thrust to weight ratios
#2

My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Deland,
FL
ORIGINAL: fnp
Can somebody please tell me the the thrust to weight ratio for:
1. Trainer
2. Sport
3. Aerobatic
4. 3D
Thanks
Can somebody please tell me the the thrust to weight ratio for:
1. Trainer
2. Sport
3. Aerobatic
4. 3D
Thanks
2. Sport >0.8:1
3. Aerobatic >1:1 ,
4. 3D >1.5:1, prefer >2:1
My opinion
#4
Banned
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: gone,
LOL... for full scale maybe...
The average R/C trainer has close to 0.8:1
People don't seem happy with a sport model that doesn't have at least 1.3:1
The average Pattern competition airplane is approaching 1.8:1 now (headed up Most of the Pattern ships at the local fiels will hover at 1/2 to 2/3 throttle)
The 3D guys want 2.5:1... If they can get it, they'd take more and still complain it wasn't enough.

The average R/C trainer has close to 0.8:1
People don't seem happy with a sport model that doesn't have at least 1.3:1
The average Pattern competition airplane is approaching 1.8:1 now (headed up Most of the Pattern ships at the local fiels will hover at 1/2 to 2/3 throttle)
The 3D guys want 2.5:1... If they can get it, they'd take more and still complain it wasn't enough.
#5

My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Deland,
FL
Well, you've quoted figures (exagerated a bit) that are GREATER THAN the figures I have. But then notice I was using this curious little symbol > Wonder what that means? 
To say that the average sport model has a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1:1 would be pretty silly.

To say that the average sport model has a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1:1 would be pretty silly.
#6
Senior Member
ORIGINAL: Johng
Well, you've quoted figures (exagerated a bit) that are GREATER THAN the figures I have. But then notice I was using this curious little symbol > Wonder what that means?
To say that the average sport model has a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1:1 would be pretty silly.
Well, you've quoted figures (exagerated a bit) that are GREATER THAN the figures I have. But then notice I was using this curious little symbol > Wonder what that means?

To say that the average sport model has a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1:1 would be pretty silly.
You'll get used to it.
#7
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
It's not uncommon to see a bunch of guys at the field with 3.5 pound planes with 5 pounds of thrust, but if you average them in with the weak sisters, the figure goes way down. In other words trying to establish any averages with sport flyers is meaningless. The other figures for trainers, and 3D sound pretty valid.
#8

My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Deland,
FL
I guess now is when we would need to define a "sport flyer" airplane then. I mean, these guys the 3 lbs airplane and 5 lbs thrust. Do they come to the field just to go up for a couple laps, loops, rolls, maybe a spin or an inverted pass? or do they use that thrust to hover, etc? To me, the former is the definition of a sport flyer, and the latter would push them into the 3D category. Or are they flying 3D for sport ?

#9
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
HI JOHN! A lot of the high powered examples of what I've seen were deltas, Q500, Lazy B, club combat, all being flown for the hell of it, and mostly pretty hard to say came anywhere near the description of 3D aircraft. A lot of guys are catching on to taking foam electric ARFS, and outfitting them for glow. A quick coat of polyurethane fuel proofs them, and they make great sport flyers. The natural tendency to goof off with your sport plane is what spawned 3D, and there are guys hovering their Lazy Bs, Q500s, etc., but I haven't seen any of these sport plane examples cross the line into rolling circles, waterfalls, pinwheels, etc. On the other hand, the run of the mill ARF LEAD SLED TRAINER with a 1hp 40 still shows up in strong enough numbers to bring the average back down into the .75:1 range!



