Originally Posted by
Malcolm H
Flycatch,
You know its snide smartass posters like you that are gradually stopping people who genuinely want help and to promote informed debate to come on here and ask for it.
I posted this thread with a humorous subject line because I'm at a loss what to do with my expensive dud and all you can do is take a cheap shot.
Thanks for that,
Malcolm
Have you ventured outside of the pattern forum here, Malcolm? It's quite dead, and this is quite possibly the most exciting thing that's popped up on the front page in a while. People don't get how intricate F3A is...I'm not sure I would have dignified that moronic post (that professed your question as a simple one, yet the guy couldn't even spell "Google" properly) with any sort of response.
Ignore and move on. Ordinarily I would not argue that airplanes are too light, but given the sheer volume that models of today have reached, I may reconsider that theory. At 4650 grams empty (plus an additional 650g fuel load at takeoff), my PL Partners flew great at 1007 sq in wing area. The Splendor that I flew last year was 4875 RTF and had about 5% more wing area. Remember that not all of a biplane's wing area produces lift, so a little over 1400 squares on a biplane is equivalent to 1000 squares on a monoplane roughly.
Do airplanes really need to be as large as they are today? I'm not flying F3A (I'm flying Masters class infrequently...life has a pesky way of having plans contradictory to your own), so I won't profess to know the answer to that question.