ORIGINAL: iFLYrc_Vic
Paul,
I have a fun fly that I burn holes in the sky with. I have a Sunray (RCM plans) that I go fast with. I also have a few scale planes that I fly in a scale like manner - Cessna 182, Flivver, Ryan STA, Lancair ES. My thoughts are that you should fly the plane for what it was designed. In some very early messages after I posted some info on my first Lancair, someone asked me "if it would snap roll". I was somewhat perturbed by the inquiry as I thought, if you want a plane to do aerobatics why not buy one that was designed for that (Extra 300 or something like that). I know that GP advertises that the Lancair will do some aerobatics but why put it through the extra stress?
Don't get me going on the topic of how one should fly a scale plane - it is simple - fly it like the full scale!!
--------------
I understand your thinking. But one must realize that there are folks (me!) that love to fly planes like Cubs, etc., in a most unscale-like manner. Seriously.
Also, the design characteristics that cause a full size plane to perform a certain way seldom directly translate to the flight characteristics of a much smaller model airplane replica of the full size subject airplane.
Certainly, there is no engineering transfer at all regarding airframe strength, power-to-weight ratio, etc.
Model manufacturers should design/assemble model aircraft to withstand the worst kind of abuse possible, other than outright bashing the model into a hard surface. It doesn't cost that much to utilize an adequate piece of plywood for the firewall and the wing dihedral brace. Ditto landing gear blocks.
I see nothing inherently wrong with a two-piece main landing gear assembly, as long as it is designed properly and built with adequately strong materials consistently.
Ed Cregger