Been thinking as I can't sleep and was wondering what is more important in terms of flying ability for 3D, the overall weight of the model or the wingloading. I thought of this while thinking about my flip 3D as alot of people have said it is heavy, but then it does have a much bigger wing so therefore a lower wing loading than the models that weigh less with the smaller wings.

Hmm i would think that as long as you have a low wing loading it wouldnt matter how much it weighted. Just put a big enough motor on it to pull the wieght.

A low wing loading and alot of power makes a 3D plane doesnt matter if it weights 50 lbs when you get done as long as you have the power to pull it and a low wing loading to keep it from stalling.

Chad

Wing load and weight are directly proportional to one another huh? I dont think the overall weight matters as long as the wing area is proportional,,, which is what wing loading is.. The wing area in proportion to the weight.

I.E.... Whether its 5# or 50# or 5000# if the wing loading of an Edge 540T calls for 1# per 100 sq/in or whatever then anything over that its going to fly heavy, sink faster and be more prone to stall,,, anything under its going to fly light.. I think what 3D planes want is a wing loading that is LESS than what the actual design of the scale would call for so they are less likely to stall.. 3D planes like the UCD are designed with an extra light wing load for the same reason, like about 1# for every 133sq/in or somewhere thereabouts.. Thing is with the U CAN DO the wing load is SO light that you can afford to go to a heavier engine and STILL have a proportionally really light wing load.. I like the wing load right on the upper limit but where it can still do 3D maneuvers.. I like a plane with a high sink rate for elevators and junk like that...

Thats my opinion and its very much in laymans ideas, Im no aerospace engineer.. Just a thinking 3D guy..

this just comes from talking to people who've said the flip 3d is too heavy for proper 3d as it's heavier than most .40 size 3d machines in it's class. But then it's a much bigger plane than most other .40 planes, it's a good 3 inches bigger span and a much bigger chord than the C50. This is what I'm trying to get at. People should be worried about wing loading than weight?

I think you need to compare the Flip to models in its class ie not the C50 but the hype and formula 3d e.t.c

I should say that my innovation pro has 60 inch wingspan weighs 6lb and 3ds well on a saito 100.

Considering that 3D flying essentially ignores the wing for many maneuvers, I would say that weight (to thrust ratio) is more important than wing loading.

The wing is not ignored (or we would not bother with one at all). It is just as important on a 3d plane as it is on any other. Just because we stall it for many manouvers does not mean it is not important. Even in a torque roll the wing plays a part in giving stability to the plane.

As for the Flip being heavy are they refering to power to weight ratios? Ie you cant hover as well on a 46 as you would with other "40 size" similar planes? Don't know what weight a Flip usually comes out at.

Looking at the Kyosho web site, says that it should be 5 ot 5.5 lb. With a whopping 930 square inches (as much as some 25% aerobats!) it gives a very low wing loading of 12 - 14 oz per sq ft. Seems pretty good to me.

For my own purposes when looking at wing loading I look to a max of 15 oz/sqft for funfly winged planes (like the flip) and ideally a max of 20 oz/sqft on normal winged planes (like my C50 and C140). I suppose that answers the question, it is about wing loading not weight, though weight is an issue in terms of engine selection, which then raises the weight and increases the loading [&:]

But then the C50 can come with a funfly wing.

Wing loading. After all, the bigger a plane gets the heavier it gets, but it does not necessarily fly heavier. You can really ignore the weight in relation to ther models in the case of planes like the UCD3D and the flip. For instance, do you actually have a .40 on your flip? I would use a .72 or 100 on it for sure. For some reason though the guys that manufacture these planes insist on using bogus engine sizing numbers. Look at the UCD60, I wouldnt use less than a 100 on it. The UCD for, .72. Funtana .40, .72. Flip .40, 72-100... you get the idea.

-Ian

I'd have to say wingloading.

But, since wingloading and weight go hand in hand, one just needs to keep an eye on the wing's area and total weight to keep wingloading within acceptable limits for 3D. I don't think you can really ignore one or the other.

Just my theory, and worth exactly what you paid for it

Weight is the only thing that effects wing loading. But then, without weight there would be no wing loading. Its a catch 22. As said previously, weight and wing loading are in direct relation. Joe

exactly my point too cumn thru. Weight and wing load are one in the same..

IMHO,,, Bottom line, keep the wing load under 1# per hundred sq/in and the power/weight above 2:1 and you will be in the ballpark providing you have a plane that is designed in a way that will allow it to perform 3D maneuvers..


Mike

In my experience explosive power = explosive weight. the key is to get your light 46 to perform like a 90 with a cf tuned muffler. this will keep the weight/wing loading down and provide hours of hovering pleasure next to your ear.

Exactly, for an example I used an old Avistar trainer. 5 pound model, 19 oz. sq. ft. wing loading on a 602 sq. in. wing. Stall speed app. 17 MPH. Removed everything not esential to flight, right down to the cowl cheeks. That front nose gear was the biggest offender. At a now svelt, 4 lbs. with the same, lame, LA .46 and an 11/4 Zinger it will not only hover, it will do anything a trainer was not designed to do. Now the stall speed has been greatly reduced with a lower wing loading and it will float much easier. No dyhedral helped alot, but unless the positive wing and hor. stab incidence are removed it will never be a true competator. But at this point it is now one of the most gracefull little planes around. Basically, to address this issue, regardless of weight or size, I think a low wing loading is the biggest option one could look for in a model. Joe

I alwais look the wing loading when i buy or build a plane, the fun fly can stay about +- 15 oz/sq.ft., my Epsilon is +- 22oz/sq.ft,
last year a friend give me a present "quadra 35 cc" a very heavy engine, well the first i design is the wing and i take about 28 oz/sq.ft. and then i design the fuselage.
A lot of scale planes have about 30 - 32 oz/sq.ft

you can look the same " YAK " but a diferent builder, so look the wing loadin, one have 22 and the other have 28 oz/sq.ft, well i think, for me 22 oz/sq.ft is better to fly 3D.

Only you have to know what do you whant to fly...........

Weight and ability to handle an aft cg. Most 3D has the plane flying mostly on the prop. In my experience, 3D performance actually improves by shortening the span (increasing the wing loading). Also seems that most of the better 3D planes have an extremely aft neutral point that permits the use of aft cg's.

My 2 cents

Mike

Making the span shorter helps - but not because it increases wing loading.
I am surprised that so few "inquiring minds " never check thrust to weight - before they even try to resolve performance.
a simple 10 lb draw scale will check thrust for almost any engine up to a 91.
For basic workable performance --a 7 lb plane should have 9 lbs of static thrust -
also it helps to have short span and low wingloading.
As for aft cg - it helps but really makes a problem in some designs.
Here is the magic formula:
as much power as you can get PLUS as light as you can get it - none of the rest is all that important.

Dick,

sorry i'm just nitpicking here,

but what youre forgetting dick is that static thrust is very different to thrust in flight. youve got a lot of aerodynamic drag from the large controls and the thick wing e.t.c.

example
Some people get 9-10lbs static out of the irvine 53 but theres no way it'll climb a 7lb model out of a hover with any authority.

iF youre looking at static thrust to see what is suitable for a 3d plane then the thrust produced should be at least 50% more than the weight of the plane, if not more.

IMO the only way to choose a suitable engine is to find out what others recommend or just use your judgment, trying to keep it light as possible

well yeh sorta- with enough static thrust - hover is instananeous thrust.
The thrust tests are only meaningful for extreme low speed .
Also drag is really low at the 3D speeds - the thick wing really is not draggy - just quite insensitive to AOA.
Thick wings don't lift more - they just lift well over a broader set of flying angles
Best wing - thiiiiin as you can get -on the little stuff - flat is good.
If you can get an honest ,tested 1.5 to 1 thrust to weight - you have a solid working 3D hover model - It may fly like sh-- otherwise but it will hoer if YOU know how to do it.
I tested all of this stuff on a thrust stand I made for electric models -
My current electrics ( rimshot), have almost 2-1 some over -some over and they accelerate vertically so fast you can't believe it.

Thrust to weight of around 1.5/1 or better is pretty much a given. Used the shortened span to show the relative unimportance of wing loading, didn't mean to imply that its increase improved performance, that's due primarily to lower AR and relocation of the neutral point.

Mike

Thick wings don't lift more - they just lift well over a broader set of flying angles

this is the key, a candy bar shaped thick wing gives max lift for slow high alpha stuff, it slows everthing down so I can keep up with inputs. an airplane with a flat wing is like flying a high strung sports car - one wrong move and you are in the dirt. can't wait till these popular foamies have built up style wings and fuse.

Ray-- not so - yer EXTRA has a thin wing--

Pizza, I am already there. The third dimension brings back the real flight characteristics. This little model flies great and does it all. What a floater. Hollow airfoil, swept and tapered. Holow box construction fuse. 20 oz. AUW, 409 sq. in. wing area. HiMax 20/25 4200 Pheonix 25, 3 cell 2100 LiPo and a 12/6 SF prop. 42.4 oz. of thrust. Hang all day or KE flight that just won't quit. Tight KE loops. Hit this one right on with no coupling required. Loads of fun. Joe

Holly smoke!!! cumn thru just came thru, since I don't build I have been waiting for 2 years for someone to invent this exact built up style foamy, it looks right on - that wing should perform slow 3d and still snap and spin - I hope it is stiff and not tail flimzy. keep up the good work - do you think it would be possible to blow this one up to 1.2m with the same moments? that would be impressive with an outrunner.

for a long time I thought I was crazy for dreaming about this type of foamy, I nearly bought one of the thousands of profile/flat wing style foamies available, glad I held off, it won't be long now - leed, follow or get out of the way.

Pizza, What I did was to take Tim Harts design for the 3DX. I think those plans are on the FoamyFactory site. I wanted more than the two dimensional flat foam models. They lack when it comes to real flight. I did my best useing the TLAR method, 'that looks about right'. Call it dumb luck or maybe the attention given during the layout and design stage payed off, but this is one good performer. 3D Extra Foam. I didn't go with a fun fly wing, thats next, and yes, with this airfoil it will snap and spin, yet floats in comfortably. It will handle the speed as well. With the box construction fuse there isn't any flex in the tail like the profiles. I didn't want to wait for the tail to catch up in a manuever. The wing has one foam spar on each halve and believe it or not, the wing halves are just plugged into the fuse sides over a 1/4 inch collar that sticks out each side. No joiner, just a male female fitting glued on. No joiner and no CF in the wing and the results are no flex. All the strength comes from opposeing forces. Next I'm going to plagerize the Pigi. I can also see larger models. BTW, aside from assembling a couple ARFs, I never built a plane before. Glad you like it, Joe