I was reading through the question and answer forum, and it seems as though whenever a general question is asked (especially about control surface throws, or power requirements), it is generally assumed that the model will be used for 3-D manuvering. Is this actually the case, or is that just where the majority of the flyers are attempting to go?

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

Not in my case. I like them flying straight and level with a loop and a roll tossed in for good measures. Nothing better than a military roll done by a great looking warbird. Good Luck, Dave

Aren't you planning to 3-D your YMF, Bill?. Just set your elevator throws just short of pulling out the hinges at max deflection, and set the rudder to bang against both elevator halves, and the ailerons likewise the elevator. Then go as much positive expo that the Tx will allow, carve out the cowl so you can stick a DA-150 up front with a prop that grazes the ground, and have at the Harrier rolls and tail-touching. Betcha she'll do a beautiful waterfall!!

The same trend exists in kit and ARF manufacture. Look at the ads, nearly everything being sold today is hyped with the word "3-D". Yet from what I see, the large majority of sport fliers don't fly 3-D. So they're stuck with planes designed for a flight regime they will never use.

The sport fliers at our club that fly the 3-D ARFs are always amazed when I fly my old pattern planes. They don't realize how much of what they're seeing is the plane and not me. If only they knew how much their flying would improve by flying something like a Kaos or an Ultra Sport.

But that 3-D buzzword sells planes and the one size fits all attitude says that if it will fly 3-D it must be good for anything.

Dave

Honestly I never read threads specific to a certain plane… Unless it’s one that I own, once owned, or would like to own.

So I’m going to say the automatic assumption very likely goes with the type of plane the poster is asking about. Take the H9 Twist for example. To me that’s a 3-D bird and most modelers buying it are doing so for that purpose, so I would provide input about it with that intention in mind… unless they state other wise.

Bill
People want to break the sound B and touch tail with the same plane and why not 3D my YMF with anough power you can fly a ROCK

My club is a 3D club mostly, but most can't fly it that way. They can handle the plane like a sport flyer. Those guys will had the sticks over to a 3D guy and pull out the video camera, but they don't want take the chances to get there, themselves. They never learn the details that what makes it work; that is why they ask the questions.

A lot of it is what people read into 3D. If you look at a lot of the setups, and listen to them talk, most of 3D to them is hovering. I bought a Seagull Ultimate knowing it wasn't the 3D plane they advertised it was, but if you go to their website and watch their video, it's 5 minutes of hovering, that's it. If you take a typical 6 pound plane and put an OS 1.20 AX on it, you're going to need all the control surface throw you can get just to make it turn. I have found that a lighter plane is more nimble than a brick.
For example, when I was researching my ultimate, I read horror stories where people would mount an OS 1.60 on it (the plane calls for a .91 to 1.20) In order to make the front end strong enough to support it, the entire front end had to be fiberglassed. Then the landing gear had to be stiffened up. To get the correct CG, either weights must be added or a hatch cut in the fuse for the battery. After everything was said and done, they ended up with a 14 pound airplane. I have a 1.08 on the front of mine swinging a 15X4W prop at 11,500 rpm making just over 19 pounds odf static thrust. Full of fuel and ready to fly, the plane weighs in at 9 pounds 12 ounces. I can hover just as well as the guy with the 1.60, and I can do a slower knife edge. I can do anything he can and then some. Some assume that 3D is about power, but in actuality, it's a combination of power, ballance and wingload. The lighter your wingload, the less control surface movement is needed to produce the same results.