Agreed,E.F.F.
Just my feeling from flying comparisons that body width isn't the biggest factor in speed control, epecially in downlines.
And just coincidentally, yesterday a friend from way back had just resurrected his 2M excelsior (90s ultra narrow stick fus),whilst I was trying to fly FO7 with my Abbra(Fairly wide quite tallbody).
Definitely don't want to swap!

most of the "drag" of the widebody is simply the perceived slower flight - typically flown out a bit further and thus looks slower .
I doubt anyone has a definitive drag test which shows drag relationship of fuselage shape OR area .
In the sizes we are working with - the real drag increases are done using induced drag -- prop / larger wing area etc..
On a full size airframe -this is really easy to see and full scale racers work on squeezing out parasitic drag.
models of 1100 sq inches - an entirely different matter.

Well, from my experience, here's the difference in a nutshell:

You have to fly the newer schedules slower (on average) in order to get a decent chance of positioning and straight lines between manuevers, unless you fly 225 meters out.....

Here's one place the "widebody" shines the old missle planes. Rolls. Point rolls, slow rolls, etc, can be flown much slower without dragging that tail all the way to the ground to hold altitude. You have to fly the old planes much faster OR really nail the rudder to hold decent knife edge flight, which can be done, but it looks odd.

That does really mean fuse height and shape, not necessarily the width of the plane itself. The reason they are wider is really a function of looks as well as anything else. A 14" tall plane looks a little odd if it's only 5" wide.

Drag does come into play somewhat, but it's more of a liability than an asset. That's why I designed my plane to penetrate more. It sounded good in theory to me, and it works pretty darned good in practice.

Keep in mind guys that pattern plane design is a constant evolution. Or at least constant change. What I saw this year was some people really losing the handle on super large planes in high wind. There is a happy medium, at least that's my theory.

-M

the old missles were another breed of cat
what they did have going tho -- was speed-- which is the ONLY fix for track against a cross wind.
I crack up when I hear guys talk about the wind blowing the taller bodied stuff sideways--
More power bigger planes is the real fix for all weather conditions
that is a tough order to fill I did a prototype once which worked for wind - 40 gas powered but that route is still not popular
hitting 11 lbs and using a 52 ozs power/exhaust setup is a bit of work
but I am ready to try it again just for the exercize
might use one of my old EMC setups

Yeah, so it's a toss up: track or slow flight? You can't really have both. One works better in calm conditions, one works better in high wind. Somewhere in the middle is where I settled.

As for more power, I just learned that lesson the hard way. After 6 years, I finally ran out of power. Was it the climate conditions or my flying style? Probably a combination of both.

You would have cracked ribs laughing at the Nats then, because it was ridiculous. I mean obvious kind of ridiculous.

Oh well, "the" answer today won't be "the" answer tomorrow, that's for sure. The only constant in pattern is change. But that's a designer's dream, no?

-Mike

So you think fuselages will end up looking more like the Fliton Rogue Bipe?

http://www.fliton.com/new/product/bipe.asp



Mark

well -that's the general idea but appearance is a tricky thing -many of the current pattern planes simply have no rhythm of line - -sorta like some of the new cars --
basically on the smaller pattern stuf (foam) - it easily is demonstrated tha lots of side area is a big plus --but - go up to 40+ % model and at that size, you don't need relatively as much lateral area - has to do with scale effect.
Ihave bult lots of stuff in the entire size range - 5 oz to 40 pounds
The overall size rally makes a difference
Power is another odd one
as the plane gets larger-- it is easier to have a light enough wing loading - but harder to have enough power loading
The 40 gas powred 11 lb setups so far is closest to a really good combo - at about 1-- 1200 squares
this allows a 22" prop that will provide lots of thrust at any speed
The big glow stuf is still popular but I don't really expect to see it remain on top -
the rules need only a tiny tip one way or the other to slide the advantage to electric -or larger displacement gas setups.
just my take on it

So, instead of going much bigger on the fuse side area, would it make more sense to take a current widebody design and keep the side profile while making it narrower? Or a slight increase in side area, with the narrower width?

As far as weight goes, how heavy can the plane get before a 40cc is not adequate? Since I am not competing, my plane can be over the 5kg weight limit with no concerns. And it will be if yours are close, since mine will not be as light. Is 12lb OK or too much?


Mark

13 lbs is where the 40 stil has unlimited performance --I have two 40 ZDZ models with internal mufflers one 13 lbs one 13.25
One is a 260 Extra the other a Cap232
Other than appearance - the current pattern stuff is really not any different than the semi scale IMAC models --performance wise . This is not a slam at any design - just do a close look at both -you will see what I mean
The fuselage area distribution is OK on any of the current stuff - just make a shape that is pleasing to you and stick the flying surfaces in about the same places-
basically copy the general layout of the current stuff
canopys /wing tips etc., don't amount to hill of beans
just make it look good . wide narrow whatever - wider is easier to make stiff tho

Dick,

I for one would love to see what you can come up with in this area. Always admired your designs in the past (still have a soft spot for the Dalotel actually), and would really like to see your inginuity at play in today's environment.

Tom M.

how about this? So far the best thing I have found as a base referrence
the wings to be short and highly tapered (the pic actually is of a long span plane)
The fuselage is quite deep -simply because the full scale plane is very small and the pilot fills top to bottom.
It is a Cassut Racer there are a million versions of this little bugger

Dick.......Is tht really U? You probably don't even remember me ...... I flew pattern in the late 70's and early 80's, was president of the nsrac then too.......
Haven't done a thing with r/c for lots of years but have been getting the bug........was at a field about 6 moths ago and a guy had a tipo with a super tiger in it......told him who I was and what I use to do and he handed me the transmitter...to my suprize I could still fly!! I did a figure m wi 1/4 rolls and (kinda sloopy!) and had him worshiping me on the spot..........

N E Way....if i want to try the new(!) box stuff....what do I need! Wow what a loaded question

JIM

Jim -yes still alive --
for current stuff-I would just get a H9 Showtime and add engine of yer choice -something that pulls hard and easy to setup .
This size can use really good low cost servos and still perform well
for an engine - I would want something in the 1.4-1.6 size . The big Saito four strokes are easy to setup or the sport YS -
These new inexpensive ARFS are great -and fly as well as 99.999 of the high end stuff .
I did the Showtime with a piped 1.6 Evolution on gasoline
terrific setup- tho a bit pricey on the engine for just hovering around --
You worked for Gore?

Whatever happened to Form drag, an increase in area increases Form or Profile drag, I am of an old school where parasitic drag was caused by parasite attachments to an airframe.

Mike

Semantics -

You have parasites on your airplane?

I think there's a spray you can get for that these days..

Jim again......So where do I buy this stuff these days? H9 showtime?? JR radio? what servos? Do you still pull back to go up And.........by Gore I hope you do't mean Al!! ewww[&o]

are you selling anything? How is the Balck magic v2 by Mike H ? ...Jim

No offence intended I just thought that it may be of benifit to have the correct terminology.
Mike

Dick,

Have you made any headway on this project? I have found a number of your posts on doing a Cassutt for IMAC work, did it ever get built? I have been looking at it as an unsusual aerobatics plane to model. And it is the right size for me, 40% is only a 72" span...


Mark