Just an observation on my part. Would like to hear your thoughts. I am an average sport flier who enjoys building as much as flying and I like to customize or kit bash everything I work on and always use light-weight construction methods to ' keep the weight down', as we all like to do. My planes fly great and suit my flying style; realistic flight and realistic aerobatics, no 3-D(umb). Something really neat happened this winter when I added floats to my clipped-wing Venture 60 for flying at the lake. Imagine bolting 2-3 POUNDS to your 60 size flier and scooting around the pattern, rolling, looping, stall turning, etc, etc and landing like a feather. I did not even touch the trims as they were set for land based flying. As a bonus, the plane penetrated the 15-20 mph breeze better than without the added weight. Now, I am not suggesting that one shouldn't pay attention to keeping things light, just don't sweat the nit picking stuff and go enjoy yourself. Your thoughts?

nice looking model, what kind of floats are those? Where can they be purchased?

I'm with you 1000%. This craze to acheive the lightest possible airframe/etc. has gotten totally out of hand in some circles. But who's to say what is, and what is not, "out of hand"???????????

I had always been suspicious of the "conventional wisdom" (handed down from Mount Olympus by a certain "name" in the hobby) that ... lighter models fly better in wind...; but back in that day, questioning such 'wisdom' was tantamount to urinating upon the flag. After proving to myself, on two separate unplanned occasions, that lighter did NOT neccessarily fly "better", I began to think for myself.

I suppose I should qualify my "findings"... I built a GP Super Kaos 40 and GP Super Sportster 40. Nice airplanes that flew well, but my Kaos was very light with an OS 40 SF and got tossed around big-time in any wind. One day, I flew a fellow club member's Super Kaos 40, that had a 70 Surpass and weighed at least a pound, or more, than my model. I flew the two airplanes back-to-back, in a 15-knot wind. The heavier model was WAY more stable and 'easy' to handle. Hmmm.....

My GP Super Sportster had a 70 Surpass. One day I flew one that had a 46 SF and was noticeably lighter than mine; it was most definitely a handful in the 20+ wind that day, whereas mine was less squirrelly.

Okay; the above is certainly no empirical test, but I was convinced.

Fast-forward to a year or so ago, and I'm getting into large aerobatic planes. I buy the ExtremeFlight 68" Yak-54, which is heralded as the best EVER, no competition, nobody else is even close, etc., etc. A nice kit; definitely among the best overall quality I've yet seen. Not totally head and shoulders above anything else, but certainly equal to anything offered so far in my experience; and better than most. And it was LIGHT... less than nine pounds dry, for a good-sized airplane.

The first flights were on a calm day, and it was orgasmic, let me tell you. I only thought I knew what smooth was. I'm happy. The next week-end, 10-15 knots and gusting; and it was all I could to get the thing on the ground in one piece. That huge round fuselage was EXTREMELY affected by the wind (as in, blown all over the place). But the 3D guys loved it, because with a YS 110 it became an anti-gravity machine. Who cared if it couldn't hold a straight line in wind? It ROCKED, man!!!!!!

Fast-forward to today; my H9 Extra which is even larger, weighs a whopping 15.6 pounds dry. Handles wind like a champ, and landing in a straight crosswind is simply a non-event. No it won't "rocket out of a hover" (at least, I think it won't. Never tried it, and have no plans to... I have a helicopter if I get that urge), and as for all the other stuff the 3D guys demand... dunno about that either. I DO know that it is a very relaxing model to fly, and lots of fun.

OTOH, nit-picking can be part of the fun of this (or any hobby). Go look at the GP 1.60 Ultimate thread, the Goldberg 77" Yak thread, and a few others dealing with popular 3D ARFs, and you'll read some really bizarre conversations amongst those guys as they discuss weight-saving measures. They're having fun discussing it, planning, etc. IOW, sweating the nit-picking stuff seems to be what they live for.

So don't worry about 'em... they'll be all right.

Light weight planes definitely get bounced around more in wind, but I'm always amazed at the way they smooth out very close to the ground. I think there's no way I'm going to land it, and then at the very end it's no sweat. I see heavy, powerful planes flying very smooth in wind, but I enjoy the challenge of a lightweight in the wind.

Wind penetration is a puzzling concept. At first I couldn't see how it differed from speed. And lighter planes will acheive higher speeds in level or climbing flight than heavier ones. But here's the difference--if you are having trouble gettting back from downwind, the heavier plane will fly faster if it is descending--that's why glider pilots use ballast--they are always going downhill, and more weight increases the speed. I think that must be what people mean by "penetration". They may not even realize they are in a slight dive, but if they are, the heavier plane will get back easier.

As far as people obsessing about weight, I certainly don't see any sign of that in our club! But I enjoy the process of picking my wood and lightening my planes. I had a Senior Falcon that weighed 5 1/4 lbs and did outside loops on an OS 40 FP. Such a beautiful flier. There's no right or wrong here, it's hobby--we get to do as we please.

Jim

well, I think you guys have summed it up -

in lab conditions ie. no wind whatsoever (or just a steady consistent drift) then there is no argument - lighter will fly better, smoother, slower, more graceful and more responsive, not to mention better vertical

where gusts, buffetting and cross winds come into play - well, the super light plane will be buffetted about like a kite on a string in a storm, while the more massive model calmly handle those same conditions

It's the same reason slope planes and gliders have ballast - on windy days you need it or you'll get blown away, literally.
On calh days however, the last thing you want as a glider pilot is dead weight, as your goal is to exploit the lift and stay aloft sa long as possible.

There is no "right" plane. A heavy plane in perfect conditions will look clumsy and lethargic in comparrison to a light one. If the wind picks up, you'd better land the light one ....fast.

Moral of the story. Build as light as you can, and include a ballast bay - adding weight is very easy - removing it is next to impossible.

I.F.

It depends so much on what you want the plane to do. Scale planes "look" right in the air when they are weighted to represent the mass of it's full sized counterpart. Nothing takes away from a plane's appeal for me, then to look scale, but fly like a kite. Watching a P 47 leap off the ground or a J3 climb straight up doesn't do much for me. But, there are many places where light wing loading is necessary to the plane's utility. A strong light construction benefits both trainers and 3D aircraft. It boils down to what the flier wants. The beauty of this hobby is the variety of combinations. One guy's scale project is the next guy's fun fly.

Air is free, getting into it will cost you.

Thanks all of you for posting. I don't worry what others do or don't do. We all have fun. I think we generated some interesting discussion here and there is no place in this thread for any bashing. Keep your comments and thoughts coming, I've enjoyed reading each of the posts thus far.

RAVENATNM- Thanks. The floats are from Niagra Custom Model Products. They are foam, sheeted with balsa, 1/2 oz glass w/ waterbased poly then painted w/ automotive paint & Lustrekote. Used Ernst retractable water rudders and built the struts using K&S streamline tubing, dowels, and aircraft hardware. A link to the manufacturer is on Bruce Tharpe's website.

If your after the ultimate in vertical, 3d and sailplane performance, light is better. Light can "explode" in mid air if mishandled. Light doesn't necessarily translate to weak; but, the lightness needs to come at some price. Look at the end use and build accordingly.

I built a 30% Decathlon that according to the plans, the weight was supposed to be 24-26 lbs. I was worried a little when it came out to 29 1/2 lbs. What a real floater and it lands awsome. 15 mph wind??? no problem. I even haul around a 15 foot banner with it.

Love your plane! Give us some details.

It's a Whendell Hostetler 30% Super Decathlon. I bought the plans in December 04 and had it flying by July '05. It's 78 inches long with a 115 inch wing span and now weighs 30 pounds because I just installed a smoke system in it. It's got a Zenoah G-62 up front, and I just switched to a Bambula 22-10 prop. 5 1/4 scale servos and 2 standard all Futaba. It's covered with Solartex and painted with Krylon. Here's a video of the maiden and second day flights http://media.putfile.com/Bobs-Super-Decathlon enjoy!

Well, I'm a nit-picker when it comes to weight. I don't consider myself to be a fanatic about it as I usually won't replace a kit part unless it's way too heavy. But lighter planes fly better. They respond faster to controls and there's less damage on impact.

Where I'm most picky about weight is my own designs. If I'm selecting the wood, then why pick a heavier piece when a lighter piece will work? It's still a piece of wood and it takes the same time to cut it and glue it.

Where I don't go nuts on weight is with ultra thin sheeting. I've seen guys do that and they're always punching holes through it.

Anyway, adding 2-3 pounds to a .60 size ship may smooth it out but it will also respond slower. A light model may be more affected by gusts but I want the immediate response time to make it stop or to make it do what I want.

On the other hand, I've built models that were so light I couldn't fly them from the field I was using at the time because it couldn't survive ground handling.

I often invest some extra weight to beef up structural integrity of my planes. For example I don't use the balsa wing spars that come with most kits but replace them with pine.

I can tell you that my Telemaster's wing has survived some spectacular crashes because of this, like an involuntary touch down at full speed inverted flight or a 50 meter vertical crash because due to RC failure. Ok, I had to fix the trailing and leading edge plus some sheeting on that second one, but the spars held.

On the Hog Bipe I'm building at the moment I replaced 12 balsa ribs with plywood, it just doesn't seem to make sense to attach wing mounting parts to flimsy balsa ribs, those would be the first to break in the slightest crash. Maybe I'll post a build thread of my Hog when I'm done with it.

There's many spots on a plane where little things like some carbon rovings and plywood parts can make the difference between an easy repair or a total loss.

I don't go out of my way to build light, especially with the bigger airplanes. They can carry much more weight with little effect. In fact I think the big planes in some instances can be too light. If a contest plane, I think it may be beneficial to have some method of adding ballast for windy conditions. Lightness has become much more of the rage now, then it was back in the 70s and 80s. We attempted to build as light as we could then, to a point. The point being the airframe had to withstand the higher normal speeds flown. Airplanes flew on their wings, not on their props, like many do today. Excepting of course R/C sailplanes, which since the beginning flew better if light. Again, Look at the end use and build accordingly.

Not necessarily true...

Wad up a piece of paper and throw it. Now throw a baseball.

I would prefer a plane that penetrates the air.

I have said for many years that heavier planes fly better (Within reason of course)

Now, if you WANT a plane that will float along on a breeze, or do 3-D, then yes, lighter is better.

I have a 8 1/2 lb Lancair 52 powered by a Evo-46. And it flies like a dream.

At first I was afraid to fly it but after a few weeks of looking for sound ways to lighten it up I gave up and decided to go for it.. To my surprise it flew very well. It is very stable, stalls straight as an arrow and slows down for landing like any good sport plane.

After this experience my fear of weight diminished somewhat.

Agree with you totally. I can understand the 3-D and electric guys thinking, but for me a little beef added in the break-here areas has allowed my airplanes to survive for many years despite my limited skills. Your purpose and needs dictate and to each his own.

When I built my Supersportster 60 it was supposed to be 6-7 lbs. I fiberglassed the fuselage and built a little heavy. This was probably a good thing because on the 8th flight I dove it into the ground at about 75 mph. It took a whole new right wing and quite a lot of mending, but its been flying after the crash for 2 years. It weights 9.5 lbs and other than the fact that it lands fast, it is still one of my best flying planes!

I know that many of the warbirds are flying as high as 50 oz of wing loading! Now if your doing 3-D then build it as light as you can, but don't expect to survive a little bump. My dad caught a tumble weed on landing with his Uproar 40 ARF and stalled at about 10 feet. This plane was a complete loss! Just about everything was broken! It had more damage than my sporster did with its plunge of death!

Boy, you don't have a clue how much better I feel after reading this thread, I know that there are several styles of flying and a lot of us enjoy more then just one of them, but I really thought if I heard that great wisdom BUILD LIGHT one more time I was going to build my next plane with 16 penny nail's and lag screws.

Glenn.

Glad to hear this!

My 4*60 needed about 10 oz in the nose to balance the heavy tail. It weighs about 8.5 lbs dry.

Got bored and built an LT-25 kit (needed something to do to get thru these windy days). It balances perfectly with no additional weight at about 4.25 lbs dry.

Don't know why one kit turned out heavy and another one spot on. Can't think of anything I did differently. I tried to follow the directions exactly on both kits.

As soon as the wind quits I'll fly both of them and report back.

Dave
AMA 847123

That's what we're here for. If you need anything else we'll be in the area for the rest of the week......Have a good one!

I built my first RC model in 1983, a top flite Headmaster sport 40, I think that was the name. A plane by Ken Willard, put a K&B .60 or .61 ? on it and it came out heavy but it flew great, it would do most of the basic stunts like it was on rails. Every one in the club got to fly it because most of there planes flew like kites on windy days, crosswind landings were fun and stable, this heavy plane would make you look better than you were. And yes I know this could be a problem for some.

Thanks, Glenn.

Sorry damifino, I did not mean to skip over you. I thank you for your post and offer.

Thanks . Glenn.

whatwheel, Is this fun or what??!!

You haven't really had fun until you've flown a very light plane having lots of power in a strong wind. There is one plane I have that I will fly in the wind and it's because it's so light I can fly it backward down the runway.

http://www.airfieldmodels.com/galler...onzo/index.htm

The wind is your friend - stop being afraid of it.