Wondering what gear folks are using in this flying wing combat plane.

I've seen a few with an O.S. .25 FX with a mousse can muffler.

If you've got one please post what engine, radio, servos, and battery you're using and how you like them in it.
Thanks

Neil,

Those predators you are looking at need more wing span (IMO) to be competitive with the current combat designs out there, just ask the boys who came to Mile-Hi a couple of weeks ago They are fast but need the sweep length to gather streamers. Streamers are cut by wing span more than prop cuts, no matter what the speed. Build a long wing SPAD and rule the Boulder combat skies Mine has an OSFX with a Kombat Kan, HS555 and Futaba 3003s on the elev and rons, a GWS MGBB on the throttle. Get it ready for the next Mile-Hi event 8/6/05 !!

rrh

It would be fun to rule but isn't it cheating a little if everyone else I'll regularly battle has the standard predator.
BTW thanks for the info.

Well Neil, it's the best, let me repeat, the BEST cheater who is winning. Not the most obviously cheater or the most flagrant cheater, it's the BEST cheater who is winning. The best cheater is never caught nor can he be accused of cheating. Cheating is testing the rules and finding the limits and working the edge of the limits. If you want to win, you have to play the game Where is the line between cheating and pushing the limits? You decide. Like to win? I do! Some like to compete and that is okay. The winners are ..........finding the limits.

rrh

rrh is absolutely correct.

However, I think the wisdom behind Neil's question is to find some common ground so the event itself won't be a component race. If you keep beating your friends all the time, eventually they pick up their toys and go home.

You may sit there with your pile of trophies, but I'd rather mix it up with my friends in the air.

We've noticed this all around that combat tends to "flare up" as the excitement builds in little pockets all over the country, and then it reaches a critical mass, then dies off as everyone "tests the limits." The biggest limit is always the time one can afford to stay "competitive." This scares away beginners, and makes veterans wish there was a better way to get and keep quality talent, so they don't need to drive 200 miles to find a good combat club. This was the genesis of SSC. But even that has rules and limits which will be tested(to rrh's point.)

Anyway, get a Panther if you want more span AND durabilty. SPADs are neat technology, but I've never seen a SPAD light enough to be competitve at the national level.

Here's mine:
http://mypage.yhti.net/~dmcdnld/predator.htm

A true competitor also knows when to sandbag it so as not to scare away all the upcoming competition

rrh

I'm pretty bothered by the insinuation that the best cheaters are winning. I don't cheat and I don't know of any of the top competitors who are cheating. use your own definition if you care to, but cheating is not following the rules, period. Taking rules to the limits is not cheating. To my knowledge most combat competitors, especially the top ranks, are good with the rules and follow them, the embarassment of getting caught would taint their victories and it would not be worth it, so they are likely to be careful with violations. Those who aren't winning shouldn't salve their egos by telling themselves that the winners get there by cheating. Generally, it's quite the opposite.

Scott,

RRH gave his definition of cheating:

"Cheating is testing the rules and finding the limits and working the edge of the limits."

I think it's important to note that he didn't say the limits were CROSSED (ie, break the rules).

I wouldn't choose to describe what R/C combat winners are doing as cheating either, but if you read rrh's definition, there's really nothing wrong with it other than the negative connotation that cheating implies (to your point). Any competitive sport will do this. Winners are often the ones who push the sport by INNOVATION. Perhaps that would have been a better term to use.

Longer wing spans, tuned pipes, pressurized fuel delivery systems, durable materials science, reliable and easily maintainable components ... take your pick. Take any winner and look at his weapon of choice. Chances are you'll see something innovative that he either invented himself, or perfected beyond what someone else did.

Don't get me wrong, it's also about pilot skills-- but at any top level competition, the winners will always be riding the best mounts. (this means you too Scott!)

Scott, sorry to give the wrong impression. I am not pointing any fingers. It's just a term I picked up racing stock cars. I had asked the promoter about some changes I wanted to try on my shocks that were not specifically addressed in the rule book and he told me "the best cheater wins' and it just kinda stuck in my head. Trying stuff that is not written in the rules is how the sport advances. I would probably be more accurate, and apparently less offensive, if I said the best innovator wins. But if you are stretching the rules, by your personal interpretation of the rules, and trying something no one else is doing isn't this kind of like cheating? For the good of our sport I'll not use that term again.

rrh

Neil,

Are you going to be at Mile Hi on August 6th to fly some RCCA Open B with us? I hope so!

George

Hey George and Randy, small world aint it

Joe[8D]

Yes Joe, it is!

George

Randy, my post was not directed at you in terms of the "ego" thing and it was a poor choice of words, I apologize. I mostly meant it as a generic statement toward those who are not winning and may be looking for excuses, but i should have just avoided such a statement altogether. Heck, I don't win, but I know it's because i stink! I do tend to bristle when I see the "c" word thrown out there and I should have chosen my words better. I CERTAINLY agree that the winners usually have the best "mounts" and btw I am not a winner but only the pitman for my son who does win occasionally and also gets beat occasionally too! I've seen guys do great with seemingly garden-variety planes, an example would be Chris Quinn in SSC who seems to have a low-tech ship that is tough, flies great, but the balance of it is obviously pure flying skill! I also certainly agree that pushing to the edge of the rules is helpful. If you're just getting started, here's the rules I would pay close attention to, most are probably obvious:

MIN WEIGHT: Applies principally to SSC, 2548, and Limited B. These are all power-limited classes and a 4 ounce weight change can make a noticeable difference in turning ability and vertical performance. Try to get as close to min wt as possible, without sacrificing too much armor. GOod ways to get to min wt, other than eliminating material where it's not needed, are: lighter finishes (and avoiding too much graphics, those can add up!), light engines i.e. Norvel, nimh batteries (we like the 400 mah from cheapbatterypacks.com- not only do light batteries save weight, they also cause less damage in a crash where the battery can sometimes serve as a battering ram), smaller fuel tanks (or a bladder), small servos (but usually if you use a smaller servo on aileron or elevator, you should use metal gears as the small resin-gear servos often strip easily). I HAVE built fleets of planes (for B) with dual aileron servos where I ran out of minis and had to use full-size- that's probably a 1-2 ounce weight increase, but in those cases I have never been able to tell a performance difference. I would say 3-4 ounces starts to get noticeable, probably less on the lighter SSC ships. Four onces on an SSC ship will definitely be noticeable.

MAX WING AREA/SPAN: Generally, the bigger the wing, the better the overall performance, plus longer span makes for more streamer-grabbing ability. More area goes against low weight, so you have a balance you need to acheive. In B and 2610, you have a max weight so if you go crazy with area, you need to go to lighter-density foam and other weight-saving measures which may compromise durability- again, a balance.

POWER: Can't say I've ever seen a combat plane that didn't fly better with more power. If you have an rpm-limited class, try to get to the rpm limit if possible. It IS a hassle at times. I usually bring a jug of 5, 15, and 25% fuels to an SSC meet. Also, thru testing I have found that some plugs give a couple hudred more or less rpm in certain engines. So by juggling fuel and plug I can try to get within a couple hundred rpm of the limit (to give a safety factor in case of an "audit" tach check). For example, at the last contest we were at, our first SSC plane took 5% and an OS 8 plug, our second one took 15% and a K&B. I made little notes in marker on the wing, after doing the morning's tach check, so I would not forget what that particular plane took.

PROPS: you go through a lot of props in combat so it's tempting to not balance them as it takes a lot of time. I recommend you do, as fuel foaming will lead to really erratic performance, and a balanced prop will help avoid fuel foaming. in the spec-prop classes you can't modify the prop so if you balance you must use some type of coating if it takes more than a light sanding. you CAN remove molding flash and I do that if it's present, mostly cause it will cut you like crazy when hand-flipping.

If I think of any other issues I'll post. Once again, my apologies for my poorly chosen words in my previous reply.