Current 2m pattern planes are really ugly
 

I was looking to get back into pattern. However, the new designs are just butt ugly.

It is the result of 'form follows function'. F3A sequences drive the design approach and current maneuvers are very knife edge intensive, hence the large fuselages. Also, constant speed throughout the flight is part of the judging criteria and the big draggy fuselages help maintain constant speed. They fly really well, regardless of appearance.

Sorry but this just tells me that the OP wasn't all that serious about getting back into pattern. Flying pattern is all about the flying and the constant challenge, IMO he was just looking for a place to gripe.

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).

Agreed guys, all the people I hear saying that, either can´t or won´t....... but, there are some really ugly ones lately. Love my Acuracy, Axiomes, Osmose,etc, those are beautiful ships among other designs which look spectacular. I really think it is a good era for F3A.....

Then again, would you, if CD, turn away a guy who shows up with a Kaos? I have been out for a few years (since Hydout days) to concentrate on long distance cycling, but am considering entering a contest by rebuilding a Dave Patrick Conquest that has some hangar rash and may need an engine. Sure its competition, but it should be fun too. Then again, I have a slightly crashed Kaos and a NIB K&B .61. Since I am on 'over sixty' home lock down it may be a project to work on.

Regardless of being CD or not I would ask that you introduce yourself at the pilots meeting so that everyone could welcome you to the event. Then if I weren't able to do it myself I would ask for one of the other guys to stick with you for the day and act as your caller and help you in any way he could. I would make sure that should you run into technical issues that there would be plenty of help. I understand that being new to the group makes it difficult to reach out do I would try my best to make sure you felt comfortable. After flying on Saturday I would invite you to dinner with the group that prefers a nice restaurant after a long day of flying, help you prep your equipment for the remaining two rounds on Sunday. We could talk about your flying and go over key points of where some points could be gained.

My goal would be to make sure that your return to pattern is as enjoyable as possible because I want you to come back again, I want a new face in the group, somone to help, tell my stories to, listen to your stories, enjoy the laughter of our wives as they talk about us. It matters not to me one little bit what era of airplane you bring. The rule in sportsman is fly what you have. My reintroduction into pattern started 5 years ago when I flew a local contest with my 40% Extra. What matters most is that at the end of the weekend you leave having enjoyed yourself and made some new friends. You live in NSRCA district 7, a great group of guys that know how to have fun, it's not all about the airplanes.

This may happen. In fact, In think I may have even met you. Is your name Kris? (very sorry about the loss of you brother. I lost mine about the same time.)

I flew a few contests in the late 90's, early '00's. A couple in Lancaster, one in Morgan Hill. A couple in Perris (Riverside) and Corona (Prado Dam.) The one in Riverside I won the novice event with a .40 sized Kaos. The last was in 2012 with a scratch built 8s electric I plan bashed form a Gator Giles.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...fe6b85c881.jpg


This Hydeout has been hanging in the garage, never flown, for ten years.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...054e1043ae.jpg


This is what I have been doing in the meantime.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...c1138261ec.jpg
The green one has about 12k miles on it. The yellow one is an oval track racing bike I raced in 2013. The most fun I have ever had on two wheels. (no brakes!) I did put a brake on the front wheel to do an organized charity ride where they demanded I put one on it. http://www.bikethebay.net/about-the-ride/route/ since it is a single speed bike I only do flat rides on it. No hills except to climb the Coronado Bay Bridge. Coming down the bridge was scary since my legs were pumping 120 rpm)

I think you are referring to Kris F., great guy but I am Shawn B. I was a member of Morgan Hill from 1997 to 2015 but flew mostly IMAC. Been in Sacramento for the last 5 years and recently moved to northern Oregon.

Yeah. Back then I was fairly active on RCU. Only recently came back. Need to strip the and repaint Hydeout. My first attempt at auto paint did not come out well. The Webra .140 needs bearings. Need to see if Boca is still in business.

For those of you dissing me. I just finished building an electric Brushfire. I am an aeronautical engineer. I know about form and function. Regardless, the are still ugly.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...9e53cdf186.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...82124412a9.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...4328e19291.jpg

The first thing I want to say is to compliment you on your Brushfire. Very nice airplane indeed. That being said, you tend to get back what you dish out. Starting a thread with " modern pattern airplanes are ugly " IMO is just looking to get flamed. As someone who spent almost 2 years designing, fabricating molds and then building a modern pattern airplane your comment was the equivalent to " yes dear, those jeans do make you look fat ".

Ok. I get it. So what are the technical reasons for the look of the modern 2m planes. Of course electric power has made a huge difference. I was very surprised to hear about 10 lbs airplanes. The Brushfire weighs 8 lbs with battery included. Considering the motor I used it should climb like forever.

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

Ehhhhhhhhh....
Apparently the aerodynamic features do what they're supposed to do, but in terms of appearance, as far as flying things go, maybe it's not quite as ugly as the colloquial stuff that hits the fan.:p .....maybe.

Well Steve, I am aware that you have high regards for a well done scale build as do I. Although scale is not my thing I still have an appreciation for it, shame you can't seem to have appreciation for others hard work.

Sort of what has happened with the new crop of fighters like the F22 and F35. Extremely capable but not always pleasing to the eye. I do appreciate the explanations. Thank you.

On the contrary, from what I can tell from the photos, the workmanship seems impeccable to me! It's the style of the aircraft that makes a Warthog look relatively graceful (to me at least). ;)

Now that I think about it, I seem to recall some full scale aircraft that Dick Rutan designed... absolutely made me cringe!!! LOL

It isn't only scale aircraft that appeal to me as I've always had a fondness for a Taurus, Kwik Fly III and numerous others. In fact my appreciation for scale came only after I became involved with full scale aviation and finally saw what a real airplane looked like up close.

There's no denying that I like shiny things, but at the same time a have a huge appreciation for tugboats. They aren't typically slick or shiny and rather far from being pretty, but I absolutely love those things! :)

Not only ugly... but designers are also blindly copying designs.. without even understanding the advantage or disadvantage of that design.. very few designers are designing models from scratch.

Thinking that the current pattern planes are butt ugly has nothing to do with being serious about getting back into it. He may have been looking for a place to gripe but so what? This is a forum - gripes are welcome here too, aren't they? Or are you going to limit free speech to just what you want to hear?

Must be quiet over in the AMA forum.

I think some of the current pattern planess are ugly, too. I don't mind large fuselages. I suppose the bulbous noses that are often seen give an advantage. There's some biplane designs that look very good to me.

At least in some areas, people have been doing Classic Stunt, or something like that, with older designs and presumably older programs.
https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/cla...rn-flying-379/

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

That's what I mean by good looking biplanes. The fuselage LOOKS right. The position of the upper wing seems strange to my eyes which are not quite as young as they used to be :) Is the reason for mounting the wing directly on the fuselage aerodynamic or structural? Is it "conventional construction or molded?

Keep in mind that any aircraft design is a conglomerate of theory and compromises. We go with what works well in theory and if the airplane flies well we attribute that to a successful theory. The fuselage needs enough side area to perform knife edge well. My theory is that if you need to fly the fuselage more then 5 degrees positive AOA then you start getting non linear control cross coupling. This means that with rudder you also get roll and pitch. Reducing the rudder amount you need to fly knife edge loops keeps that couple to a minimum. With older designs you would need a ton of rudder throw. The problem with that is even with TX mixing you will never quite match your mix to the couple unless you have a TX with multi point mixing. This is why you see taller and taller fuselages. It's also why you see some monoplane designs with the small wings behind the canopy.

The position of the upper wing on my design was pretty well thought out. There are structural and aerodynamic reasons behind it. Traditional Cabane struts would have added complexity and a reduction in strength. The wings depend on one another to stay intact. The more important reason is the separation between the two. Farther apart would increase lift efficiency due to the lower wing getting less downwash from the top wing however having the drag of the top wing farther above the thrust line creates a whole new set of issues. Trim change with speed change in both horizontal and knife edge flight being the bigger of the bunch. So the upper wing gets what we call " shoulder mounted ". The canopy position is fairly important too. You want to have side area balanced fore and aft of the CG. This helps keep the airplane from weathervaneing too much in a cross wind. A well proportioned airplane just requires you bank the wings slightly into the crosswind to hold a line.

As of now the fuselage on my design is fiberglass/balsa sandwich composite. The wings and stabs are traditional balsa sheeted foam. I am toying with the idea of full composite.

But it is really Ugly Shawn



Scott

Is there some reason why a canopy position like yours wouldn't work well on a monoplane?

It isn't symmetrical, of course, which might have aerodynamic issues. But it looks right to me. Also, I recall discussions on model and full size aerobatics, where it was pointed out that straight parallel lines make it easier to see and judge a flight.

As this thread is about the current F3A pattern planes being ugly... I personally would like to point out few things regarding today's F3A pattern design.. all of sudden we see swept back design wings, planes using T canalizer on top of the fuselages... and most of them think swept back wings are now better... and current designs have a very thin wing tip just because someone came up with this design.... some pattern planes look so similar to each other.. looks like they are copied designs.... copied from some other professional F3A pilot plane design :D strange isn't it... without even doing any research people blindly copy designs and on the field almost many of the planes on the field look like brothers and sisters... my question is why cannot these designers design their own original pattern plane..

Remember that 99.99% of the population are just followers. Leaves very few really innovative thinkers. Having recently flown a new "2m" design, I found it too twitchy for my taste. My Brushfire is a much more stable platform capable of performing all maneuvers. By next year I will be ready for competition again.

I beg to differ, IMO pattern airplanes of the '70s and '80s looked much more similar then modern designs did. Classic example would be Hanno's Curare. Over here in the US there was all the sudden the Tipare, Hippo Tippo, Tipare 800 and a Dave Brown design that evolved from the airplanes mentioned, Can't recall the name off the top of my head. I have no issues with guys not liking the new designs but let's be honest in the information that we put out shall we?

Highfly3d: yup, CPLR wins with a T-can and they appear on airplanes faster than dandelions in my lawn :-0
CPLR wins with radically swept wings and... well, you know the rest.
The pattern market is VERY small (globally, not the just in the USA); so sellers want to provide designs that they feel will sell. The Japanese designers tend to make continued improvements to their existing designs which have evolved over several to many years. Even they are jumping on the swept horizontal surface bandwagon.
There are a few innovators who have been willing to follow their own design philosophy; Alex Voicu produced the Vortex design which has now been kitted in the USA, for example.
Anybody can try their hand at designing their own model, but the effort would still be substantial as the weight limit poses significant restrictions as does the current F3A schedules. Of course designing your own ship for the lower classes would be potentially easier as schedules are much less 'knife edge' intensive. I'll add that there also the expense to be considered as a 2 meter design will require a lot of balsa (or producing a plug and a light weight fuselage) and contest balsa is pretty pricey. Mostly, I think guys are quite happy to spend the extra money to get an ARF and avoid the effort involved in building.

CXXXV:
I always loved the Brushfire (and still have a kit). The big 'goal' in current pattern flying is constant speed and that seems to have been translated to mean slow speed; so full throttle is mostly only used in vertical flight (and even then only if needed). The plus side of slow flight is that you have more time to fly through the maneuver which is especially beneficial to current pattern pilots as it seems the majority are well over age 50. Personally, I still fly glow and 2-strokes to boot. I fly slower than the old 'Brushfire' days, but faster then what is considered acceptable in current thinking (until it gets windy). Back to the point; to fly slowly with control authority, more throw is needed which leads to the twitchy feel when flown at greater speed. Just my opinion, since I have not flown the model you flew. What do you plan to compete with next year?
PS - your electric Brushfire looks great! Back in the 'good old days' pilots would have been thrilled to fly an 8 pound Brushfire.

I agree with you...

Keep in mind that " Twitchy" is typically a setup issue not a design issue. While I would never discourage anyone from coming out to a contest with an old school airplane, your Brushfire will do very well in the lower classes but will fall short in the upper classes. The airplane just wasn't designed to do knife edge flight or snap rolls. Nothing wrong with the airplane, the game has changed. The new designs while not very attractive to some have evolved due to those changes. I certainly agree that it's difficult to appreciate them until you have flown one correctly setup. I have let a few non pattern pilots fly my Divergent. They were all impressed at how easy it is to fly. I had them do elevator only loops, aileron only rolls to demonstrate how well it held a line during the maneuver.

flywilly Thanks for the comments. All my Brushfires back in the day never weighed more than 8 lbs. We would really rag on our pattern buddies if they showed up with anything weighing more than 8 lbs. I did manage to build one to 7.5 lbs what is what some what delicate. With todays building techniques and materials I am surprised that planes are weighing in a 10 lbs.

My biggest issue now is the cost of these airplanes. I have not been able to find any kits like before. Fuse and cores. Paying $3000 for an ARF just makes me shudder (and that's just the plane). If anyone knows of kits like these I would love to know. All I can find are ARF's.

I will try my luck in Sportsman next year as I progress back in.

In the seventies there was a car called the AMC Pacer. This was the gawd awful ugliest car made at that time. My high school girlfriend had one and though it was cute. I kept my mouth shut.

Just sayin'

First, I want to mention that Speedracerntrixie blazed his own trail and designed the Divergent which he has made available as a kit ( there is a detailed thread in the electric pattern forum). I can attest to the quality of his work as I have purchased a cowl produced from his mold for the Reed Falcon biplane, and a partially completed (framed up fuselage) Miss Norway which is immaculate.

Current Pattern Kits: for CXXXV
Speedracerntrixie: Divergent
Insight RC: Pentathalon Evo and the new Revo
Eureka Aircraft Company: Lightning
RCAIIR: Vortex, Black Magic VF3, Addiction ([email protected])
Flight Hobby (available through RC-Japan): Neo Stage; Neo Stage bipe
Naruke Hobby: Advantage; Advantage bipe
Wingcraft Inagaki; Excalibur II; Interceptor
Nishioka Hobby: Value
RC-Composit; Contrast, Europa Pro
Aviaform: Radiance
Every kit listed was designed for e-power except the Black Magic and the Addiction (about 12-13 years old), but could be converted. Naruke offers his kits in either GP or EP configurations. The list is 'off the top' of my aging head; so apologies to any I may have forgotten. Price ranges from about $225 for the Lightning (basic kit, no sheet wood) to about $1700 for the Vortex complete kit (available as both a basic kit and complete with all wood included). Shipping is extra (about $100 for the Japanese kits).
Sorry I didn't include links, but my internet is only mediocre (on the good days - I have to use satellite internet) and slowwww.
Hope this helps.
-Will

:o;)

Thanks for list.

Morris Hobby sells all the current Japanese kits:
https://www.translatetheweb.com/?fro...e.jp%2f46.html

So why do current planes not use retracts?