View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll
Do you "modernize" the structure?
12-03-2008, 12:39 PM
#1
Do you "modernize" the structure?
I'm at a rather advanced stage of building a scale bipe from 1968.
The wings according to the plans are attached with rubber bands.
Do you "modernize" to nylon bolts or do you build exactly as per plan?
The wings according to the plans are attached with rubber bands.
Do you "modernize" to nylon bolts or do you build exactly as per plan?
12-03-2008, 01:12 PM
#3
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
I build for scale competition. I build from a lot of vintage plans. I modify the plan to adjust for non-scale outlines. That is not going modern, just correcting a screw-up. One of the biggest are the inclusion of down and right thrust being built into the airframe. Wing and tail attachments are another. I did this before there were modern methods. Right and wrong have no time lines.
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
12-03-2008, 02:39 PM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Interlochen, MI
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
If I'm building for a specific "old time" look I tend to go with the plan, at least externally. Otherwise you know how it is with model builders...we just HAVE to change something and wing attachment is usually the first consideration I make if rubber bands are shown on the plans. That said, I have an Andrews Aeromaster kit that I will be building up per the plans...rubber bands and all!
Soft landings.
Joe
Soft landings.
Joe
12-03-2008, 03:30 PM
#5
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
I think engines and servo's are cheaper and much more powerful now. The main thing I try to upgrade is the hardware and linkages for stiffer control surfaces with less slop. Many of the vintage designs I've built were over-designed structurally for the day and rarely need much added reinforcement even in anticipation of higher speeds and flight loads. On the sport stuff I at least attempt to keep the vintage look externally. I agree that for scale wrong is wrong no matter the age.
12-04-2008, 12:36 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rock Hill,
SC
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
My Goldberg Shoestring kit had an amazing internal wing hold down, with a plywood shear plate that is a perfect piece of engineering. I used it, with the only change being socket-head 4.40 bolts, instead of the original slotted ones. Works perfectly, completely internal except for a 1/8 hole in the bottom of the fuse.
On the Skylark 56 twin I kept the #64 rubber bands except for the tail, which I glued on. Like Dan said, unless you are trying to win a VCRS contest, go with modern. I personnely think rubber bands work just fine. Russ Farris
On the Skylark 56 twin I kept the #64 rubber bands except for the tail, which I glued on. Like Dan said, unless you are trying to win a VCRS contest, go with modern. I personnely think rubber bands work just fine. Russ Farris
12-04-2008, 07:56 AM
#7
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Mt. Pleasant,
OH
Posts: 1,249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
I often modernize structural things that don't change the look of the airplane, such as laminated flying surface tips and outlines instead of multiple pieces, or making changes to the way the pylon mounts on SAM-type oldtimers. Changes like these tend to make the airplane last longer and fly more consistently.
I also use modern covering materials, mostly for the durability and cost savings, but I also enjoy doing different color schemes, things I would have done years ago had today's materials been available.
I also use modern covering materials, mostly for the durability and cost savings, but I also enjoy doing different color schemes, things I would have done years ago had today's materials been available.
12-04-2008, 09:01 PM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oakdale, CT
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
Joe:
Rubber bands and Aeromasters belong together. I put 1 of my oldies back to rubber bands.
Those gum bands never seemed to slow down Ernie Huber's fantastic demos from the 60's and early 70's
Rubber bands forever.
Peace
Mark O
Rubber bands and Aeromasters belong together. I put 1 of my oldies back to rubber bands.
Those gum bands never seemed to slow down Ernie Huber's fantastic demos from the 60's and early 70's
Rubber bands forever.
Peace
Mark O
12-05-2008, 01:57 PM
#9
Senior Member
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
I compete in Control Line Old Time Stunt competition for airplanes before the end of 1952. The PAMPA rules specifically allow strengthening the structure. Lighter is stronger, right?
I make no modifications which can be see in the finished model, 1/8 sheet sides instead of 1/4, molded leading edges with carbon fiber inside rather than solid, etc.
I make no modifications which can be see in the finished model, 1/8 sheet sides instead of 1/4, molded leading edges with carbon fiber inside rather than solid, etc.
12-06-2008, 12:02 AM
#10
My Feedback: (3)
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
Hi All;
Greetings from the sunny and warm 'Valley of the Sun'.
I would like to vote but cannot get into the Poll site, so cnnot vote.
However, I almost always modify an existing design to the lastest type construction or my most favourite way of doing something.....been building for over 50 yrs, into RC since '69. For example: many older RC designs utilized hardwood beam engine mounts, I usually eliminate these in favour of a 1/4 > 3/8" plywood engine mount Former #1 on plans, and use a Glass or Aluminum engine mount bolted to same, much easier and stronger, + easier to repair when required. Also, I use the latest new CA, epoxy glues and covering materials.
Will close for now, Happy Holidays Everyone, and may Santa be good to us All, best regards from Phoenix,
Joe Nagy.
Greetings from the sunny and warm 'Valley of the Sun'.
I would like to vote but cannot get into the Poll site, so cnnot vote.
However, I almost always modify an existing design to the lastest type construction or my most favourite way of doing something.....been building for over 50 yrs, into RC since '69. For example: many older RC designs utilized hardwood beam engine mounts, I usually eliminate these in favour of a 1/4 > 3/8" plywood engine mount Former #1 on plans, and use a Glass or Aluminum engine mount bolted to same, much easier and stronger, + easier to repair when required. Also, I use the latest new CA, epoxy glues and covering materials.
Will close for now, Happy Holidays Everyone, and may Santa be good to us All, best regards from Phoenix,
Joe Nagy.
12-06-2008, 04:08 PM
#11
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
Given that most of the old designers were struggling with sufficient power from heavy engines, and that seemingly huge models will fly on quite moderate power, modern modellers will do themselves a favor by not changing the structures. The beam mounts disliked by some actually tie the front end of these old models together and distribute the engine thrust and torque through the airframe in ways that a lump of thick ply and a radial mount can never hope to do, and with much less weight too. The apparent fragility of the structures is also deceiving, these old timers will absorb huge amounts of abuse by flexing, where more modern ('improved') designs will just shatter. There is a requirement to use a good centre section spar joiner(s) when fitting controllable rudders and elevators to these designs to enable the increased speeds and loadings to be absorbed, but we would do better to redesign modern designs using the old methods, rather than the other way around. Where we are spoiled is in the adhesive and covering choices we have, and I am in total agreement with anyone who says that we have vastly improved methods of sticking the bits together and keeping the oil out of internals.
Evan, WB #12.
Evan, WB #12.
12-07-2008, 12:15 AM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
You betcha I modernize the aircraft once I get going on it. Main thing is I keep the overall outline and especially the location of the C.G. for I want it to fly as originally it did.
This latter is a situation in itself, for the engines may be more powerfull, but they are easier to locate now, lighter, and weigh less too. The radio gear is substantially lighter now too. Earlier aircraft were designed to have a C.G. in one location, and it the new lighter weight gear (in total) then fouls up the lcoation of teh C.G. we have to add ballast or move things around then. Usually forward.
But main thing is not to make a Hot Rod out of the older designs. A .91 CI may fit, but it also is too strong and will not now make it fly like it once did. Have this argument with original designers (still alive) most every month. If the plan showed a Veco .45 then don't move things around inside to incorporate a .61 or a .91 then. Use a .35 or .40 to get equavalent power.
A few older models that I build here also have retracting gear. My old DMECO "Retract-Gear" weighs in at a bit more that one pound for everything. I now move things around to incorporate the much ligher, (and easier to obtain) Robart designs. Most often the means moving a plywood firewall less than 1/4 inch in the nose area, or swapping out reinforced balsa wing ribs for thin plywood ones.
But, still cannot alter something if the original plan was so poor it did not tell you anything.
Wm.
This latter is a situation in itself, for the engines may be more powerfull, but they are easier to locate now, lighter, and weigh less too. The radio gear is substantially lighter now too. Earlier aircraft were designed to have a C.G. in one location, and it the new lighter weight gear (in total) then fouls up the lcoation of teh C.G. we have to add ballast or move things around then. Usually forward.
But main thing is not to make a Hot Rod out of the older designs. A .91 CI may fit, but it also is too strong and will not now make it fly like it once did. Have this argument with original designers (still alive) most every month. If the plan showed a Veco .45 then don't move things around inside to incorporate a .61 or a .91 then. Use a .35 or .40 to get equavalent power.
A few older models that I build here also have retracting gear. My old DMECO "Retract-Gear" weighs in at a bit more that one pound for everything. I now move things around to incorporate the much ligher, (and easier to obtain) Robart designs. Most often the means moving a plywood firewall less than 1/4 inch in the nose area, or swapping out reinforced balsa wing ribs for thin plywood ones.
But, still cannot alter something if the original plan was so poor it did not tell you anything.
Wm.
12-07-2008, 12:31 PM
#13
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
Seems many older designs were designed when balsa wood was very cheap compared to todays prices?
I try and work around that making some areas lighter and cheaper at the same time...
Anyway regarding rubber banded wings - I've modified the little Jungmeister to nylon bolts, but on the other hand I built the 52" Nick Ziroli Stearman with rubber banded wings, flew it 15 years before selling it, with no problems.
I guess I don't have a really fixed approach, some I modify and some I feel like making them exactly the way the designer made and flew them...
I try and work around that making some areas lighter and cheaper at the same time...
Anyway regarding rubber banded wings - I've modified the little Jungmeister to nylon bolts, but on the other hand I built the 52" Nick Ziroli Stearman with rubber banded wings, flew it 15 years before selling it, with no problems.
I guess I don't have a really fixed approach, some I modify and some I feel like making them exactly the way the designer made and flew them...
12-11-2008, 04:57 PM
#14
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
What I'm seeing in these comments is exactly what I enjoy most about our hobby. Opinions vary, methods vary. We have the freedom to create our airplanes any way we want. We are the engineers, the financiers, the constructors, and we are the test pilots. We do this to please ourselves, therefore we make our models in the way that seems "best" to us. If we are flying in organized competition, we must follow the rules of that event. But if it's a sport model then we need answer to no one but ourselves.
Dick
Dick
12-11-2008, 09:06 PM
#15
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
I like vinatge scale models, but prefer to infuse modern technology and performance, steathly if possible. The results are usually very good.
12-12-2008, 12:00 PM
#16
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
ORIGINAL: otrcman
What I'm seeing in these comments is exactly what I enjoy most about our hobby. Opinions vary, methods vary. We have the freedom to create our airplanes any way we want. We are the engineers, the financiers, the constructors, and we are the test pilots. We do this to please ourselves, therefore we make our models in the way that seems "best" to us. If we are flying in organized competition, we must follow the rules of that event. But if it's a sport model then we need answer to no one but ourselves.
Dick
What I'm seeing in these comments is exactly what I enjoy most about our hobby. Opinions vary, methods vary. We have the freedom to create our airplanes any way we want. We are the engineers, the financiers, the constructors, and we are the test pilots. We do this to please ourselves, therefore we make our models in the way that seems "best" to us. If we are flying in organized competition, we must follow the rules of that event. But if it's a sport model then we need answer to no one but ourselves.
Dick
I prefer to remain "stuck" in the 60s-70s in terms of model types and sizes and some of the techniques, because I have found them to cause me the most enjoyment.
I've noticed too many people around me who seem not to enjoy the hobby as they should.
I also try and keep the changes "stealthy"...makes alot of sense, and offers a bit of a challenge sometimes.
12-13-2008, 12:57 PM
#17
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
12-14-2008, 04:34 AM
#18
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
Are you still trying to revive that argument with me? If you are modelling a plane that used thrust alignments then by all means build them in. If they did not, then learn to fly the plane. It's really simple.
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
12-14-2008, 10:46 AM
#19
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder
Thomas,
Are you still trying to revive that argument with me? If you are modelling a plane that used thrust alignments then by all means build them in. If they did not, then learn to fly the plane. It's really simple.
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
Are you still trying to revive that argument with me? If you are modelling a plane that used thrust alignments then by all means build them in. If they did not, then learn to fly the plane. It's really simple.
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
I would call it giving both sides of the debate some equal time....
I feel you are to dismissive concerning other viewpoints around this subject and you only feel there is one right answer. I happen to disagree with your viewpoint and I do not see the need to cast aspersions on people's flying skills and tastes in models if they happen to disagree with you.Again: there is no sin in making some thrust line adjustments on a model. There is no sin in doing so on a scale model that had none, unless the model is going to be in competition and it would cost you points. There is also absolutely no sin in modelling any subject with no thrust offsets for your own personal pleasure!
It is not a matter of learning to fly the plane properly or even being able to fly the plane. It is about reducing pilot workload and improving aircraft handling in certain areas of the flight envelope. In full scale, you do what you have to to fly precisely and keep the ball in the center, period. It simply does not matter if there is an engineering assist (thrust offset) helping you a bit here and there, or not.
In fact, full scale thrust line adjustment can help in ways other than handling. It often helps algin the fuselage to the airstream in flight to keep cruise drag at a minimum, without trim drag/control surface offsets.
Rest assured that I can fly any model, anywhere, any time and you will not be able to tell that it is missing thrust offset, or if it has the correct amounts built in.....
So, please do not tell me to "learn to fly the plane".
12-14-2008, 08:12 PM
#20
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
I would call it giving both sides of the debate some equal time.... I feel you are to dismissive concerning other viewpoints around this subject and you only feel there is one right answer. I happen to disagree with your viewpoint and I do not see the need to cast aspersions on people's flying skills and tastes in models if they happen to disagree with you.
Again: there is no sin in making some thrust line adjustments on a model. There is no sin in doing so on a scale model that had none, unless the model is going to be in competition and it would cost you points. There is also absolutely no sin in modelling any subject with no thrust offsets for your own personal pleasure!
It is not a matter of learning to fly the plane properly or even being able to fly the plane. It is about reducing pilot workload and improving aircraft handling in certain areas of the flight envelope. In full scale, you do what you have to to fly precisely and keep the ball in the center, period. It simply does not matter if there is an engineering assist (thrust offset) helping you a bit here and there, or not.
In fact, full scale thrust line adjustment can help in ways other than handling. It often helps algin the fuselage to the airstream in flight to keep cruise drag at a minimum, without trim drag/control surface offsets.
Rest assured that I can fly any model, anywhere, any time and you will not be able to tell that it is missing thrust offset, or if it has the correct amounts built in..... So, please do not tell me to "learn to fly the plane".
ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder
Thomas,
Are you still trying to revive that argument with me? If you are modelling a plane that used thrust alignments then by all means build them in. If they did not, then learn to fly the plane. It's really simple.
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
Are you still trying to revive that argument with me? If you are modelling a plane that used thrust alignments then by all means build them in. If they did not, then learn to fly the plane. It's really simple.
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
I would call it giving both sides of the debate some equal time....
I feel you are to dismissive concerning other viewpoints around this subject and you only feel there is one right answer. I happen to disagree with your viewpoint and I do not see the need to cast aspersions on people's flying skills and tastes in models if they happen to disagree with you.Again: there is no sin in making some thrust line adjustments on a model. There is no sin in doing so on a scale model that had none, unless the model is going to be in competition and it would cost you points. There is also absolutely no sin in modelling any subject with no thrust offsets for your own personal pleasure!
It is not a matter of learning to fly the plane properly or even being able to fly the plane. It is about reducing pilot workload and improving aircraft handling in certain areas of the flight envelope. In full scale, you do what you have to to fly precisely and keep the ball in the center, period. It simply does not matter if there is an engineering assist (thrust offset) helping you a bit here and there, or not.
In fact, full scale thrust line adjustment can help in ways other than handling. It often helps algin the fuselage to the airstream in flight to keep cruise drag at a minimum, without trim drag/control surface offsets.
Rest assured that I can fly any model, anywhere, any time and you will not be able to tell that it is missing thrust offset, or if it has the correct amounts built in.....
So, please do not tell me to "learn to fly the plane".
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
12-15-2008, 09:52 AM
#21
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder
Why would you want a trim that is not adjustable built into the model? If the pilot workload is too much, might I suggest Golf?
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
I would call it giving both sides of the debate some equal time.... I feel you are to dismissive concerning other viewpoints around this subject and you only feel there is one right answer. I happen to disagree with your viewpoint and I do not see the need to cast aspersions on people's flying skills and tastes in models if they happen to disagree with you.
Again: there is no sin in making some thrust line adjustments on a model. There is no sin in doing so on a scale model that had none, unless the model is going to be in competition and it would cost you points. There is also absolutely no sin in modelling any subject with no thrust offsets for your own personal pleasure!
It is not a matter of learning to fly the plane properly or even being able to fly the plane. It is about reducing pilot workload and improving aircraft handling in certain areas of the flight envelope. In full scale, you do what you have to to fly precisely and keep the ball in the center, period. It simply does not matter if there is an engineering assist (thrust offset) helping you a bit here and there, or not.
In fact, full scale thrust line adjustment can help in ways other than handling. It often helps algin the fuselage to the airstream in flight to keep cruise drag at a minimum, without trim drag/control surface offsets.
Rest assured that I can fly any model, anywhere, any time and you will not be able to tell that it is missing thrust offset, or if it has the correct amounts built in..... So, please do not tell me to "learn to fly the plane".
ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder
Thomas,
Are you still trying to revive that argument with me? If you are modelling a plane that used thrust alignments then by all means build them in. If they did not, then learn to fly the plane. It's really simple.
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
Are you still trying to revive that argument with me? If you are modelling a plane that used thrust alignments then by all means build them in. If they did not, then learn to fly the plane. It's really simple.
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
I would call it giving both sides of the debate some equal time....
I feel you are to dismissive concerning other viewpoints around this subject and you only feel there is one right answer. I happen to disagree with your viewpoint and I do not see the need to cast aspersions on people's flying skills and tastes in models if they happen to disagree with you.Again: there is no sin in making some thrust line adjustments on a model. There is no sin in doing so on a scale model that had none, unless the model is going to be in competition and it would cost you points. There is also absolutely no sin in modelling any subject with no thrust offsets for your own personal pleasure!
It is not a matter of learning to fly the plane properly or even being able to fly the plane. It is about reducing pilot workload and improving aircraft handling in certain areas of the flight envelope. In full scale, you do what you have to to fly precisely and keep the ball in the center, period. It simply does not matter if there is an engineering assist (thrust offset) helping you a bit here and there, or not.
In fact, full scale thrust line adjustment can help in ways other than handling. It often helps algin the fuselage to the airstream in flight to keep cruise drag at a minimum, without trim drag/control surface offsets.
Rest assured that I can fly any model, anywhere, any time and you will not be able to tell that it is missing thrust offset, or if it has the correct amounts built in.....
So, please do not tell me to "learn to fly the plane".
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
Never had any need at all to adjust it after that...
Is it possible for you have a freindly debate without disparaging the other party, or is that just not on your menu?
12-15-2008, 10:05 AM
#22
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
Because it can make the model or full scale aircraft fly better. While perfectly capable of flying my old Falcon 56 with most of the down stick applied, I found it more fun to add some downthrust and a shim under the LE of the horizontal tail.
Never had any need at all to adjust it after that...
Is it possible for you have a freindly debate without disparaging the other party, or is that just not on your menu?
ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder
Why would you want a trim that is not adjustable built into the model? If the pilot workload is too much, might I suggest Golf?
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
I would call it giving both sides of the debate some equal time.... I feel you are to dismissive concerning other viewpoints around this subject and you only feel there is one right answer. I happen to disagree with your viewpoint and I do not see the need to cast aspersions on people's flying skills and tastes in models if they happen to disagree with you.
Again: there is no sin in making some thrust line adjustments on a model. There is no sin in doing so on a scale model that had none, unless the model is going to be in competition and it would cost you points. There is also absolutely no sin in modelling any subject with no thrust offsets for your own personal pleasure!
It is not a matter of learning to fly the plane properly or even being able to fly the plane. It is about reducing pilot workload and improving aircraft handling in certain areas of the flight envelope. In full scale, you do what you have to to fly precisely and keep the ball in the center, period. It simply does not matter if there is an engineering assist (thrust offset) helping you a bit here and there, or not.
In fact, full scale thrust line adjustment can help in ways other than handling. It often helps algin the fuselage to the airstream in flight to keep cruise drag at a minimum, without trim drag/control surface offsets.
Rest assured that I can fly any model, anywhere, any time and you will not be able to tell that it is missing thrust offset, or if it has the correct amounts built in..... So, please do not tell me to "learn to fly the plane".
ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder
Thomas,
Are you still trying to revive that argument with me? If you are modelling a plane that used thrust alignments then by all means build them in. If they did not, then learn to fly the plane. It's really simple.
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
I tend to do some subtle changes that keep the flavor of the aircraft model and some of the vintage design while perhaps making the model easier to build and stronger/lighter.
Contrary to what some say, there is absolutely no sin in a model having some thrust line adjustment built in, unless the model is intended for serious scale competition and it's full scale counterpart had no thrust offset. There is no sin in reducing the pilot workload a little bit, be it in a model or in full scale. Some real aircraft have it and that should certainly be included in models of that aircraft. For instance, a real Piper PA-11 has 4 degrees of downthrust. The AD-1, the F6F and the F8F all have down thrust. Endless examples exisit that prove that adjusting the thrustline is a valid engineering approach to improving aircraft handling and performance.
The attached picture is a good example of thrustline in full scale aircraft. You can see that the Wildcat has none, while the Bearcat has a very noticable amount.
Think of how silly a Ju-52 would look without the outboard engines heavily offset to the left and right......
Are you still trying to revive that argument with me? If you are modelling a plane that used thrust alignments then by all means build them in. If they did not, then learn to fly the plane. It's really simple.
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
I would call it giving both sides of the debate some equal time....
I feel you are to dismissive concerning other viewpoints around this subject and you only feel there is one right answer. I happen to disagree with your viewpoint and I do not see the need to cast aspersions on people's flying skills and tastes in models if they happen to disagree with you.Again: there is no sin in making some thrust line adjustments on a model. There is no sin in doing so on a scale model that had none, unless the model is going to be in competition and it would cost you points. There is also absolutely no sin in modelling any subject with no thrust offsets for your own personal pleasure!
It is not a matter of learning to fly the plane properly or even being able to fly the plane. It is about reducing pilot workload and improving aircraft handling in certain areas of the flight envelope. In full scale, you do what you have to to fly precisely and keep the ball in the center, period. It simply does not matter if there is an engineering assist (thrust offset) helping you a bit here and there, or not.
In fact, full scale thrust line adjustment can help in ways other than handling. It often helps algin the fuselage to the airstream in flight to keep cruise drag at a minimum, without trim drag/control surface offsets.
Rest assured that I can fly any model, anywhere, any time and you will not be able to tell that it is missing thrust offset, or if it has the correct amounts built in.....
So, please do not tell me to "learn to fly the plane".
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
Never had any need at all to adjust it after that...
Is it possible for you have a freindly debate without disparaging the other party, or is that just not on your menu?
Have you stopped using your Brotherhood number?
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
12-16-2008, 02:46 PM
#23
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
Not sure I've understood this correctly, do you use mixing to compensate for errors in thrust angle?
Such crutches will give a poorly flying plane and bad habits of the pilot.
If the engine dies, then what throttle setting do you use...
Such crutches will give a poorly flying plane and bad habits of the pilot.
If the engine dies, then what throttle setting do you use...
12-16-2008, 02:59 PM
#24
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
ORIGINAL: Mr Cox
Not sure I've understood this correctly, do you use mixing to compensate for errors in thrust angle?
Such crutches will give a poorly flying plane and bad habits of the pilot.
If the engine dies, then what throttle setting do you use...
Not sure I've understood this correctly, do you use mixing to compensate for errors in thrust angle?
Such crutches will give a poorly flying plane and bad habits of the pilot.
If the engine dies, then what throttle setting do you use...
Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1
12-16-2008, 03:20 PM
#25
RE: Do you "modernize" the structure?
Well I'm too against a mixing between the channels, with the engine off the throttle setting would still be active in the mixing part.
Don't see anything wrong in tuning the thrust angles though for a good average throttle setting...
Don't see anything wrong in tuning the thrust angles though for a good average throttle setting...
