Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Pattern Universe - RC Pattern Flying > RC Pattern Flying
Reload this Page >

Pattern design according to the flyncajun

Notices
RC Pattern Flying Discuss all topics pertaining to RC Pattern Flying in this forum.

Pattern design according to the flyncajun

Old 03-05-2013, 11:02 PM
  #1  
Rendegade
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Perth, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Pattern design according to the flyncajun

ORIGINAL: flyncajun


When I started designing Pattern Aircraft
I was told the Stab had to be lowered to keep the airplane from pitching to the belly on Rudder( wrong)
I was told SSS was Causing the airplane to pitch to the Belly on left rudder, But right rudder ,,Not so much (wrong)
I was told down thrust was how you kept an airplane from pulling to the canopy in a verical up line (wrong)
I was told you can`t get the mix out of a airplane because the SSS put unequal pressures on the surfaces,you just have to live with it (wrong)
I was told Wide tall fuses would fly terribe in the wind(wrong)
I was told a heavy airplane flew better in the wind (wrong)
I was told the airplane had to be built with wing, stab set to zero (wrong)
I was told there is no way to perform a Knife edge loop with no Mix purley on rudder command (wrong)
I was told anhedral stabs countered too much dihedral in the wing (wrong)
I was told you had to run the C/G back around 35 % so the airplane used just a little down elevator (wrong)
I was told you need minimun of 2 degrees right thrust (wrong)
I was told to start out with 1.5 deg down thrust (wrong)
I was told a forward canopy rolled better (wrong)
I was told fixed gear were less drag than retracts (wrong)
I was told there had to be a left rudder mix at low throttle (wrong )
I was told you cannot use Sharp leading edges on your wings and stabs the airplanes would be pitchy in flight (wrong)
I was told you cannot use counter balances on ailerons (wrong)
I was told you had to run deferential on ailerons to roll axially (wrong)
I WAS TOLD ALL BIPES HAD TO HAVE THE WINGS AT DIFFERENT INC. NEG ON TOP POS ON BOTTOM (WRONG)
I WAS TOLD TO USE UP THRUST ON THE BIPE( WRONG)
I WAS TOLD TO GIVE UP ON THE BIPE (WRONG) the guy who told be that went back to it after seeing mine HAHA
i WAS TOLD BIPES WERE TO COMPLICATED TO HAVE NO MIX (WRONG)
I WAS TOLD TO BE COMPETITIVE TODAY I HAD TO GO TO ELECTRIC (WRONG) had to throw that one in LOL



Bryan, I thought I'd just put this over in another thread before it degenerates any further.

Can you tell us how you've come up with these, and more importantly how you've overcome some of these issues? This isn't meant to be an attack, I'm seriously interested, as I'm sure are quite a few other modellers.
Old 03-06-2013, 08:25 AM
  #2  
flyncajun
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: DENHAM SPRINGS , LA
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun



Recently the designer of the Spark e-mailed me and said He liked my Bipe and He was designing a Bipe, and wanted to know my Bipe setup.
I Had a weak Moment and gave a setup to him LOL
So you might be able to pry that one from him, But I cannot just give that info Out anymore. It has cost me 20 Years of my Life, I think it may be worth something.

I figure if you can Buy My designs, reverse engineer it, and just look at the common sense and experience in it, we both win
Every think I do to a design is proven purpose.
Every body knows when they eat a Cake "mostly "what is used to make the batter, and you know all cakes LOOK good ,How much of whats in the batter gives the outcome for the "good" cakes. The chefs never tell what the recipe is for the really good cakes, they would no longer sell the best cakes LOL

Every airplane designed today for competiton by active competitive pilots" Not the knock off look alikes" are worthy airplanes. It is the small details that are missed,what cannot be seen that seperates the knock offs, Competition and understanding of the needs of the airplane in competiton is what makes the really good designs. and they evolve from this. Thats Why My airplanes look like My Airplanes or CHip Or CPLR`s airplanes look like they evolved from a educated Idea. We have a philosophy that evolves from understanding What the goals are.
WE are involved enough and lucky sometimes to see the new power plants available ect. and design around this knowledge before the average guy even knows about new products are being developed around the corner.

An airplane that is not well thought out or designed , starts the chain reaction rolling, and the mixing begins. this mixing seems to be Mystical and we actually like that about it, it gives us endless hours of debate about what it might be. I go out and find what it is, refine it in the next design, and eliminate it. usually when you find the cause for one mix,it is actually the fix for two other problems. they have a way of compounding problems.
We waste our time putting bandades on the sore ,and not curing whats causing the sores. and our new radios actually enable this.
Ever notice every Bip out there has the same wing area ,Why every body copies what they think the other person my know!
I copy myself. and improve on what I know ,When I try to improve on what somebody els knows I fail.

Refinements come from understanding the Needs or Goals of what the Purpose is for the design, Everything done in the design needs to be in Harmony with the Purpose of the design. from the gear to the paint.
Available Power, for the most part, drives the advancement of the design and gives the flexibility in the setup Thats why Props are so effective in changing how a airplane feels , But most can`t feel the good or bad that prop may do to the setup of the design.
I try to design with everything in mind.

Most Guys don`t realize that by having thrust off set in the engine it actually robs power from the prop! this is a small but important detail.

Here is my secret in a nutshell.

Every thing you do the airplane that changes the force required to fly it straight ,causes three other problems (triangulation
This in turn affects Everything and I mean everything , we do to get the airplane to fly without mix. From throw to expo`s
Understanding what percent to make an airfoil,or how much wing area is required to make the aiplane fly without compromising the trim of flight, to how big to make the ailerons ,or how much fin and rudder to use, all contribute to the ability to trim the airplane without mixes.

Then having the skill to seperate these out and find the flaws in the setup, or design ,is what sets me apart ( in my oppinion )
I have had countless students to this philosophy,and very successfull students I might Add
All from a old Coon Ass from down the bayou.

Bryan






Old 03-06-2013, 08:49 AM
  #3  
MTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Whippany, NJ
Posts: 5,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun


ORIGINAL: Rendegade

ORIGINAL: flyncajun


When I started designing Pattern Aircraft
I was told the Stab had to be lowered to keep the airplane from pitching to the belly on Rudder( wrong)
I was told SSS was Causing the airplane to pitch to the Belly on left rudder, But right rudder ,,Not so much (wrong)
I was told down thrust was how you kept an airplane from pulling to the canopy in a verical up line (wrong)
I was told you can`t get the mix out of a airplane because the SSS put unequal pressures on the surfaces,you just have to live with it (wrong)
I was told Wide tall fuses would fly terribe in the wind(wrong)
I was told a heavy airplane flew better in the wind (wrong)
I was told the airplane had to be built with wing, stab set to zero (wrong)
I was told there is no way to perform a Knife edge loop with no Mix purley on rudder command (wrong)
I was told anhedral stabs countered too much dihedral in the wing (wrong)
I was told you had to run the C/G back around 35 % so the airplane used just a little down elevator (wrong)
I was told you need minimun of 2 degrees right thrust (wrong)
I was told to start out with 1.5 deg down thrust (wrong)
I was told a forward canopy rolled better (wrong)
I was told fixed gear were less drag than retracts (wrong)
I was told there had to be a left rudder mix at low throttle (wrong )
I was told you cannot use Sharp leading edges on your wings and stabs the airplanes would be pitchy in flight (wrong)
I was told you cannot use counter balances on ailerons (wrong)
I was told you had to run deferential on ailerons to roll axially (wrong)
I WAS TOLD ALL BIPES HAD TO HAVE THE WINGS AT DIFFERENT INC. NEG ON TOP POS ON BOTTOM (WRONG)
I WAS TOLD TO USE UP THRUST ON THE BIPE( WRONG)
I WAS TOLD TO GIVE UP ON THE BIPE (WRONG) the guy who told be that went back to it after seeing mine HAHA
i WAS TOLD BIPES WERE TO COMPLICATED TO HAVE NO MIX (WRONG)
I WAS TOLD TO BE COMPETITIVE TODAY I HAD TO GO TO ELECTRIC (WRONG) had to throw that one in LOL



Bryan, I thought I'd just put this over in another thread before it degenerates any further.

Can you tell us how you've come up with these, and more importantly how you've overcome some of these issues? This isn't meant to be an attack, I'm seriously interested, as I'm sure are quite a few other modellers.
Speaking for myself, If you played around in this game long enough, you've heard and/or read every one of these "fixes, dosand don'ts", several times over. There are others as well....

From personal experience I can say that a rearward CG makes the plane work okay in inverted flight but makes it uncertain in pitch when upright. Throw in anhedral stab with a rear CG and cross wind flying creates a whole nother set of problems.

I've found that stab anhedral does detractsome wing dihedral. Flatten the stab and yaw response is different, all other things equal. I've found that a small amount of down thrust does correct a pitch to canopy in the full power upline. But it can create other issues so I use the technique sparringly. A slight positive in the stab helps correct both an upline and inverted flight when CG is forward, between 25% and 30% MAC

No way anyone will convince me that a heavy model flies better than the exact same design does10-15% lighter. On CG, I tend not to useCG as a trimming criterion. I tend to calculate it'sideal position based on areas, area distributionand moments, and add 15% static margin. There is nothing magic about 15% static margin, it is something that I've settled on with experience.

I love the flightenvelope ofsmall LE radii. Occasionally I used larger radius on the wing LE in particular and have always been disappointed, Add to the list that thick wings create more lift than thin wings. Baloney! Thick wings are sluggish in pattern apps, plain and simple....

I don't subscribe to the tiny wing syndrome that has invaded patterndom. Properly designed, large wings have all the attributes we want plus they reduce loading, which enlarges a model's flight envelope. I don't subscribe to flared rudders or thick TE's. I don't subscribe to canalizers. Dorsals and ventrals, definitely, and not just on fuselages....

I don't think I've ever wound up with a model set at zeros all around. Tried to tweek the model's angles based on need rather than preconceived notions, particularly over the past 20 years as trim technique has been learned and refined. I think that's where Bryan is coming from too

Have never used aileron differential on a pattern model, only trainers with rectangular wings.

I use and recommend high taper ratios in wings, at least 3:1 root to tip. My current design sports 3.4:1. This enables a significant increase in wing area with no down sides in roll response. It also produces greater capability in cross wind.

I use and recommend low TVC (tail volume coefficient). I use TVC in pattern models around 0.6 and it has served great over a couple decades. Some, very few, commercially available models are getting down close to this at present. Most still play in the 0.8 TVC region.Stated simply,lower TVC produces more spritely performance which is super duper in todays schedules

I've found that, in every case where a single prop was turning CCW (front view), for a given and identical amount of aileron deflection, right roll has always been faster than left roll. I've always had to increase left roll deflections to compensate. Having flown Dave L's contra Bravo, I saw and felt that problem go away. This seems to imply that SSS is the culprit

Regards SSS, Bryan and I differ in our opinions a bit; But I'm not sure whether Bryanis actually sayingthat it doesn't exist. I think he believes it does but that he simply doesn't care since his trimming reduces it's effects to negligible levels. I believe that roll response difference is directly attributable to SSS. This could be proven far easier in an E set-up where motor can be set-up to run in either direction. I would love to hear results from someone with an E-plane that is willing to try the experiment.....
Old 03-06-2013, 09:10 AM
  #4  
smcharg
My Feedback: (1)
 
smcharg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 421
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun


ORIGINAL: MTK

Regards SSS, Bryan and I differ in our opinions a bit; But I'm not sure whether Bryanis actually sayingthat it doesn't exist. I think he believes it does but that he simply doesn't care since his trimming reduces it's effects to negligible levels. I believe that roll response difference is directly attributable to SSS. This could be proven far easier in an E set-up where motor can be set-up to run in either direction. I would love to hear results from someone with an E-plane that is willing to try the experiment.....
Matt, you are exactly right. Bryan and I have had several conversations on the phone based on the other thread. Yesterday, without discussing it with him, I said in that thread , "Sounds to me that Bryan isn't announcing that the spiral slip stream doesn't exist or does exist (leaving the thinking to the theorists) but simply that it isn't a variable that must be adjusted for in our models."

I got a text from him a little later saying "Bingo"

I, for one, really appreciate thinking outside the box. People can learn a lot if they stop and listen with a clear mind and without prejudice. They don't have to agree but they can certainly form their own opinion instead of just following the masses. Right or wrong, y'alls knowledge is gold. Thank you for that.

Scott

Old 03-06-2013, 12:09 PM
  #5  
MTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Whippany, NJ
Posts: 5,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun


ORIGINAL: flyncajun


I figure if you can Buy My designs, reverse engineer it, and just look at the common sense and experience in it, we both win
I'm buying a Shinden, not to reverse engineer it, that's not necessary.Rather, to gassify it and continue to learn. The Shinden has a few features that are in line with my design philosophy and goals, in a ready made package that I don't have to build or break the bank. $1500 is not particularly expensive for such a model.

On the other hand, what Oxai wants and gets for their stuff is absolutely crazy. They don't fly 3X as well as other stuff. Hard pressed to fly 1X as well.
Old 03-06-2013, 12:12 PM
  #6  
Doug Cronkhite
My Feedback: (34)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,798
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun

Hehe.. fun talking points here for sure.

Thick symmetrical wings don't create any more lift than thin, but they do create more parasitic drag. Depending upon the airfoil chosen, they can also increase induced drag. Sometimes this is desirable, sometimes not.

Sharp leading edges do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the pitch sensitivity of a wing section. It does lower the parasitic drag SLIGHTLY, but it's primary benefit is a sharper leading edge radius will cause airflow to separate more quickly than a blunt radius. That's it.

Heavy is NEVER better. A heavier airplane will be slower to bounce around in the wind, but once moving, that inertia then works against you taking longer to damp that movement.

A 0-0-0 airplane will always fly with the fuselage and tail low relative to the direction of a flight, assuming the wing section is symmetrical. Simple reason being is that a wing section requires angle of attack to generate lift.

As for SSS causing your airplane to roll more quickly to the right.. Torque should be working for you when rolling to the left, allowing the airplane to roll more quickly left than right. The Sopwith Camel was a perfect example of this, albeit reversed since its engine turned CW when viewed from the front. It would roll (and turn) VERY quickly to the right, but was TERRIBLE rolling and turning left as a result of torque and gyroscopic precession.

Thrust arrangements in the engine generally control what the airplane does in an unloaded state, such as in a vertical upline, HOWEVER, there are caveats to this as well. A thrust line of 0-0 works just fine IF your airplane never changes speed in up lines from its speed in a static level flight state. If your airplane slows down though, then the forces at work in balanced 1G flight, begin to cause issues in the vertical. There is no magic bullet that will work with all force arrangements when it comes to thrust settings. For any given design, there will be differences. I've never put any down thrust into a mid-wing, mid-stab airplane. For my 46% Ultimate Bipe, I needed UP thrust. Same for my original 35% Cap 232 which had a high thrust line relative to the wing, with a high stab. It required 1.5 degree of up thrust to draw straight up lines.

My basic rules have been, Thrust controls up lines, Trim controls down lines. Bryan is dead on the money though when he says that changing one thing will always affect other things. That's absolutely true. This is why it's so important to make ONE CHANGE AT A TIME, and then re-test.
Old 03-06-2013, 12:21 PM
  #7  
RC_Pattern_Flyer
My Feedback: (1)
 
RC_Pattern_Flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun


ORIGINAL: smcharg


ORIGINAL: MTK

Regards SSS, Bryan and I differ in our opinions a bit; But I'm not sure whether Bryan is actually saying that it doesn't exist. I think he believes it does but that he simply doesn't care since his trimming reduces it's effects to negligible levels. I believe that roll response difference is directly attributable to SSS. This could be proven far easier in an E set-up where motor can be set-up to run in either direction. I would love to hear results from someone with an E-plane that is willing to try the experiment.....
Matt, you are exactly right. Bryan and I have had several conversations on the phone based on the other thread. Yesterday, without discussing it with him, I said in that thread , ''Sounds to me that Bryan isn't announcing that the spiral slip stream doesn't exist or does exist (leaving the thinking to the theorists) but simply that it isn't a variable that must be adjusted for in our models.''

I got a text from him a little later saying ''Bingo''

I, for one, really appreciate thinking outside the box. People can learn a lot if they stop and listen with a clear mind and without prejudice. They don't have to agree but they can certainly form their own opinion instead of just following the masses. Right or wrong, y'alls knowledge is gold. Thank you for that.

Scott


You said outside the box.

Design by Mark Hunt
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Tr51014.jpg
Views:	13
Size:	39.4 KB
ID:	1858934  
Old 03-06-2013, 12:55 PM
  #8  
mjfrederick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denham Springs, LA
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun


ORIGINAL: RC_Pattern_Flyer



You said outside the box.

Design by Mark Hunt
The Rebel Alliance might sue for copyright infringement.
Old 03-06-2013, 03:37 PM
  #9  
OhD
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: west hills, CA
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun


ORIGINAL: MTK


.......
Regards SSS, Bryan and I differ in our opinions a bit; But I'm not sure whether Bryan is actually saying that it doesn't exist. I think he believes it does but that he simply doesn't care since his trimming reduces it's effects to negligible levels. I believe that roll response difference is directly attributable to SSS. This could be proven far easier in an E set-up where motor can be set-up to run in either direction. I would love to hear results from someone with an E-plane that is willing to try the experiment.....
Are you airplane designers/trimmers going to put right thrust in this design (reversed motor rotation) and why?

Jim O
Old 03-06-2013, 04:01 PM
  #10  
tuny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: caracas, VENEZUELA
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun

From My experience:

- anhedral stabs look cool!, thats it, no changes in anything, only a pain to set up straight.
- moving the stab incidence is the exact same thing as moving the elev trim, this does nothing in the trimming process, after the plane is trimmed adjust the stab to ged rid of any elev trim.

Tuny
Old 03-06-2013, 06:16 PM
  #11  
vbortone
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun

I agree with Tuny. I did it many years ago. Check the pic. Flew the plane with both and never felt any difference. It will be interested if someone guess what is the name of that plane.

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Us54742.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	97.3 KB
ID:	1859059  
Old 03-06-2013, 10:35 PM
  #12  
Rendegade
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Perth, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun

Looks like a Tornado (too big to be a Bullet), obviously with an anhedral stab.
Old 03-07-2013, 02:20 AM
  #13  
vbortone
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun

It is really the bullet. Very nice flying pattern plane. ST 46 with 0% nitro. Kraft radio.
Old 03-07-2013, 04:23 AM
  #14  
tuny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: caracas, VENEZUELA
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun

Most important, that pic is in Venezuela!!!!
Old 03-07-2013, 04:36 AM
  #15  
vbortone
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Pattern design according to the flyncajun

Correct. Field Tucape still in use. City San Cristobal.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.