Please explain to me?????
 

If weight is not an issue,then why do we have Carbon Fiber everything,spinners,wing tubes,landing gear,tail wheels,push rods,etc.Kevlar cables for pull-pull,flying wires,smaller and smaller servos,recievers,Titanium control links,Duralite batteries,lighter engines,the list goes on and on.If weight wasn't an issue,I don't think you would see all this light weight stuff available.Just bolt a .46 on your Pico Stick(and I am sure some of you have)and see how well it flies.No doubt "Light is Right"

Please explain to me?????
 

Nobody said weight wasn't an issue, read all the posts. The question is can wing loading get so low as to deteroriate the performance it the high-alfa arena. IMO they can, They tend to fly out of elevators, they look strange doing waterfalls, almost like lots of little outside loops, and they don't tumble as well. I do not belive a 5 pound 40 size extra will track better than my 40% Carden at over 30 pounds. Bigger/heavier flys better than small/light. If my Extra had a wing loading if 18oz/foot it would be a kite not a plane.

Please explain to me?????
 

A 40% Carden at 30lbs?
That is very low weight for one of those!
Bigger flies more full scale like of course but not even the full scale guys make em deliberately heavy -
Not everyone wants 40% models and yet they do want to maximize performance of their smaller models.
The way to do that is to really drop the wing loading, yet keep the power way up.
Pure inertia stuff -like the full scale Caps do is hard to replicate -but can be done with models as small as 400 squares.
Done it- but it requires a shorter coupled model.
Most of the little flip flop models use a very thick very low aspect ratio wing-
These types are excellent for hovers - flip very slow speed stuff-but will not dosnaps and stalled maneuvers well.
We have played with the Diablotin models - Excellent stuff -but you can't stall em!
By making a scalelike model - that is - thin wing and no hugely extended tail moment - the entire character changes.
The trick is to again reduce weight as far as possible and keep power up.
My 40cc model is actually easier to fly in accurate Unlimited sequences -than a 40% setup.


Try it.

Please explain to me?????
 

Dick would you consider a 4lb 15oz .40 size pattern type plane with 568 squares like my GP Venus to be a "brick"? This calculates to about 20 oz/sq foot wing loading dry. And about 23.5 oz/sq foot with a full tank.

Filip

Please explain to me?????
 

Dick, please post some pictures of this airplane. You've got me interested.

Please explain to me?????
 

Well -we went through almost the same thing the other day with a beautifully built House of Balsa Extra - -it was as light as any of them - and I think -under five lbs.
The problem tho -is that at our 4350 ft altitude - it simply has to keep scooting along to fly accurately - No really low speed stuff.
IF it was at say 15 oz to the foot - it would be easier to keep on line doing complex stuff and the speed could be reduced.
The problem -as you obviously know - is that these models are really tough to get that light .
They do fly very nicely -when power is availale to maintain speed.
As I mentioned - ther really aren't any kits done this way - -They would be considered too fragile by some kit makers.
I built some pattern planes way back when, at 600 squares and 4 lbs using the then new 46 RE OS- tho they flew well - if you slowed them down -they started to wander -
It is really a trick to get these littler ones to look as smooth as bigger ones - simply because the RN is so low that the weight has to really drop - to provide similar appearance in flight -that is slower and smoother.
I personally thing it is worth the effort-If you have the time to sort it out.

Please explain to me?????
 

Dick, my Carden weighs about 34 pounds, it was as light as I could make it because I do agree that light is better. Please don't miss my point I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that there are 3-D maneuvers that require a wing load high enough to allow for a violent stall and pivot around the CG, this becomes harder and harder as the load drops and requires more and more control surface deflection.
Filip, a Venus is not a brick and nobody is saying that it is,they are very good planes for the size. But it does not fly like a 2X2 pattern plane and it never will, this is not a put-down of the plane. Understand larger planes fly different then smaller its why large plane are becoming so popular.

Please explain to me?????
 

3-D maneuvers don't "requre a violent stall". Quite to the contrary, 3-D maneuvers require that you pass through stall to vectored thrust smoothly and quickly.

Think about a wall. If the airplane was heavy and stalled violently, you'd yank on the elevator and the plane would snap out on you. What you want is for the plane to immediately stop flying on the wing (passing through stall speed so fast there's no chance for differential lift to rotate you) and start flying on the prop.

Same thing with a blender, one of the most violent moves out there. You go from a spiral dive (aileron dive) to immediately way past stalled and quickly back to stalled again.

If the plane "stalled violently" you'd go from a spiral dive to a snap roll instead of to a flat spin.

And how about flying the airplane backwards? No violent stalls allowed!

Please explain to me?????
 

Please tell me that we are not associating wing loading with tracking? An arrow from a bow tracks well, as long as airspeed is there. Aerodynamics (design) and airspeed make for tracking. Who cares about wing loading when your rudder is 10 square feet in a cross wind and airspeed drops to critical. It has nothing to do with wing loading. Yes, wing loading allows slower flight, but that is almost due to a parachute effect. (Depending on airfoil effiency and wing design) Reynolds numbers figure in based on a "constant" air molecule size. I've seen T.O.C. planes (40% and up) with wing loadings over 30 ounces per foot seem to float nearly motionless. This is where Reynolds numbers apply. A 40 size plane would need a much lower loading to do the same at the same A.O.A. For aerobats I still believe that lighter is better. (For my style of flying anyway.) Because:
#1 Lift brings us up, and gravity pulls us down. (wing loading and design)
#2 A lighter plane turns better. Heavy ones mush. (inertia and wing loading)
#3 Lighter planes make more efficient use of thrust (power to weight)
I would say that for stalling manuvers, that there may be a "too light". Tumbles do need a bit of inertia. Many light fun flys won't Lomcevak. The rotation can't be carried through because the lightness allows the plane to try and fly. I guess the reality is no plane does it all. That's why I keep a fun fly, a scale aerobat, a speed plane, and a heli.

Just my opinion based on reading and listening. I still think Esprit is over priced too.

Please explain to me?????
 

Good weight for a Carden!
We designed a 40% Ca- and it is 37 Lbs -but it has a dual ca muffler setup that adds a couple of lbs-I also clipped the wings 4" each side. Very crisp .
I really wanted a model which flew like the 40% but was smaller and the only way I could see to do it was to make it so it would fly in the same kind of time frame as the big ones -
that is - it had to take more time thru any given maneuver -and that means it had to be even slower -as it would be flown closer.
It works -but it took work

Please explain to me?????
 

OOPS :D

Please explain to me?????
 

BarryB, a properly set-up 3-D airframe will NOT snap without rudder input. A waterfall is a series of stalls from upright to inverted in such a way the plane rotates around its CG, and thats violent. Don't make the assumption a violent stall requires speed. With a blender once the stall is established its maintained through the maneuver, it doesn't instantly go from positive to negative. And if you think entrance to a wall is a gentile stall, its hard to think of a more violent stress induced maneuver.
Dick, I would love to see it fly, you might even make a beliver out of me. :D
Tailtwister, you explained the tumbling better than I did :)
P.S. I agree Esprit models are too expensive for what they are.

Please explain to me?????
 

Stalling for a snap is airfoil, change the geometry and change the AOA required for a stall. Wing loading will just change the speed at which that happens (the way I understand it anyways).

But back to the lightweight in the wind thing, I have made many models that were mostly identical but different weights (not on purpose but that was the result), guess what when it got windy the lighter one was far easier to fly than the heavier one. Lighter models can accelerate faster, decelerate faster and require less throw to get the same result, this makes things much easier for the pilot, especially in the wind. Why do you think all the current fancy pattern models are shooting for 9.2 lbs etc?

I used to fly a 10lb Vector 2 meter model, now I have a 9lb 2 oz ZN Line Evolis, the Evolis is unbeatable in the wind compared to the Vector which was a handful to fly in more than 20 mph winds. I dont beleive that you can get an airplane too light.

Please explain to me?????
 

can773, do you 3-D you Evolis? because thats what this discussion is all about, and if the wind is at 20 mph I stay home. :)

Please explain to me?????
 

Considering its a purist pattern machine it 3d's very well, rolling harriers, elevators, torque rolls all day long are easily within its reach. It can sort of do a wall and parachute but it does not have the surface size or deflection (I only use 15-20 degrees max) to get into doing blenders waterfalls etc.

20mph you stay at home???? Test flight of the Evolis was in 30+ winds....

If you want to get technical the original post has nothing to do with 3D, you brought that up, this thread is about lighter being better in general.