"old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

I have been looking back thorugh various model magazines in the past few weeks, looking for interesting designs. Funny thing, I notice that a lot of published designs for the cox 049 engines come out to 250 to 275 square inch wings, and weights..... get this - 18 to 28 ounces!! and wing loadings commonly in the 14 to 18 ounces per square foot range.

The articles describe the planes as great flying, and thats not hard to believe, as I remember building a bunch of 1/2A planes from RCM plans when I was starting out in the early to mid 1980's and has my HEAVY kraft 3 channel brick system, and later my standard size Futaba radio (2 and 6 channel). I did get the ACe Whizard, Alpha, RCM Hornet (two of them), sig hummer, ad a few more to fly with these old heavy weight systems...

Interestingly, today when we are so used to flying 1/2A planes with more powerfull engines, light weight radio gear - we expect a weight of 14 to 16 ounces, and consider anything else "heavy".

Of course, I wouldnt want to have to go back to using full size radio gear - ever! I know lighter IS better, but it is a bit reassuring to know that in the past the planes flew with heavier weights and higher wing loadings, and in case you happen to come out a bit heavier than you had wished for, it probably will still be OK...

Comments?

AJC

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

Life was tough, and I can remember flying just at stall for flight after flight. I will go with the smaller gear and the more powerful engines any time.;)

I also think that most of the stuff was written for sea level, a little elevation makes a lot of difference on the smaller planes.

MR Flyer57

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

Ditto, I fly at 5680 ft. (The mile high city). I can't imiagine trying to get a 28oz. - .049 plane in the air here.

Rrragamn - Arvada Co.

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

It's amazing what you can do with a small motor. there was two fellows at the field today with unlimited combat jobs with 6 foot wings, I couldn't tell the difference between one guys .40 powered one and his .15 powered one. using a tt .15 it just screamed, was very hot and manuvarable, he even did some skid and goes when I asked him if it could do it (no landing gear) the ace simple series is a good example of the heavier 1/2a planes that can fly well, I had the extra, I look back now and just wonder how it did it.

Jason:D

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

In the 50s there was a FF "cargo" event in which .049 powered planes lifted weights for a timed duration. Can't remember how much weight the good ones were lifting but it seems as though it was quite a lot. Naturally this was with engines much less powerful than todays. Much to be said for wing area!

jess

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

I got a bunch of old RCM's and MAN's from ebay and in one of the RCM's there are the plans for the CASSUTT AND/OR BONZO which are 1/2a Goodyear racers that were designed right around the same time as Owen Kampens Upstart for 1/2a Pylon racing.

So in the text with the Cassutt is actually speaks out against cutting down on the weight saying that a heavier model will penetrate the wind and stay tighter in the turns that a lighter model!!! They say that a 24 oz racer with a Golden Bee with actually WIN against an equally matched 20 oz plane.

Now that goes against almost everything that i have learned from you guys, but is there some truth to that. I know that the wind penetration is true, but is heavier faster?

crazy.

the prole

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

Nope, not in a pylon race. I like Flying buddy Brian's saying: said a pylon race is like 2 drag races with corners at the end. Lighter vehicles, (air, water, ground or space) given the same power, ALWAYS win an acceleration contest.

Having said that, I can see how a racer with a heavier wing loading could be easier to fly in very windy conditions. Faster lap times? I don't think so.

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

Hi Prole,

Speed is a function of propeller pitch, rpm, and drag while rate of climb and accelleration are functions of weight, horsepower, and drag. That's why lighter aircraft are more aerobatic. Don't get me started on why an aircrafts flight performance is unaffected by wind. :D , but notice that I said wind and not turbulence.....

Dickeybird, that's true, for the same horsepower and prop pitch the lighter plane is definitely going to win the drag race. Having said that, ;), I have noticed that pylon races seem to be anything but a drag race. First of all they get a running start at altitude down the back stretch and second of all they dive for speed coming out of the turns. I suspect that in calm air the lighter plane would have the advantage while the heavier plane would do better in turbulent air. In the races I have observed pilot skills and caller coordination seemed to be the biggest factors since rules require the aircraft to be very similar in construction and power.

Bill S. (the other Bill)

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

I think maybe we have different expectations about flight performance now. Today we're dissapointed when our point rolls aren't on a string, our loops aren't round and the airplane slows down in the verticals. We expect a speed range from hover to supersonic, we look for 3-D maneuverability with trainer stability. Back 'in the day' it was enough to fly around and land somewhere on the field! Try dusting off one of your planes from 30 years ago...you'll be amazed how tame your old hot rod was. We really have come a long, long way!

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

It's amazing that a major league model magazine would allow an idea like heavier is better to get printed. The author probably was one of those people who figure that smoking is good for you, because it kills parasites and bacteria. Maybe he's the same genius who put a 20oz. minimum on 1/2A pylon[:@]! I could build one out of aluminum sheet, heliarced together and come pretty close to that;). For many years, I figured 240 sq.", and 16ozs to be the standard for a sport model. The biggest break through for me was the 6v lithium cell. you could get 1/2hour or so out of one, but they cost $6 for a throw away. The S133 micro servo @ 5/8oz was the other device that made the sub 16oz plane easier to make, but I used to burn them out faster than I could put new ones in. I put a 24K TD in one of my .061 planes, just to relive the good old days, and was reminded of why I used to go through servos alot. The vibration "melts "the tiny gear teeth away. Many things today are WORSE than they were 20,30,40 years ago, but you can't say that about 1/2A:D!

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

This speaks to the heart of the entire discussion. I built my first R/C model almost 45 years ago -- a Ted Strader design powered glider: The NOMAD (still have the plans and think I will build another). I had a tube style CitizenShip TX, open frame receiver with tuning coil and rubber powered escapement. A successful and exciting flight was when it appeared to respond to rudder input and landed somewhere within the county. There are many disadvantages to old age, but I have had the opportunity to see the evolution of much of this hobby.

Guys, I've got radio equipment older than most of you, and believe me, you may not appreciate how really good we have it today. For years, small models were restricted to 1 or 2 channels, no throttle, no ailerons -- escapement or bang-bang systems. I'm convinced that the primary factor driving the small model hobby today is the availability of lightweight, reliable and affordable radios (I learned to fly on a receiver I built from a schematic) and the introduction of user friendly throttable engines (OK Tim and DB, not everyone is a mechanical genius with COX's ;) ). The stuff built in the 50's, 60' and 70's flew -- but without unlimited vertical, knife edges, axial rolls and blazing speed. We didn't know what 3-D was.

If you look at the designs of 40 years ago, they were much more robust, built with Ambroid or aliphatics and covered with silkspan and dope. A monokoted plane at the field was a novelty.

I totally agree with Strat2003 -- our expectations have changed the design parameters -- we were just a bit accepting back then, but happy for what we had.

the "other" Andrew

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

All very interesting topics....

I agree that today's equipment is amazing, and I woudlnt want to go back in time for anything!

BUT - one point I would like to make is that if a personal couldnt go and spend $150 on a micro receiver, new mini servos, etc but allready had some standard size gear, it is possible to get a decent flying plane up for cheap... all the designs published in the mags in the 70's and 80's had to fly, right? So better to fly 1/2A a bit heavy than to not fly 1/2A at all... if that makes any sense...?

AJC

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

AJC! I tried to delete the last sentence you wrote, but the darn computer wouldn't let me!;) When things got out of control,weight wise, that's what my old OS .10 was for. I never built a plane FOR that engine, it was only used as a way to salvage my over weight 1/2A design ideas. I don't know if this engine could pull it's own weight, but it was one of those engines that never cost me any time looking for a problem. One of the greatest weight saving methods for me has been taking part in this forum. In the old days, the exchange of resources and ideas were not 1/10th of what you have now. You were at the mercy of the wisdom of the local GURU, and going to contests was the main source of information exchange. Before ARFS, it was exciting to go to a NATIONAL contest, just to see the latest [usually weight related] stuff. 1/2A is the last category of modeling to get *******ized by the ARF MONGERS. I have seen video of an EPP sheet plane, that will make 1/2A ARF better than what we can do with wood. The video is in the back pages over at the fun fly forum. It is titled "SOUTHERN X2". It shows a guy in JAPAN doing some very impressive things with his model. He posted a bunch of construction photos, but has no interest in marketing this thing. Someone is going to take his ball and run with it, I'm sure.

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

Although I didn't come from as far back as the "other" Andrew I also have some radio gear that is probably older than some of you. My first set was a Sterline Command Master RO pulse set that came in the form of a brick.... with emphasis on the term "brick". It was a 10 or 11 oz hunk that I put into a Goldberg Jr Falcon. The Baby Bee actually lifted that 25 or 27 oz mass up in fine form but then RO was only meant to be an uphill glide. I think that's where a lot of our misconceptions over weight come from in that a lot of the older 1/2A stuff WAS Rudder Only. I still have my old Controlaire Galloping Ghost set that I built from a kit. in the late 60's.

Which brings me to the claim of heavier would fly better and win races. Faster? No way. The math does not support it for anything other than a dive assisted speed. But smoother and therefore quicker comes into play. Especially when you consider that the original 1/2A pylon racing was done using rudder only models. Perhaps a heavier model could be trimmed to hold closer to the same altitude. Or perhaps because RO models dive in the turns the heavier model had more speed gain in the turn that it would hold onto longer in the straights. In any event none of this would pertain to our modern models with more controls.

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

I would like to see what some flyers would say after they would build say a Ace Pacer, Mach none, or other "older" plane today and using the new radios they have would say about this then. You might be suprised. There are factors that can make two models of the same plane , one flying "better" even though it has more weight. Inerta is a factor, sometimes overlooked in this area, yet in other modeling it shows a "sweet spot", a point that gives it greater preformance even though it is the same model only heaver. I was suprised to see this myself years ago, but now try to use it in RC. I fly the older planes and get great flights, using newer equiptment.

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

Today I finally started working on my RCM "Scooter", a high wing pusher design from the December 1975 issue.

MAN OH MAN!! I had'nt looked at the drawings for some time, and when I started working on the wing (which I finished this afternoon) I was absolutely AMAZED at the size of the wood! 3/32 ribs, 1/2" by 3/8" spars, massive LE and TE... amazing! Wood choices I would have selected for a 40 size model. 3/16" wing tip plates!! :)

No wonder the plane is "supposed" to weigh so much.

I am trying to build true to plan, but had to lighten up a bit on the structure... I think with HS81's replacing the standard servos of the day, lightweight foam wheels, a small receiver and battery pack I will get to 2/3 of the 1975 weight. I am hoping it to be a good flyer, as my first one didnt last me too long (still learning to fly).

AJC

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

[This speaks to the heart of the entire discussion. I built my first R/C model almost 45 years ago -- a Ted Strader design powered glider: The NOMAD (still have the plans and think I will build another). I had a tube style CitizenShip TX, open frame receiver with tuning coil and rubber powered escapement. A successful and exciting flight was when it appeared to respond to rudder input and landed somewhere within the county. There are many disadvantages to old age, but I have had the opportunity to see the evolution of much of this hobby.]


I did not become involved in RC until the 70s, but as a CL and FF flier I saw many of the earlier, tube radio equipped planes at contests and at my club field. At the time it was not uncommon to see guys bring their plane to the field, tinker with it all day then load it up and go home without starting the engine.


Aside from the equipment in the plane some of those old transmitters were pretty cumbersome as well.

jess

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

In the late 60s I built a Comet Piper J-3 rubber powered kit just to enjoy building another model airplane, something I hadn't done in years. It didn't fly too well. My fault not the design. I got some balsa, revised the construction and made another version. At that point I discovered MAN and RCM and found lots of help and ideas, as I poured over every issue, absorbing it all. I wanted RC in a bad way, especially as "Proportional Control" had appeared. Funds were tight, but finally thanks to Heath Co. I built my own TX., RX., and Servos and got a Sig Clipped Wing Cub and a Fox.35. Too much plane! Next was a Willard Headmaster kit. Much better but lost it too in a collision with a fence post! I was ready to quit, but the magazines started running 1/2A sized plans and articles. They were simple and quick to build, flew great and withstood our abuse. My first was a Joy Stick, very similar to today's SRX 250 electric. My Heath/Kraft equipment was big, but it fit and was a tad heavy, but it flew. Then Litco offered a smaller 4-Ch. Receiver which helped lighten the load, and Heath began to offer smaller servos. With these smaller and lighter items available, we could set up a "full house" 4-channel plane 1/2A model! I put a Cox .09 with a Tarno carb on my Joy Stick and it really lived up to it's name! It was a great time to be in this hobby. Looking back, I know we wondered if it could ever get any better. I'm 73, still like to build 'em, still get out to commit aviation every Sunday, some Saturdays too when I can, and I'm still awed by all the "new" stuff.

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

I haven't visted the forum for a while ,but, this thread caught my attention.Another trip down memory lane,I built a Veron Mini Robot around 1970,Cox 049 up front and my first propo outfit,the EK 3 channel Brick.Brick by name and Brick by nature,but the propo thing was a real buzz,after single channel button pushing.The poor old thing took a tank full to claw it's way to 50 ft. Then came down like a "brick".I still build the same design every now and then,but ,with the latest light weight radio gear, and still a Cox 049,they fly like a dream.....Happy landings Vauxhall

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

I have a high wing 36" span with a TD .049 (2 channels), I use with std equipment and it flies good. I know that it would be great, with micro servos & receiver, but, at least for now I cannot make that kind of investment. So I think that the new stuff is amazing, but You can enjoy a good 1/2 flight with std. eq. Regards

Claudio

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

Claudio,
That was the point I was trying to make originally.... that as equipment gets better, lighter and more reliable we expect more and more from our planes. But there is still fun to be had on the "cheap" with old engines and larger (than the latest micro stuff) radio gear. :)

AJC

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

And somewhere along the way many seem to have forgotten (or missed) that an airplane can be flown very satisfactorily on the wing rather than in a semi-ballistic manner through a huge power to weight ratio.

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

Now for a true story that will get you to thinking. It was about 15 years ago my Dad and I built 2 Esquires. His was powered with an old OS Max 15 III and the radio was a Controlaire 10 channel reed system, rudder, elevator, motor. (He still has this model with Galloping Ghost now) Mine I put a new OS 15 FP and Futaba standard size radio, S128 servos and 500mA pack. All else was the same. His flew beautiful while my just did not fly very smooth, did not penetrate the wind very well and all in all not a very good flyer despite attempts with CG changing and such. I almost was ready to give it away when an old timer at the field told me I needed to add weight. WHAT? I had always been taught to build light as possible. Finally, with kinda a bet going I added around 12 oz if I remember correctly. It flew like a dream!! I flew the model for about 1 season and sold it to a fellow who flew it several years!! What are your thoughts on this?

Bob Harris
Early RC Models
www.earlyrcmodels.com

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

I dont know but once at a SAM contest the wind was SO strong, I had to add about a pound of weight to my A Texaco model just to allow it to penetrate the wind! Otherwise, it would fly the entire flight backwards.... seriously!

AJC

RE: "old" 1/2A planes and weights... interesting
 

Most all of the early designs "flew on the wing". They relied a lot on the high lift airfoils to gain altitude. To do this the wing was at a high incidence angle. To climb you just went faster. I have a DeBolt Champ with a K&B 28 that I love to fly. The modifications I have made include:

1. lengthened the nose to get it to ballance without adding extra weight.
2. Reduced the wing incidence angle to 0 degrees
3. Added NASA drooped leading edge modification
4. Added Andy Lennon style slotted flaps
5. doubled the elevator area so it would have enough autohrity to overcome the greater pitching moment with full flaps.

With the drooped leading edge mod and the slotted flaps you can literally fly the thing so slow that you can almost walk up and grab it out of the sky. With the flaps up and the engine wide open the reduced incidence lets you really have a ball with it with very little zooming.