Well this thread has gone off-topic about 100 times, and I don't think any point is really being made here.
Just because Dick "feels" his plane is flying good, doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement using hard fast rules. Remember the rules? Thats why Dick started this thread. He tried to sit here and tell us that those rules are messed up or something. So he came up with his own rules, lets review them:
Wow - lots of great info out there .
Here are some rules I larnt:
1- If the plane is extremely light - the CG does not matter
2-If the plane is too heavy - it still don't matter.
3- If you got enuf power - nuthin else matters .
4-If you ain't got enough power - same thing.
Review of rule#1
He gives us these rules them goes on to say that he does indeed move the CG around to make his "plane" do what he wants to do. So I guess CG does indeed matter hey Dick?
Rule #3 seems to cancel out rule#2, and is a mute rule anyway, and has nothing to do with the almost weightlessness of a foamie. Besides, as soon as you throw Dick
out of the plane to make it light enough to fly, then the CG does matter. This also does not prove the rules of aerodynamics wrong.
Rule #3, if you got enough power, you still need a good airfoil design relative to the plane you are flying to maximize your flight time. After all the rules were created in the spirit of making a plane most effiicient for what it was designed to do.
Rule #4 Not enough power means that there isn't enough power, it doesn't mean that the CG doesn't matter, because as soon as you put enough power, you better have the CG right. This also does not prove the rules of aerodynamics wrong.
As far as planes that wieghs zero, that is a misnomer, becasue according to webster, airplanes have weight. If an "airplane" wieghs zero it would not give a hoot about aerodynamics, as it could just "float" without any CG or power. This statement does not prove anything.
When you hover, you are not relying on wings for lift anymore, therefor the airfoil would be required for lift, so it is not important to have one.
As a matter of fact I believe that the thinest airfoil or "flat plate" would be best as it would give the least amount of resistance to prop wash. When a plane is hovering, the prop wash is pulling it back to the ground, so you would want to minimize it as much as possible.
So Dick your fllat plate has room for improvement in areodynamics. If you decreased the resistance of the leading edge of the flat plate, you would indeed improve the performance of the plane, however small that may be.
On my IMAC models - the CG is very important -but on my extremely light electrics - it is of very little importance- these things have wing loadings of only a couple of ounces per sq ft.
Followed by:
Ah--- pitch stability - I really don't get excied about that -
I just adjust cg for easy control--and extreme pitch--the radio settings of expo make this possible.
these things do fly hands off quite well
First he says Cg doesn't matter much, then he has to move it around to make it fly well.
Hmmm, it seems that CG is of utmost importance to achieve the flight characteristics you want.
I mean if CG doesn't matter, then why not mount the battery in the top of the tail fin?
CG always matters when your "flying". Planes that weigh too much can't fly, and planes that weigh zero, aren't planes.
Everything else needs a good CG based on application.
I am sticking to my guns here saying that Dick does not make any valid points whats so ever.
About the only thing that I got from him, is that he knows how to fly a foamie well, and enjoys it very much.
I think you need to rephrase what it is you are trying to say.