The problem with using the term 3D, is that ALL flying airplanes are in 3D. a hover is a flight atitude or angle of attack if you will but 3-D says nothing useful, its a plane so of course its operating in three dimensions.

We sorta stole the term 3D from the heli guys. So I blame it on them

I am pretty sure the term 3D is used wrong BUT that is what has been picked so it would help to use it b/c its not going to change. Over simplified it means that its a movement thats not in the airplanes flight path (usually flight beyond the stall). Picture up and down as a dimension and left and right as a dimension. Any other movement or lack of movement or progression could be considered a third dimension.
What it boils down to is that Heli pilots came up with it. Anybody who flies a mixing blender that will chop off heads and hands is bound to come up with something outrageous . Laying all jokes aside (I'm not a heli fan since one ate through my trailer) Helis do perform 3D flight b/c of their ability to fly back wards and whatever else they do. The airplane guys just tagged our outrageous style of flying 3D after what the Heli boys do.

I don't like 3D either, especially because it sounds like it was named purely out of the coolness factor, but traditionally in sports the person that comes up with the new move that nobody else has done before in competition is the person who gets name it. i.e. the names skate board kids name their tricks.

...says Spongebob Just kidding.

We're not skateboarding. Model airplane maneuvers are typically named after their charactaristics. I.E. it's usually a description of the maneuver.
Such as blender, wall, torque roll, harrier, so on and so forth.

We cant help it. We are the "cool ones" that catches everybodys eye, what do you expect us to name our moves? A victory roll? CHEESY!!

Hey, it's just my personal optinion. Call it whatever you want. I'm not running for govener or anything but I'd like to vote on the next random nonsense name to be baby-walking-a-skunk. Makes about as much sense as 3D.

btw, I'm just kidding. Check my avatar if you're ever in doubt.

Sponge Mike Square Pants

"Makes about as much sense as 3D"

Come on now!! Its always those who cant do it that talk about it like that. You know 3D is the 2nd hardest style of flying do learn Precision aerobatics being the first.

Hay, I'm not that bad of a pilot. I just said I don't like it [for myself] and the name makes no sense. If you and others enjoy it I can still be happy for you. I however think a 3D plane with a much more tame engine would fit my style very well. I'm not sure I could handle myself if somebody at the club ask me why I don't fly 3D with my 3D plane or why I have an OS 40LA on it.

I'm with you, Layne

What do you fly, Mike?

I properly love and care for my 3D airplane by feeding it the best engines

3DFanatic:

Here are some specific things I like...

Really low-slow, really low-slow inverted, rolls, flat turns, really slow without the engine thrust helping. I hardley ever go vertical and almost never do loops so I don't need much power. Small field capable would save me from driving 45 minutes to fly.

I've seen many videos people post here and I love the way the 3D planes fly all the turns, loops, rolls at low speed but when they start "hanging" on the prop it's too weird for me. I fear change.

Is 3D for me? Want to suggest a plane (OS .46 LA on my bench is begging to get used)? Wouldn't it funny if I ended up liking it (3D) after all the bashing I did.

For a LA, it'd have to be very light. 4lbs or less would be great.

Maybe you should look into the Fun Air 40. They do everything a magic does (but better) plus it looks a heck of a lot better than the Magic.