Ive been 'out of the game' for a while, and Im now getting back in. I keep seeing 3D aerobatics thrown around, and have never heard of it, and was wondering what exactly it is??

At first I thought it meant a type of plane, which it seems it does to an extent, but now I think it must be a type of aerobatics pattern, or something.

any help appreciated.

thanks!

clay

this was asked a little while back, this should explain it quite well




[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/whats_3D_flying%3F/m_1085239/tm.htm]the answer is here[/link]

The long and short of it is: 3D flying is using all 3 directional surfaces and quite offen beyond the stall

to put it even shorter then that: a hell of a lot of fun!

you use all 3 directions of control in 'normal' flight any way

3d flight IS ALWAYS beyond the stall, thats what defines the term '3d'

To expand slightly on whats been said, 3d flight IS where the wing is stalled ie the Angle of Attack of the wing is greater than about 15 degrees. However the control (and some lift) is generated by the blown slipstream of the propwash over very large control surfaces with around 50 degrees (or more) of throw. Also the CG is set to be quite aft such that at the stall the plane won't pitch forward out of the stall. This makes it harder to fly, but capable of the 3d maneuvers. And obviously a powerful engine swinging a large props helps!

Andy

I'm with Ian. It's a heluva lot of fun. And it earns you respect with the peanut gallery who couldn't hover if they had someone hold the plane straight up :PPP

3D is both controlled stalled flight and near zero airspeed flight - nothing more.

Aft CG, extreme throws, monster power, etc. refer more to what specific planes need to 3D. This really has nothing to do with the description of 3D flight. My "3D" plane has a very normal CG and I have reasonable (30 degree) throws, yet it 3D's just fine. Setup will really depend upon the plane. Aft CG will depend upon the plane design. In general, I think the only universal 3D setup is one needs more power than weight and controls that provide enough authority to control the plane past the stall.

AOA really only applies in forward flight, but for the most part that is correct. In a TR, one could say the AOA is actually zero as the flight path of the plane (up) produces a AOA of zero on the wing. A better description of a TR is then very low airspeed flight not high alpha. But that is probably splitting hairs, but thought it should be pointed out.

Quiche invented 3-D. His name for it is flying beyond the stall. His name fits better but dosn't sound as cool. later david

We could call it "Quiqueing" that sounds kinda neat

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Chip Hyde started playing around with torque rolls and such at a TOC. Mr. Somenzini, being at the same TOC, saw that, ran with it, and added a bunch of "3D" at the next TOC. If that is true, then Chip is really the father of 3D... in which case it should be called Hyding... which is sometimes what I must do when 3D is "flown" by some at my field.

Hey Guys,
Did you see discovery channel Wing's Aerobatics program? They showed a segment of our 1/3 and 40% ers doing 3D. Also commenting on how this is impacting full scale aerobatics. Is it possible that we are (or will be) major influences on the world aerobatic sceen?
Do to the fact that we have the benifit of electronics (Expo, Mixing etc...) full scale planes are struggling to duplicate our manuvers.
Interesting or what?
RickP

Yes I saw that and I believe it. I want to see Kirby Chambliss do a blender. We even have the name for it. Unfortunatly I think his stomach would come out of his nose if he tried that, and then engine/prop would break apart. Would be neat tho.

I don't think that our models doing 3D maneuvers is a result of expo or mixing. I think it is due to our models being extremely lightweight compared with the full scale, as well as withstanding higher G loadings than most people can. Some of the stuff that I've seen Kirby do is amazing though.

RickP and Snowskate69: It is interesting that full scale is starting to copy some model 3D maneuvers. I think Kirby does something called a Cobra. Never seen it but someone told me they saw it on Ripley's Believe it or Not. I don't know this for sure as I got this info third hand, but I sounds like he pulls to a wall, hovers breiefy, and then pushes the nose back level to fly out.

As for why there isn't more full scale 3D. Sure, some maneuver like a blender would probably extrude the pilot thru all thier orafices not to mention gyroscopic forces would probably bend the crank. But as for stuff like hovers, harriers, etc., I think a lot of the problem resides in the fact that many of these maneuvers are outside the envelope of the plane. I doubt expo or anything like that has anything to do with it. Besides, you could easily get expo mechanically in a full scale. As full scale starts to mount more power up front, and airframes become lighter, I think we will be seeing more and more 3D stuff from full scale.

There's a video of Kirby flying somewhere. I'm sure it's on his website. Not the best vid, but right after takeoff the guy pops it right into a Harrier right down the runway! It also shows him doing the "Cobra", pretty much a hard pull-up like a Wall.

Ive got it someware
AMAZING! how do i upload it on this

You need to upload it to another site and give a link here. You can't upload that large of a file here, plus the bandwidth issues.

The main reason 3D wasn't around before a few years ago is that the engines weren't powerful enough for the airplanes.

It's pretty interesting.....I've seen that 40% scale airplanes weight around 40-50 lbs....When their full scale couterparts weights something like 800lbs....(Edge 540)....The scale refers only to the dimensions then, not to the weight. 40% of 800lbs is something around 350lbs....(!!!) It would be interesting to see a full-scale Edge 540 weighting just a little over 100lbs....
I guess that this achievement (light-weight and high power) is largely due to the light and yet powerful engines available today....From analysing the 3W engine series, it's produces around 1HP for every 10cc...So a 3W100B2i (100cc) produces 10HP....I have here an old (I mean really old, something like 40 years) engine with 250cc, weights 17 or 18 kg and produces 9HP that my father used in his homemade car.......Definetely not flyable with this weight....

As I said earlier it would be interesting to see a full-scale airplane with a weight a little over 100lbs.....But would it be possible applying the same structural design of 40 and 50% airplanes?????