Hello everyone,

I have been slowly improving my 3D skills flying a Lanier 30% Edge 540 with a 3W75 for power. I've been having a hardtime time with the slow speed/high alpha stuff because it keeps wanting to tip stall. I've done what I could to lighten it up as much as possible and was able to get the weight down to 20.5lbs and a wing loading of 32.0oz. I was wondering if there is a target to shoot for in terms of wing loading to expect really good 3D performance? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in adavance

Well my 3D Electric planes, like the Attitude which is all balsa and light plywood has a wing loading of 6 oz, needless to say it 3D'd better then any plane I ever flew.

I think the "target" for the giant scale 3d planes was somewhere like 22 oz?

the wing rock would stop and the plane would feel a lot better if it was under 28oz/ sq ft.

The larger the plane, the higher the wing loading can be to perform 3D.

If you look at the toc planes, they weigh 38-40#'s and have a wing loading of 33-35 oz/ sq ft.

My 39% Extra has a wing loading of 33 oz / sq ft
and
33% Edge is at 28 oz / sq ft.

The Edge will do every 3D maneuver in the book, and the extra will do them easier.

For your plane though, under 28 oz is where you need to be.

Guys how do you calculate the wing loading. Seems liek I should know by now because I need rto calculate my Aerworks 31% Edge wingloading to see where Im at. Its probably terrible but Ill see...

Thanks in advance

Dan

http://www.genesis-rc.com/wacoymf5/wing%20loading.htm
http://members.dca.net/mcquaide/Aerobatics/tools.htm

Here are a couple of site that may better explain wing loading.

At home I have a nice cubic calculator that I can't find here at work.
I tend to use cubic for the 33~40% as it's a better indicator for me_bob

Wing loading is a moving target-
IF you have enough power - wing loading is not a problem
IF you have a low enough wing loading - power is not a problem.
Back to what we typically get in the real world---
in 30% size aerobitic scale models -- aprox 1400 sq inches --
Power is hopefully 1.5 to 1-or MORE
wing loading is hopefully under 30 oz ft.
That is a pretty good combo-and can be had in some ARFS and BARFS
drop down to a 25% scale model of 1000 sq
Power is again hopefuly 1.5 -1 or more
wing loading is hopefully 25 oz ft or lower.
Hard to get in most ARFS and BARFS
Now -drop to a 500 sq in scale model
power again at least 1.5 to 1
Wing loading - under 20 oz to the ft or lower.
Finally a lil foamie of 300 sq in
power again at least 1.5 to 1
wing loading 8 oz ft or less.- I stay under 5 .
On my big planes - over 30 oz ft is fine

http://www.gsal.org/tools/Wing_Laoding.htm

I could be dead wrong on this, but isn't the plane not flying on the wing for most 3D? I'm not saying that the plane should have a ridiculously high wing loading but it seems like it really shouldn't have much of an effect for high alpha 3D.

Stick Jammer, for a high alpha maneuver like Harriers, I would agree with you, probably the shape of the tips are more important. For a maneuver like Elevators, weight and winglooading plays a role in how fast the plane falls, and thereby how fast the tips moves through the air, and low weight/wingloading is important. When you do walls or parachutes, lighter weight is better. A lighter plane, whch transforms to lighter wing loading, just makes 3D easier, the pilot and the engine has to works less against gravity.
DKjens

I should have added -
If the wing loading is too low - add more power.
That help?
OK- maybe that is too obtuse.
3D is an adventure into trying to convert fixed wing craft into vectored thrust vehicles.
It is fun - no doubt about it.
Getting one too light is tough--
If the inertial tricks are your bag, just keep sawing off wing area .
A helicopter is the ultimate 3D machine -

Dick Hansen says "A helicopter is the ultimate 3D machine" Actually the helicopter is the Only True Rc 3D machine. Some where fixed wing pilots got tripped up on the term 3D "3 Dimensional" which in the practical modeling world the helicopters are the only true 3Ders. Just because a fixed wing can Hover I dont think constitutes using the term 3D, Now a harrier maneuver isnt 3D really Its "High Angle Of Attack" But for sure the 3D term we have all adapted is with out a doubt here to stay. Now if we could hover upside down with the nose pointing down with a reversed pitch prop then it all changes.

Shouldn't this be.. if the wing loading is too high - add more power, or am I missing something.

I'll keep trying to lighten it up. Not sure what to do next though. I've done all the easy stuff, CF gear, CF wing tube, wheels and everything along those lines. I guess my next step is to cough the dough for some Duralite batteries. Was thinking of going to a ZDZ 80 but I think they're pretty close in weight so I'm not sure if it would be worth it. Anyway, I'll keep practicing. I'm sure the plane is very capable...just needs a better pilot.

Thanks for all the replies.

Geojungle99,

It sound like you are suffering from wing rock or a overactive elevator stick. I purchased one of those foam 3D planes, and it has totally improved my flying since I can fly a yard away and not kill anyone. Being up close really makes you pay attention to your control imputs. I have sucessfully taken my foamy experiance and moved it to my giant scale planes with wonderful results. My problems had nothing to do with my planes, but how I was flying my planes

Call me an "EDGE" hater--
Having built and helped on a few different EDGE designs- I simply don't like em - any of em.
IF--you can keep the wing loading low, they work well but as soon as you make them with higher wing loading , you have a model which is easily induced into "tip stall".
The typical setup is aft CG - as recommended for 3D by the kit maker.
The result - any strong application of elevator results in a roll .
Why?
wing layout
The straight LE and very high taper - makes for a setup which can easily change lift from side to side.
We worked with another one last week - same deal -
This one has moderate wing loading but the recommended CG is a bit much.
We had the owner shift the battery packs forward -a little at a time - till the result was a good flying model that was not prone to roll on application of elevator.
Setting the elevators at various throw s, showed that the roll is plain and simple a stall problem
Done light - they work but most ARFS I have tried - are simply a lot more fussy about abrupt pitch than swept LE setups.
The best of the bunch -so far - is the Dave Patrick one - it is also the one which typically comes out a lot lighter.
I did one of these with a ZDZ50 and it flew very well.
No roll on elevator unless I really pushed the issue.