Silvanskii

My Feedback: (17)

I like all forms of flying, providing the aircraft is flyable!

I think my flights at the SAE competition are suffice to say that, we had a 40 pound plane with a .61. Man that was fun, and I mean that very sincerely! It certainly weeds out the men among the boys in the RC flying world!

And to go along with that, flying a glider well is a very, VERY usefull skill in all aspects of flying. I used to compete with HLG's all the time.

glowplug

My Feedback: (1)

This is some interesting reading........but I'm wondering why the conflict with a few of these posts?

Who Cares?? If you want to fly on the wing, do it, if you want to fly on the prop, do that too. If a guy loses his 35% Extra in a deadstick because he can't fly on the wing, that's his problem....but people shouldn't curse him because he's flying 3D on the prop.

The PIPE

Dear SDR-Hammer:

The PIPE here AGAIN...and since my 5.5 lb 20 year old Balsa USA SWIZZLE STICK 40, a.k.a. "Swizzler", is powered with a "pre-Surpass ORIGINAL model" OS FS-40 four stroker...



...it sure DOES "fly on the WING"...no kiddin' about THAT!

It's so RELAXING to guide that dear old bird around the skies of my club's ( http://www.wingbusters.org/ ) field in Halifax, MA, flying site that I was PLEASED to remember...I was AWAY from RC for fifteen years (1986-2001)...and even though, due to a NUMBER of mountains of CLUTTER in my mother's house that need attending to (where I'm STILL living-at 46 years of age!) my dear old Swizzler IS still my ONLY flyable plane these days...and it IS in the final stages of a repair cycle from a solar glare caused CRASH in September 2003...and IT can manage JUST FINE, "flying on the wing", with that OS FS-40 four stroker at only 35% throttle, in a stately SLOW form of level flight!

I DO have a Sig Four Star 60 kit to get converted into a "just-for-fun-CROPDUSTER", to be powered with a twenty year old OS FS-90 REAR camshaft four stroke I've had since it was new in 1983...and TWO nice 1/6th scale scratchbuilt bipes (Jungmeister and Fleet) to get back in the air as well (SERIOUS oil soaking on the Jungmeister, and hangar rash repairs on the Fleet- and NEW Saito four strokes are already in my possession for BOTH of those) next year AFTER the clutter gets addressed over the next few months...but my dear old Swizzler IS nearly ready to be AIRBORNE again, and it sure DOES do it "on the wing"......I wouldn't have it ANY other way!

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE!

ballgunner

My Feedback: (1)

I learned to fly full scale when you cut the engine on downwind (remember carburetor heat) and never opened it again until it was taxi time. Instructors often pulled the throttle and asked where will you land? and you had better have a reasonable answer if you wanted your ticket. Another part was learning to fly as slowly as possible without stalling or losing altitude. We have an RC instructor who insists that the students learn the same slow flying techniques as part of their learning process. In other words before you can really fly you should know all the realms of flight that may appear when you are in the air. After you are familiar with everything, then go out and smash bugs on the leading edges, hover, roll and anything else you can accomplish within the limits of your model. Just don't forget the basics.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

If you cannot fly the wing, you don't slow flight. If you cannot slow flight, you don't land but you 'arrive' one way or another.

I teach slow flight figure 8's as the step before beginning on approaches. The slow flight they need to land and the left and right turns they need to correct the approach path.

Ever back a plane up? Great fun!

taxman232ex

So tell me - are you guys that are the "flying on the wing" advocates the same guys that yell landing and need 4 football fields to line it up and glide it in.

The guys with the giants do more "flying on the wing" than any of these small sport planes.

Taxman

MarkNovack

My Feedback: (3)

Flying on the wing!!! What does that mean? Why is that so fun? What is the big challenge? I have flown the underpowered trainer in circles and figure eights, barrelled rolls, stalled into spins, gently lifed it from the ground when the grass was not cut, and normally ran the motor dry in the air for the last flight of the day before landing and it presented no particular challenge. No, I had my goals set before I finished my first airplane. A powerful airplane capable of performing any manuever that had been invented and capable of inventing some new ones; an airplane that had only one limiting factor...me, the pilot.

Now, the one-roll rolling-loop and the 3-roll rolling-circle with rolls outside/inside/outside, those are some figures that are challenging me these days. The half loop inverted to upright with full roll is not too easy either. Even the stupid old Cuban 8 with 4/8 1st leg and 2/2 second leg gets difficult when a judge is sitting behind you using your score sheet to mark and hold the entry altitude, ready to downgrade what started as a ten until you initiated the manuver. Those are some figures that I fly on the wing, and fuselage side, and rudder, and elevator, and ailerons, and lots of throttle management. Want a real challenge? Perfect those figures with a 25mph cross wind then land between the lateral 60s on the 90 line.

In reference to Glowplug's statement of an losing an Extra because of a deadstick, gliding in a 35% 3D capable machine presents a far greater challenge than nursing in a Pietenpol with things happening far faster with much greater criticality. If one believes that struggling a sleepy J-3 around in circles qualifies one to take the sticks when the motor quits on some hotshot's 40% Edge...guffaw guffaw.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what this thread is all about anyway. I thought is was a little troll'esque in conception.

Regards and happy flying on the wing (hee-hee).

Mark

jettstarblue

To each his own, then. Everyone is entitle to there own happiness, and opnion of what's "fun".
Have fun landing that super duper high performance, highly loaded plane when the engine quits, without the ability or knowledge to fly on the wing.

Jetts

BillHarris

There is nothing wrong with "flying on the wing". It is fun and can be a challenge.

My current favorite plane is a GWS SlowStick powered by a 400-size electric motor and set up for an aerial photography platform. It can take off on a dime and land on a nickle. Given enough patience it can get up to 1200' altitude. Make that "lack of wind", patience sometimes doesn't work... Photo appended below; sorry for the fuzziness, I cropped it from another I had on hand.

To each their own...

--Bill

glowplug

My Feedback: (1)

Jetts,
I think what Mark's point was, flying on the wing is much more difficult in the super duper high performance plane when the engine quits. When a guy puts one in from a deadstick, remember that it's much more difficult to bring that plane back. Because a large aerobatic plane might crash when it's deadstick defintely DOES NOT mean that the pilot can't fly on the wing. I'm sure that ANY good 3D pilot could fly on the wing in a plane that's made for it. Many people think that "you just mash the throttle to get you out of trouble" in a 3D plane that flies on the prop, but this isn't always true. There is much more to it than that.

I'm not criticizing anybody for their flying style....to each his own, and that's perfectly fine with me........but for the guys that think flying on the prop and doing 3D is easy, they should give it a try sometime.

althepal

OK, my turn to give my opinion!

There are few manoeuvers in the book that WILL require to fly the wing!
the required one is landing, unless of course we practice carrier type landings. Flying the wing is flirting with stall at times, either accelerated stall or approach to landing stall, clean or dirty configuration, departure stall full power....a stall is a stall, the wing quits flying!
A good landing is nothing else that a stall when the plane is in ground effect( remember the old half wingspan rule). The heavier the wing loading, the faster the airspeed....that is why some .60 power warbirds are so touchy!
another important skill when flying the wing is to use coordinated controls! rudder is the forgoten child here, and when close to stall, it is more efficient than ailerons, and does not disrupt the very thing that keeps your wing flying....Angle of attack!
what about a spin? full elevator, idle, rudder....bingo here it goes.
I enjoy watching aerobatics, but even if the new planes are impressives, models and full scale...let's admit it it is BRUTAL. even a Pitts is brutal....now, see a waco or stearman, or even better, a Stampe or a Bucker... energy management was the key...a little dive to build airspeed, then perform the manoeuver...I did someof that in perhaps one of the best aerobatic trainer, a Decathlon, in full scale...there was noway to perform even a roll without building up airspeed.
I was fortunate enough to have met an aerobatic airshow team during my flight school days, and sinve we spoke the same language, we did sympathize...I did end up taking some lesson with them in Florida, on a Cap 10...spent a few hours to learm how to use a rudder, but it was well worth of it. Sadly, they both lost their lives on a practice flight a few years ago!
We have a wonderfull hobby, so many possibilities. There is something for everybody in this.
I like to give my opinion here, I do not intend to crticize any comments from other fellows flyers, but as a scale type builder and flyer, I try to fly closer to scale also...and this requires to fly the wing for most of the flight! It is a skill that is not so hard...just keep it a few mistakes high and once mastered, can be helpful to save a plane or at least reduce the damage. Anyway, to each is own... and let's enjoy the hobby
Al

bgruenba

Flying on the wing is an important skill to learn and you can learn it by simply limiting the amount of throttle you give the plane.

Saying that you cannot fly unless you fly an underpowered plane out of trouble all the time is nonsense. We have a field that is literally a horseshoe of 60 to 80ft trees with a narrow opening to the North. It is irrational to underpower the plane at this field because if you take off to the South you have to clear 80ft to avoid hitting a tree.

Now we have a 600ft grass runway and you could probably just do it if you had a good run from the North threshold. The problem is that if you have a headwind like we had yesterday you're never going to get that puppy to lift off in time to clear the top of the trees.

Also, the windsheer coming in through the opening from the North can cause you to lose enough altitude during an approach that you have to abort the landing. There is no substitute for power at that point to get out without crashing your model.

For the most part, the guys at my field overpower their planes for exactly this reason and spending that extra $40 or $50 on the right engine to save the plane is worth it. I cannot see the point in crashing a plane into the trees just because you did not have enough power to get out of there.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

About the only time *I* need more than a hundred feet or so to set up a landing is when I am doing full throttle touch and goes. You?

He who cannot ‘fly on the wing’ eats lots of planes..unnecessarily.

althepal

AGREED. My observation was to highlight that most airplanes reqire "flying the wing" at times, depends of what part of the enveloppe we fly, And yes, there is nothing wrong about some extra power in reserve! A not so pretty landing is far better than a total write-off

rockmon

I don't think that flying a plane that will just barely make it off of the ground shows any particular level of skill and can't imagine why someone would even want to do it. If flying at just above a stall is what you call flying on the wing then just about every guy in my club has attained this all mighty skill level. One of the things I find the most fun of this sport is flying my planes as slow as possible and dragging the tail wheel down the runway without touching the mains on the ground but I also enjoy knowing I can gun the engine and have the power to get back in the air. So I guess that's flying on the wing with a crutch hey? I do agree that people tend to not use the rudder enough and I am as guilty as the next guy when it comes to not using the rudder. One thing I have noticed is ever since I have been trying to do 3D I use my rudder now more than ever. Is that flying 3D on the wing? See I don't understand the term "flying on the wing" I guess, I figured I was always flying on the wing. Or maybe I do understand it I just don't understand someone flying an under powered plane and just because they manage to get it in the air they think there is some special skill level or term that should be assigned to this foolishness.

jettstarblue

rockmon,

Flying on the wing is not what you appear to think it is. It's not flying an underpowered model that will "barely make it off the ground", but being able to fly on the wing WILL allow you to do this safely.
I note the sarcasm in your post, but then you say you don't really understand what this is.
Yes, it's great fun to fly an overpowered plane and do ungodly crazy ass things with it, but without the ability to "fly on the wing" you can get any plane into trouble that you may not be able to get out of without this "mighty ability".
Park flyers (a lot of them anyway) fly on the wing a lot moreso than a 3-D plane.

Flying on the wing is simply the ability to use the wing as efficiently as possible and not rely on excess power to save the plane, or pull it through manouvers. Most aerobatic full scale planes fly on the wing, or wouldn't be able to perform their routines.
I once had a student that truly believed he could overpower his plane, and said "If I get into trouble, I'll just point it straight up, and fly out." I don't think I need to point out the absurdity of this statement, and guess who was one of only two students that never did learn to fly, broke all his stuff, then after pronouncing the sport to "just be a bunch of bullshiot" left and never came back?

althepal

That's right!

FLYING the wing....would be interesting to know what glider pilots have to say about that...after all, they do that at all time!
Our models are subject to the same aerodynamic laws as the full scale ones!
take a Cessna 152! talk about an low powered airplane! still, it is the most used trainer! A difficult airplane to fly clean, rock steady.... and still, a stable trainer...Hell, it flies like a .40 basic trainer! Power is not the issue in flying the wing, energy management is. A stall turn is just an exemple, you have to kick the rudder at the precise right time...
By the way, I do not see what kind of lift is created by the wing on a hover maneuvre in a 3D routine, unless we cosider the lift created by the prop( it is a wing after all).
This is a very interesting discussion, and I hope a few more readers join the frey and give their opinion.
I still remember my flight instructor so many years ago...Power for altitude, pitch for airspeed ! But bolt a .91 engine on a .40 frame....yeah, it will move it, but how? and with what stress?
Any of you ever folded the wing in flight?

Al

blw

My Feedback: (3)

As a former instructor pilot for underpowered military helicopters, I can say that it teaches pilot technique...or else you torched a turbine engine or smashed an overloaded aircraft into the ground when landing. Before the larger tailrotor blades on the OH-58A, you could lose an aircraft in a spin from a tailrotor stall if you tried to power the aircraft around instead of letting it fly. You learn things you never thought about before to save your butt and your finesse builds along the way.

One thing a guy showed me when I showed up at my first assignment is a technique he called "no attitude change" flying. He kind of adopted me under his wing. We spent days at this isolated field doing patterns over and over and over. We would take off, fly the pattern, and land with zero pitch changes. The helicopter stayed as flat on takeoff, acceleration, and approach to landing as it was when sitting on the ground. You can do it, but it requires meticulous power management and being in front of the aircraft at all times. I learned more in that game than probably anything else I practiced. That definately falls under the flying on the wing category. A few pounds of unnecessary power and you lost pitch control. A few millimeters of unnecessary stick movement and you lost it too.

When I'm alone at the field I try to fly a tank of gas at the lowest throttle settings and least control inputs that I can get away with. It always amazes me to watch the plane fly instead of being pulled around and controlled excessively.

ballgunner

My Feedback: (1)

Yeah! Backed up a Piper PA11 in 50+ wind. Landed the same airplane with a roll out of less than 10 feet. Sure is wierd to try to taxi with 3/4 throttle and making any turns while on the ground can put you down side up in a flash. If I were still active in full scale I'd have someone kick me very hard for being so foolish.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I have flown on the wing.

An $18K dollar turbine, deadstick with full fuel, 75 ounce wing loading. Forgot to remove the tank vent cover.

iflyj3

My Feedback: (7)

There are pilots and there are airplane drivers. Watch the landings and you can tell which is which!

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Yes, pilots are artists. I still have not figured out what we might call airplane drivers, but I don't enjoy flying or riding with them. Those multi truck mains through the runway sure do hurt my sense of right and wrong!

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

"Flying on the wing" Hmmm. Does that include the ability to recognize when the plane has exceeded it's ability to continue controlled flight due to excessivr angels of attack, or loss of power? Perhaps a good starting point.

IMO, flying on the wing is using the airframe efficiently and effectively when things go a little "wrong". This could be from full or partial engine failure, pitching or turning to steep, inadvertant spins, etc. It's just the ability to put the nose of a plane in the proper attitude to let the wing regenerate lift and for the controls to resume effectiveness. Then to not over control the plane into another "catch up" situation.

Even over powered, some planes because of design traits, will have to be "flown on the wing" when exiting a given manuever. Horsing the plane when it does not have enough flight speed, due to lack of engine size, or after using up the stored available energy during a manuever, will almost always put the flyer in a critical decision mode. You either point the nose down, regardless of altutide or attitude to regain airspeed, or you lose control.

As those that have been flying grossly over powered fun fly types of planes move up to larger aircraft, the ability to "fly on the wing" will be learned quickly, or at great expense, or both. Even the large 3D planes will need the nose pointed earthward from time to time. As the saying goes, if you want to go up, pull the stick back a little bit. If you want to go down quick, pull the stick back real hard and hold it.

Style is sometimes a matter of neccessity, not choice.

rockmon

Airplane drivers I like that, I think I'm starting to understand the flying on the wing thing and for some reason the airplane driver statement made it all so clear. I am sorry for the sarcasm but there was just something about someone bragging about flying a plane that will just barely get off the ground, it just doesn't make sence to me to even do it let alone assign a skill level to it and in fact seems down right dangerouse. I suspect that over the years of flying I have had to fly certain planes "on the wing" like having a flameout right after take off and having to get your plane on the ground in one piece with almost zero airspeed and I had a P-51 once that I'm sure I was flying on the wing on every flight but was just thinking I was flying it scale. I'm begining to understand what is meant by flying on the wing and I think that anyone who stays in the hobby any length of time has achieved that flying skill or they would not have a plane to fly. Maybe it's just not thought of as flying on the wing anymore and I believe we all do it and it's not some soon to be lost skill. Then again I think that even guy's that assemble arf's are modelers so I could be wrong.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

It appears that most of the posts do not agree with the term "flying on the wing". I learned to fly on a high wing trainer. What made this trainer unique was that it employed a semi symeterical airfoil. If you examine the typical trainer now flown by the vast majorityof model it uses the standard Clark Y airfoil. The lift generated by the Clark Y at high angles of AOA far exceeds that of a semi symeterical type.
The average beginner, flying a model utilizing a Clark Y airfoil at slow airspeeds, normally is always flying on the wing. When the beginner switches to a non Clark Y airfoil and attempts to fly this model in the same style as that of his previous aircraft problems begin to surface.
To overcome these problems the beginner must relearn how to fly this new airfoil selection.
So, flying on the wing is not a dying skill but one that is constanly being relearned.