced pilots are just as quick to come-up with any exuse they can, rather than just admit they stalled it. I don't blame Twin for stalling it, anyone would've stalled it because it wasn't suppose to fly. It was said that maybe they should've went to a more remote area to test "fly" the ugly beast. May I suggest the Moon? It's out of the way and the gravitational environment would have made the wing loading about 35oz per square foot (that seems more in line with a model of this size!).
I think all E.T. is looking for is for SOMEONE to take some responsibilty. Just say "Ya know, It was poor judgement. I shoulda told Mr. Phan to find someone else." He wants people to see the "Big Picture". To understand that even taking all the precautions you can(which obviously wasn't done in this case), a bad idea is still a bad idea. I think what needs to be learned is to listen to our brains instead of letting excitment get the best of us.
Mike
Blows me away that there is complete denial by the people involved that they did anything wrong at all. Either they just don't UNDERSTAND the issues, which is awfully frightening, or they just are unwilling to admit they might have made an error.
NOTHING WAS LEARNED HERE.
People make mistakes. Me, I make more that most! But at least afterwards, I admit I goofed and try to get somethng out of it. Twinman seems to have gotten nothing out of it. Same with William Robinson. Neither seem to want to admit or accept that this was totally unflyable plane.
04-25-2006, 10:33 PM
#62
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
ORIGINAL: roncoleman
Okay People, What would you do if some guy showed up to the field and asked
you to help him with 8 lbs GB trainer? The control surfaces are loose fitting
Dubro hinges that are glued in Elmer’s glue-all. Would you fly as is or make the
guy go home and fix the problems? Cheap brass hinges (which look like cabinet
door hinges) that were known to be loose from the start. I would have replaced
them just for my own peace of mind.
Now here one that no one has comment on and I’m sure a unknown to twinman.
From the photos the wing appears to be a one-piece wing. From the crash photos
we now have a two-piece wing. For a 40+ lbs all aluminum aircraft I feel this
should not have happen. It appears to me (JMHO) that maker did not put enough
thought into the center section sparring/dihedral bracing. If the wing was a two
piece wing where’s the center dihedral brace. Being that this is a prototype I
would think there would have been overkill in this area and not underkill. Still
looking at the crash photos. Here a 40+lbs. model that has just crashed, the fuse
is still in one piece. Now I’m going into the EasyTigre mode. What if TwinMan did
get it airborne, with the state of the hinges maybe he would not have had the best
control of the aircraft. Maybe with a couple of high G pullouts the wing as I see it in
the photo could/would have folded. Now we have a 40+lbs all aluminum bullet that’s
not going to break apart (like a balsa or fiberglass model would) falling from the
sky. No man, car or possibly fence is going to survive the impact (even at half the
weight). JMO
I’m like most here and I would have flown this aircraft only after the hinges had
been replaced. If the maker told me to fly it as is, I would have found me a side
country road to it just to play it safe. I hope the maker thinks about wing center
section. Also I would like to see a construction thread on this aircraft just to see
how the metalwork is done. Would I buy one I don’t think so. If someone was at
the field flying one of these I think I would pack my stuff and head home.
Again JMO,
Ron
Okay People, What would you do if some guy showed up to the field and asked
you to help him with 8 lbs GB trainer? The control surfaces are loose fitting
Dubro hinges that are glued in Elmer’s glue-all. Would you fly as is or make the
guy go home and fix the problems? Cheap brass hinges (which look like cabinet
door hinges) that were known to be loose from the start. I would have replaced
them just for my own peace of mind.
Now here one that no one has comment on and I’m sure a unknown to twinman.
From the photos the wing appears to be a one-piece wing. From the crash photos
we now have a two-piece wing. For a 40+ lbs all aluminum aircraft I feel this
should not have happen. It appears to me (JMHO) that maker did not put enough
thought into the center section sparring/dihedral bracing. If the wing was a two
piece wing where’s the center dihedral brace. Being that this is a prototype I
would think there would have been overkill in this area and not underkill. Still
looking at the crash photos. Here a 40+lbs. model that has just crashed, the fuse
is still in one piece. Now I’m going into the EasyTigre mode. What if TwinMan did
get it airborne, with the state of the hinges maybe he would not have had the best
control of the aircraft. Maybe with a couple of high G pullouts the wing as I see it in
the photo could/would have folded. Now we have a 40+lbs all aluminum bullet that’s
not going to break apart (like a balsa or fiberglass model would) falling from the
sky. No man, car or possibly fence is going to survive the impact (even at half the
weight). JMO
I’m like most here and I would have flown this aircraft only after the hinges had
been replaced. If the maker told me to fly it as is, I would have found me a side
country road to it just to play it safe. I hope the maker thinks about wing center
section. Also I would like to see a construction thread on this aircraft just to see
how the metalwork is done. Would I buy one I don’t think so. If someone was at
the field flying one of these I think I would pack my stuff and head home.
Again JMO,
Ron
Would love to see the wing skins pulled off and see what is inside.
You are right about the wing spar, you would think it would be built like a bridge, from the weight, yet there it is seperating from the fuselage. Not the wingtip bending or seperating, but the entire wing failing at the root. Good chance, like you say, of that happening in flight, if it HAD gotten airborne.
And what does the 14 pound weight of the second one say about the "engineering" of the first...that maybe there WAS none? I'd take the second one somewhere very isolated to test it out, ten bucks says that one has a major structural failure in flight. And that the wing loading will STILL be too high to be really safe, even with the airframe at half the weight.
04-26-2006, 07:28 AM
#64
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
RE: All Alumiunum F7F ARF flight Report
ORIGINAL: BasinBum
Can I just say that when this flight was attempted the "Dung" hit the "Phan"!
Can I just say that when this flight was attempted the "Dung" hit the "Phan"!
I have nothing against VQ, have built and flown one of their airplanes, but bought a couple more of their kits and ended up getting rid of them before building them, due to them just being really low-end products. Worth the money? Absolutely...provided your wing does not fold on the third flight or something! If you get a good one, they are nice models for the money. Have not seen the two big ones, the P61 and P-38, but talk down at the field from the guys was they did not want to spend that kind of money on a VQ model, not a solid enough brand. Mind you, I don't know anyone who has SEEN one of these big VQ models yet, they look very decent. This incident with the Tigercat, it says a few things to me about this company, most of which are not really positive.
