RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

WWI models are ALWAYS tail heavy. For that reason, the G-26 is a favorite in the Balsa USA models. Of course you can use a newer, lighter, mode powerful power plant (but you will need a huge chunk of lead on that firewall). During WWI airfields were square. They always landed into the wind (remember they had no brakes). Crosswinds and WWI models airplanes not mix well... I saw a lot of DR-1 full size replicas that have a tail-wheel (steerable) also Kermit Weeks put a steerable skid on hid DVIII full size...

Good luck

Gerry

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Thanks Gerry, So putting a steerable tail wheel on would help with ground control,that's good to know! http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/js/f...sn/biggrin.gif

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

I have a pitts sr2 and to me the take off is the hardest part of the flight! The planes tracks straight up to a certain point and will whip to the left the last part of the take off and you have to be on your toes with right rudder to correct this but many times I find that that is very difficult to do. I am fortunate to have enough power to get up in the air before the plane reaches the rough, taller grass on the side of our strip. My ultimate takes off straight, even in cross wind and is a breeze to land as long as you control the sink rate with the throttle. The ultimate is so easy to fly you just point it and it tracks straight withe little correction needed. I have a world models 33% ultimate( i think aeroworks first produced it) with an eighty cc single on it and it is the only plane that will do a long slow roll without much down elevator needed(inverted) to keep it level. I rate it over several gas planes that I own, those being my cap232, edge540, katana, giant scale stik, pitts sr2, yak 54 and extra 260. My ultimate is much harder to put together at the field, but the out of this world great flying it does is well worth the extra effort! I have got used to putting the flying wires on it even though they are a pain in the rear!

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

I know nothing about this plane at all but I can give a quick over view of CG on a bipe. I have info with all the formulas for CGing a bipe of any wing type be they both swept or one swept and one straight or constant cord. I could scan one of my old clip outs tonight and post it here if needed. The easiest one to CG is the constant cord. You just level the plane on the floor, measure the combined cord of the two wings then CG 25% from the out most LE. So far the old 25% rule has worked out perfectly. Like any plane, after you have the CG set you can move it around to suite yourself. The swept and mixed wings tend to get a bit harder like on the Aeromaster that can have three different wing configurations.
I saw glide rate mentioned too. A bipe will slow down faster due to drag but if a dead stick happens you just point the nose down to keep up the air speed. They don't just stop and fall out of the sky but you better be floating toward the landing strip right away.
Landings are not much different. I have had some that I was never able to land without bouncing. The Aeromaster 60 for one. I turned the LG around forward and back wards and it still bounced. Others would bounce if I didn't have the correct speed and fly them in perfectly.
Still landing isn't a big problem, it has always been the take off with a short coupled Bipe. Ground looping little crappers. For the most part the WWI planes that had a radial engine. Talk about short coupled!! The Pitts and that type like the Eagle. After you take them off a few times you get them figured out.
The way SeamusG showed the covering job is about perfect for a sport bipe. A scale Bipe can be a bit hard to tell top from bottom when doing stunts but I look for the landing gear to be sure on a scale plane.
I love Bipes. I still have one on the wall but I no longer build or fly them. I got tired of trying to get them in and out of my van so hauling one that doesn't come apart is a pain. Assembling and disassembling them at the field is a pain.
Still, the WOW factor can be worth the trouble. It was for me for a lot of years. Still love um, I just got out of that faze.;)
Gene

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

This is my findings as well. I am glad someone else has seen this. http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/js/f...ular_smile.gif
Thought I had biplane blindness...

I am now over it and can fly the pants off of it but it took about 10 flights.

Cheers
Tim

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

They can even fly in the snow!

Jaybird

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

You are looking at about 1/4 scale WW1 bipe for that power.
here are videos and pictures of 100's of WW1 bipes

www.hoosierdawnpatrol.com

look and ask questions

steve p

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Three different types. My Moth, Boeing F4B-2 and the Krier Kraft. The moth was built from a very old kit from the UK powered with an OS FS .70, a 1.20 could have been a better choice but the .70 gave it a very scale flight, it has a 66 inch span. The Boeing is built from John Tanzer plans. Started life with a OS 1.20FS but has had several engine swaps over the years. It's 68 inches. Best engine was an RCS 1.40 gasser but it's even had a 40cc engine in it. Due to the single ailerons it has always been a slug in the air. The last one is a Krier Kraft I built using plans by Gordon White head from the UK. Can't recall the span but it was powered with a YS 1.10. This plane got with the program but could stall on you at low speed.
All three are different but all very easy to fly. The Moth and Boeing were very easy to take off and land. The Krier needed to be brought in a little faster but the landing gear functioned so it didn't bounce or get out of control.
The Moth wasn't much different from a trainer that did nice clean stunts. It even flew very well inverted but unlike a trainer, it didn't have any self righting at all. It went where you pointed it.
I still have the boeing, sold the Moth and crashed the Krier when it got away from me while I was showing off. It didn't want to slip in for a landing, it liked some speed and a straight shot to the runway. My bad!!!:eek:
In the air they all flew like any other plane. Same with my WWI warbirds. The best of that bunch was the Fokkeer D-VII.
Notice I haven't mentioned the DR-I Tri. That is one plane that will fly a bit different and is a total bear on the ground if the wind isn't straight down the runway.

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Thanks for the link Steve. GB, I think you talked me into to it, Just have to finish up the corsair first, thinking of a Nieuport 17 any thoughts or recomended kits?

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Just one, Balsa USA!!!! If your looking at a smaller plane then look in MAN plans. They have a lot of nice Bipes in the smaller sizes. I even have a set for the Nieuport 28 by Nick Ziroli. It's a 40 size but really scale. They also have the 12 and 27. The 28 was always one of my favorites. RCM plans and the AMA plans site are also good places.
Don't blame it on me either. I gave them up a long time ago for a number of reasons. I still look and give them some thought but I'm able to fight the feeling.
Kits are pretty much out. How many kits do you see today? WWI kits weren't big sellers even in the hay day of kits. Almost all my Bipes were scratch/plans built. I keep telling people how easy it is but if kit building is almost a lost art you aren't going to get people into cutting there own. Bipes are one of the reason I started cutting my own.
Gene

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Sounds like biplane familiarization flights should be a couple of mistakes high - until you're comfortable with its new visual "pattern". Excellent advice. Thx.

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Balsa USA has 4, 1/6 scale kits now. Nieuport 17, Nieuport 28, Sopwith Pup, and Tommy Morse Scout. All build nice and fly very well. These are .40 glow size, .52 4 stroke, or electric convertible. If you want larger, they have the N-11, N-17 and N-28 in 1/4 scale. The N-11 is the smallest and they show electric power for it, if that's the way you want to go. Flying Models Magazine plan service also has a bunch of older WW1 plans and designs, including a lot from Nick Ziroli, that Gray Beard mentioned. I would recommend a kit as your first. Proctor has their VK line that builds more like the BUSA kits. All are great flyers.

steve

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Gene,

Thanks for the CG formula... I think that will be a great place to start.

And thanks to all for the input, very good information.

Ben

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Gene - I'm fighting this urge to do my first scratch build, God forbid, of a WWI model. Curse you Gray Barron!!!

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Balsa USA it is then! Thanks guys! http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/js/f...sn/biggrin.gif

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Remember, a nose heavy plane will fly poorly, a tail heavy plane will fly once. The short nosed WWI aircraft are notoriuos for needing lots of ballast in the nose, but it needs to be there. Actually most scale biplanes have short noses like the Stearman or WACO with radial engines. Some are a little more stretched out like the Tiger Moth or Fokker D-VII. The ground handlling on the WWI type is affected by the big wheels and narrow stance compared to the more modern designs and tailskids vs. tailwheels as mentioned before.

Here is a link to some of the September Rhinebeck Jamboree. There are several videos available of model and full scale at my YouTube account.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEV46ysXjcw

Of the fifteen planes I have ready to fly I have in 1/6th scale a Hangar 9 Fokker D-VII, a Top Flite SE5a, Concept Fleet M2, Midwest Super Stearman and Great Planes Super Skybolt. In 1/4 scale I have a Cermark Pitts S-2B and in electric I have the Parkzone SE5.

Jaybird

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Very cool video and models :)

Thanks!

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Here's a half scale Nieuport 11 at Rhinebeck. The old WWI biplanes fly slow beacuse they can! That and drag from all those wires and flying surfaces etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG2lnbGuK0U

Jaybird

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Man,....I love those old birds!

The original designer, Gustave Delage, would have been delighted if he could have seen his Bébé being modeled almost a century after his first draw on a piece of paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nieuport_11

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Has anyone had any experiences with elect power for the biplanes? I have a H9 Sopwith Camel that I just built and I installed a eRC 46 motor and speed control, I am using a 3300 4s lipo battery. Would this setup be enough to get this bird in the air? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Nick </p>

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Nick, I have a H9 Camel that is electric powered. I am running a Monster Power 60 on 6S 4000 and it is a great combo. I think someone has the set up you have somewhere here www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_4794677/anchors_4794677/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#4794677 There is also an electric thread on RCG with the Camel.

Harry<br type="_moz" />

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Harry,

What is a good setup for wing incedent? This is my first bipe plane other than my Electrifly Sopwith Camel. I have flown other mono wing ww1 planes for several years now and got a good deal on the Camel last year and could'nt pass it up.

Nick

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Now there's something to think about! [sm=thumbs_up.gif]

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

I am cutting my temps for a 31% dr 1 now haveing a ball doing so , go for it you will love it

RE: Biplane Flight Differences
 

Nick, I don't remember exactly what the incedence is, and can't find my meter, but it matched perfectly out of the box. Just make sure you got the cabane struts the right way and you should be good.

Harry