|
Originally Posted by CXXXV
(Post 12624093)
So why do current planes not use retracts?
|
They are a PITA!!
Seriously, the gear leg length needed for e-power planes would be very long; so to reduce gear flexing you would have to use at least 3/16" wire which gets heavy, plus the servo , linkages, etc. Back in the '90s, an Australian pattern flier named Peter Goldsmith (now living in the US) did some wind tunnel testing and discovered that fixed gear (streamlined & with wheel pants) had significantly less aerodynamic drag than retracted retracts. The only way retracts provide an aerodynamic advantage is if there are door covers for the retract wells that are air tight. Fixed gear has much less maintenance, too. |
Bryan Hebert has a biplane called " Alferma " that has retracts. Of course having them in the bottom wing is what makes it possible. A current design monoplane with retracts just wouldn't work.
I'm quite sure that to most guys the current crop of pattern airplanes look very similar. When you start throwing in the different construction materials used, different airfoils, power sources and even how they need to be set up you actually end up with airplanes that are quite unique. I place my own Divergent in the " Stand Alone " category. My design is the only bipe that uses a two peice upper wing. The reason for this is a more rigid fuselage. Most bipes have a hatch that runs from the nose to the trailing edge of the upper wing. That creates flexibility and requires a heavier layup to get the strength back. As of right now the Divergent has the potential to be the lightest bipe on the market. My current model RTF is 4500 grams. That is with a motor and ESC that are considered on the heavy side and a full paint job as compared to a painted fuselage/film covered wings and stabs. If somone wanted to go all out a 4300 gram ( 9.5 lb ) airplane is possible. There is a bit of uniqueness going on with the wing airfoils as well that I will keep as proprietary for now but is used to help with constant speed during maneuvers and makes for a very locked in feel. I hope that will dispel the cookie cutter, all the designers are playing follow the leader comments. As for the actual shape that some feel is " ugly ", I can't change what people see. The airplane was built to compete in the current format of AMA pattern in the advanced and masters classes. To be competitive you need the right tool for the job. That is why all forms of auto racing have budgets for R&D, you're not going to show up at Daytona with a 1980 era NASCAR and lead the pack. https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...d5a4b0652e.jpg |
Originally Posted by flywilly
(Post 12624099)
... Back in the '90s, an Australian pattern flier named Peter Goldsmith (now living in the US) did some wind tunnel testing and discovered that fixed gear (streamlined & with wheel pants) had significantly less aerodynamic drag than retracted retracts. The only way retracts provide an aerodynamic advantage is if there are door covers for the retract wells that are air tight. ....
|
Originally Posted by perttime
(Post 12624236)
Besides, drag reduction is not a design goal. Just look at current pattern planes. You want it light enough to fly slowly, powerful enough to continue at the same speed going up, and draggy enough to keep it slow coming down.
|
I need 4 more posts so that I can attach photos. So, I'm just weighing in here that I think the new designs are fantastic!
|
Recently purchased a 62" Acuity. Flies very well indeed.
|
Hi CXX,
I really couldn't agree with you more. The Guppy pattern airplanes are so ugly that I don't want one in my house, no matter what. I never want to own one of those. I realized this year that I am more interested in "classic pattern airplanes" and flying them, than I am flying in pattern contests, if it takes a Guppy-style airplane to be competitive. |
Good news is that they don't all look like pregnant guppies. For example: Acuity, Vanquish, Divergence....The real big difference between then and now are the tall fuselage sides for knife edge. Also, they are mostly very well built ARF's.
|
Originally Posted by misterv47
(Post 12635319)
Hi CXX,
I really couldn't agree with you more. The Guppy pattern airplanes are so ugly that I don't want one in my house, no matter what. I never want to own one of those. I realized this year that I am more interested in "classic pattern airplanes" and flying them, than I am flying in pattern contests, if it takes a Guppy-style airplane to be competitive. OK, I will bite... Define Ugly. Define Attractive.. I give Shawn grief over his Divergent design and call it ugly, but I do it mostly because he is my friend and I can. Besides, he pretty much gives all the grief right back to me. The truth is that Shawn and his wife were spending some vacation time at my lake house and we discussed design and molding of the plane at length. I will admit that modern pattern planes look unique, but so do all other aircraft. They look like they do so they can perform the job required of them. I will now speak of more decades in general avaition (full scale) than I care to admit. Find an attractive plane............ The high wing Cessna and Cub style planes are pretty ugly. The low wing 4 and 6 seat singles are no more attractive. Twins, airliners, transport planes, modern fighters......... The list goes on, but I really don't see beauty in any of them. Models, I will never be without at least 1 Stik in my hanger. Is there an uglier plane?? What about 424 / 426 pylon racers?? Pretty ugly there. Compared to those, modern pattern planes are downright beautiful, but I LOVE flying my stiks...... Just one guys opinion. Scott |
Anything that flies well is beautiful!
|
Amen to that!
|
Originally Posted by flywilly
(Post 12589090)
Agreed. There is nothing to prevent somebody from flying an older design which can still be competitive, especially in the lower classes. I have a 15 year old Astral XX with an OS140 which I can fly the Masters class sequence very respectably (probably competitively - I fly a lot). I don't think there is a pattern design from about 1970 on that I haven't been interested in and found appealing to at least some degree (though the Trigantic was a bit overwhelming when I first saw it).
|
If you had to pick between one of these three, which would you pick?
1. CK Aero Alchemy Bipe 2. HUI YANG F3A Ascent Biplane 3. AJ Aircraft Proteus 2 Composite Bi-Plane |
Originally Posted by orthobird
(Post 12656049)
If you had to pick between one of these three, which would you pick?
1. CK Aero Alchemy Bipe 2. HUI YANG F3A Ascent Biplane 3. AJ Aircraft Proteus 2 Composite Bi-Plane How badly do you want a winning airframe?? Scott |
no, I am looking for 3 grand range, and a biplane. But I do not want to wait weeks to months to get it. I would like it in 1 to 2 weeks, if possible.
|
this is the one I purchased, I should receive it within 2 weeks.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...4de5d453ac.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...889a592bdb.jpg |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
I reckon this is a fine looking built for purpose F3a beauty
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12614524)
While I see nothing wrong with the current designs I think that the color schemes have gotten a bit out of hand and are a contributing factor to how some people feel about them. My latest build ( my own design ) utilizes a much less complicated paint scheme that I feel compliments it's shape.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...51528eb93f.jpg |
I can’t comment on the Proteus as I haven’t owner one.
The Ascent has been around for a while and most that I’ve seen fly are more than competent but ridiculously expensive. I’ve had 3 Alchemy mono planes that are the sweetest flying f3a planes I’ve ever owned. The only mixing I have is the usual vertical down line throttle off tiny bit of down elevator. Bryan’s planes look fabulous and the finish is as good any. There are also some great assembly threads by Jason Arnold of https://www.precisionaeroproducts.com.au/ that over the Alchemy build and shortly there will be one for the Alchemy Bipe. I’ve ordered the Alchemy Bipe and look forward to flying it Andre-outing on it soon. in short, I’m an Alchemy fan |
Yes, I ordered one. Excited to receive my Alchemy Pro.
This is my Proteus Bipe: https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...603e1d85f9.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...ffe7df0532.jpg this one is my buddies ALchemy Pro, finished/painted by TUNY. https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...179073a3cf.jpg Alchemy Pro |
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12603671)
The increased side area helps knife edge flight which includes rolling elements combined with looping elements. The current masters sequence has a figure 8 with full rolls on the top of each loop. That side area really helps maintain the proper arc of the loop while rolling. The smallish looking wings keeps inertia low during rolling maneuvers that will contribute to more accurate point and snap rolls, also helps keep weight in check. The long fixed gear is needed for the larger props we run on electrics. The small wings just behind the canopy ( Canalizer ) of which some designs use dual Canalizers are used to smooth out the airflow ( propwash ) prior to it reaching the tail. This really cuts down on the effects of spiral slipstream and P factor. The result is increased rudder authority. Going with a biplane like I did does the same thing.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...188d93b04a.png |
I for one am not dissing you but support you 100%! The current fat designs are butt ugly. Hugly! They should also ban T cannalizers. If you want another wing fly a biplane. I love the Brushfire! I had one after I saw Steve Rojecki fly his back in the early 1980s.
I am not drinking the F3A cool-aid. And I flew F3A off and on from 1978 to 2008. I like the Bryan Hebert designs. He still has an eye for beautiful sexy pattern ships. Do not let the European mafia dictate like they do with F1 cars. |
They look beautiful.
Think back when the planes where all wing... and a stick fuselage. What sort of design principle was that? Today we can have a fuselage area that is identical to the wing area offering the same amount of lift. A far better, 360deg all round flying platform Look at the ride Bruckmann is flashing. Yummy! https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...2b8a864146.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...3da1ac8faa.jpg |
It's simply the result of chasing performance with aesthetics being a secondary concern. I think a lot of comparisons of F3A planes to Formula 1 race cars are valid including appearance. F1 cars are ugly compared to a Lamborghini or Bentley, but you can't argue with the performance. Machines that perform well have their own beauty though. There is a difficult to define beauty to the F3A planes that fly well. It's like the human eye instinctively knows what works.
|
I too find myself at times not adjusting well to our current times. As I age things from my past seem more significant. I have acquired a few kits lately that have a connection with my early years in the hobby. I’m not overly happy with the looks of modern competitive sailplanes but I know that if I want to be competitive I need to level the playing field equipment wise. When it come to negative comments about current pattern airplanes, they always come from guys who currently don’t fly pattern. Those of who grew up flying Kaos, Dirty Birdies, Mach 1, Miss Norway etc like I did still appreciate a classic design but realize that a modern design is needed in order to be competitive today.
|
The planes have evolved with small steps. Anyone who has been involved in pattern and seen this will normally appreciate current designs.
People who have been away see the changes bigger and not always as improvement, at least aesthetically. Personally the first pattern planes I saw were Atlas and Curare followed by Arrow & Magic and later Saphir etc. I never liked Kaos with bubble canopy glued on top of canopy. |
No David yummy is to eat this super fat and high fuselage is not beautiful. A curare also flew very good knife edge there should be a fuselage height limit just like F1 has all kind of dimensional limits.
|
Originally Posted by ini
(Post 12635512)
Anything that flies well is beautiful!
|
Hello
I don't really understand the discussion on the aesthetics of the new planes! If we don't like them; the best is to draw and build your own plane. My favorite plane after my Harmonie of course is Thomas David's Cold Draft. This plane is sensationally simple and flies very well. Claude https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...a8dd434d6b.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...038ab0df1d.jpg |
Hi papaone. Any idea how I could find out more about Thomas David's plane, the "Cold Draft"? Very nice indeed.
|
Hello
On GBRCAA and Facebook very nice guy with a lot of humor https://www.facebook.com/thomas.david.9809 Cold Draft, 2m Monoplane Thomas shares his build files "Just in case anyone fancies building one I've shared all the dxf files ready for cutting here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hOA...ew?usp=sharing" Claude |
Thank you Claude.
|
Originally Posted by CXXXV
(Post 12588957)
I was looking to get back into pattern. However, the new designs are just butt ugly.
BTW, to CR lovers, just curious, how do you measure RPM's of CR units with hand held meter? I'm also desperatly shopping for new or S/H "Dualsky XM2203TY-24CR" (discont. produkt) unit for my micro light pattern "DC" scratch build series, anyone or knowledge to get one most wellcomed, TX, Frosty. |
Originally Posted by Freddy
(Post 12735915)
No David yummy is to eat this super fat and high fuselage is not beautiful. A curare also flew very good knife edge there should be a fuselage height limit just like F1 has all kind of dimensional limits.
|
How do you measure the prop RPMs with counter rotating units in Pattern models? What happens when you point hand held meter agains it??? Just curious?
BTW, persevarence paid off, after some 50 emails I sent all over the planet I got 2 brand new ones I was after, LOL. |
The contras are measured by performance, people try combinations of prop pitch etc, RPM is not the most important factor anymore, so if not needed why measure…
|
Originally Posted by Joseph Frost
(Post 12743587)
How do you measure the prop RPMs with counter rotating units in Pattern models? What happens when you point hand held meter agains it??? Just curious?
BTW, persevarence paid off, after some 50 emails I sent all over the planet I got 2 brand new ones I was after, LOL. Gary |
Hello
Some pictures of not ugly planes during vintage F3A contest which took place last weekend with the participation of the F3A world champion Paysant le Roux who is an unconditional fan of these contests and models. claude https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...9a1dd03e0f.jpg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...4a6163c8cb.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...eb94fe604c.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...5080d11e42.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...24da196612.jpg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...c75aad4e2d.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...b026633bb1.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...a4cbbd3076.jpg |
Very nice models indeed. Brings me back to being 14 flying my father’s Norm Page Mach I, complete with ST X60 and Kraft retracts.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:38 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.