ok ok ok
I cant hardly stand it..
yall are having entirely too much fun
I guess ill fly this loaner Silhouette 1 whiile i work on my Silhouette 4 electric..

See yall around

Tony

http://billingsauto.smugmug.com/

OK, more pictures. Me and Tanner had a great time, ummm kinda, well Sat. was a blast Sun was a little more expensive then I planned. Thanks again Steve for a great contest. I'm still adding captions and will finish them soon.

Incredible pictures as usual Brian.

Brian:

Your photos are terrific, as always. Thanks again for your help during the contest. Just one less thing for me to worry about.

The unidentified RCACF worker on the right in photo #9 is Gary Freeman, Sr. His son, GF, Jr., placed 3rd in Sportsman. Both Sr. & Jr. are very well known in the pylon circle.

Glad you had a good time......all things considered. Tell Tanner the dangerous wasp nest he brought to my attention has been taken care of....

Steve

.
.
.
All in favor of voting Brian the **Official NSRCA District-3** photographer. . .Say "Aye"!!
.
.
.

AYE AYE!!!!!!!

-Mike

Hello
Thank you Matt and Jason for your answer about sub fin Dave'Prestige.
I'm going to relate the reasons to my friend Lolo owner of Prestige (original french design).
Claude

Very nice looking model Claude.

Subfins immediately below the top fin help counter how the spiralling airstream deflects off the horizontal stab and hence reduce the pitching to gear many models display. Some models require less and some more depending on other attributes a model has such as fuselage shape and power vector balance about the centerline. Another straightforward way to add ventral fin area is using anhedral in the stab. There are some detriments to anhedral stabs but the benefits outweigh these.

Another way to counter the effect of the spiralling air stream is to add a similar fin forward of the regular fin...this would be called a dorsal fin.

This type of "fix" helps reduce the pitch to gear with applied rudder to more manageable levels and the rest is then easily eliminated by electronics.

The best set-up of course is to have a model with zero coupling requiring no mix at all. That's a rare accomplishment but can be done with dilligent effort as Dave showed.

BTW, in CPLRs case the T tail behind the canopy helps straighten the spiralling stream some but helps rudder effectiveness even more. Consider a simple natural example, the shark, with the original version of a dorsal fin. Take the dorsal fin away and the shark wouldn't be able to turn on a dime as it does, and probably wouldn't be the predator it is.

And Jaz, my apologies in advance for the skyjack. Have you flown that other model yet?? Still looking for a flight report

rgds

Matt

Here's an example of a design called the Pentathlon with the fins Matt described in his response. Got the opportunity to fly it myself through a few maneuvers. Has no detectable pitch or roll coupling with required top rudder for 4 pt roll, sloooooow roll, and knife edge to sustain level flight.

Go to http://www.geocities.com/markhunt_2000/INSIGHT to read more about this design.

Jason,

Notice the wheel pant?? Nice landing! I also cought the aftermath of the Saturday midair on film.

Jon

In looking at the Pentathlon, and knowing its roots, the flight characteristics described are in line with its "cousins".

So, it appears that things are changing some in thepattern community but i find it funny that only after people "wellknown" as CPLR or QQ Som. use these "canaizers" or fins or whatever do they become "acceptable by everyone else.

i guess, unfortunately, we are a pattern fold tend to follow the herd, yet when others go against the grain (ie voodoo express) we tend to frown upon them becuase of the "different looks".

SO, as judges do we still tend to grade the plane instead of the maneuver? I have heard comments in regards to biplanes along the lines of "it looks different and hard to judge".

Are you kidding me??? so anyways... are these new designs that push the limits of contemporary stye pattern ships.. ie Twister, integral, Scandlous, narlar bipe (adventure) at a disadvantage unless being flown by a "name" top performer?

Just some thoughts, not complaining or *****ing, whining, just wanting to spark some chatter to opening the minds of those who think that planes such as the Pentahlon , Twister , (any bipe).

Is is time to challenge the status quo of pattern design sch as when we move to "widebodies" to where we are now making the next step in performance rather than aesthetics?

Hmmm, looking forward to any thoughts..

Chuck

Chuck,

Right or wrong, we are still in a subjective hobby. Some things generally present better. Presentation is still part of the entire equation. There are things that a "normal" aerobatic aircraft (Extra, Cap, Edge) does better than a pattern plane, HOWEVER, the overall presentation over the same sequence looks better with the current level of designs. I have yet to see a bipe present as well either. They tend to bounce a little more in windy conditions. They are more than capable of the sequences and flown well they look great, but sometimes by doing things this way, you are adding extra work to yourself. Chip and BW both fly the scandelous great, but I saw another one fly this year by an Advanced guy, and in his situation, the bipe was DEFINITELY a disadvantage. You will never be able to take presentation out of the equation. Our sport will always be one that everything works its way down. You are right an Intermediate guy trying something make be frowned upon for something that a top FAI guy tries, and that is just human nature. I think the biggest factor that a lot of people dont see, or like to admit, but it is the truth is that just because the latest/greatest plane out there by CPLR, or QQ is winning FAI, doesnt mean that it is a good airplane for the AMA patterns. All of these planes are designed for whatever years F pattern they will be flying. All of these new designs can be harder to handle in certain wind conditions and they all have crazy sensitive rudders, and that is because they are still a compromise. The top guys design planes to fly the sequence they will be flying, not 07 Advanced. These guys know what conditions they can fly through, but want to make sure the plane flies the sequence the best so it might be more difficult to fly for normal flight. I think the most important thing people need to keep in mind what sequences they are flying when buying / building an airplane, instead of just buying it because it wont the worlds last year.

Arch Stafford

Arch, i think you are right on, and you presente my argument a little better. Finding a solid midle ground between the Voodoo Express which is on one end of the design spectrum and the old missles of the past is key to the ever changing pattern. An example of this is the Aries, outstanding aircraft for the sportsman, intermediate and beginning advanced bu with the larger wing on it, soon becomes a hinderance. Still, a simple wng change and you have entered a new dimension with the same airframe. this is an interesting concpt that someone could use to save a bunch of money in the long run if they tke care of their equipment right?!?!? Just plug in the changes to the basic airframe needed to fly the sequence or conditions. If it is windy, smaller wing, increase the loading and help the plane sit. Call up the appropriate radi program if the mixes are different and fly.

hmm, another wild idea from the hawaiian shirt.

Chuck

I dont understand where the notion that CPLR (or others) flies designs for a specific pattern comes from?

He flew a Synergy in 2001 Worlds in Ireland and won, a Synergy in 2003 Worlds in Poland and won, an Oxalys in 2005 Worlds in France and won....and probably an Oxalys in 2007 Worlds (Onda will beat him this time ). Onda flew the same Narlar Bipe in both 2003 and 2005....how long has Jason been flying Impacts for? At least through two different sequences. Sean flew his Millenium in 2003 and 2005.

The Matt's are two that definitely change planes like underwear

Seems to me that a number of guys, don't follow the rule of new plane for new patterns.

The new designs are certainly good at cutting through rollers (loops circles)...and they have to be if they want to fly in the F pattern (oh and the 2009-2011 sequences are even worse!)....but I dont think they are designed with specific sequences in mind (other than serious rolling stuff in general).

Ironically, the Twister with its whale of a fuse, is much easier to fly in wind than my Enigma was Maybe its those dinky little wings

Chad do you happen to have a link for the 2009 sequences? Or could you post them if not?

Archie's post was right on the money. Let me reword it a little so we're all on the same page.

From a design standpoint, the FAI F sequence and the wierd manuevers that are in the unknowns require a much different animal from a design standpoint. So when someone says designed for a particular sequence, it doesn't mean the exact set of manuevers being flown at that particluar moment, it means that "level" or designation. One could seriously argue that the manuevers with so many combined integrated elements are closer to freestyle than precision in many respects. It's simply extremely demanding of the airframe as well as the pilot. And the airframe is much more critical than the shape/size of a rudder or fuselage. Every single piece of the thing has to be designed well and matched. it's fairly easy to design a plane to do certain things extremely well, but usually this means giving something else up. It's balance.

The Twister is a really well balanced airframe from what I have seen, and the Integral looks very promising as well. However, some planes that took certain things to extremes made it difficult for the average guy to handle in certain conditions. The pilot, flying style and set up make a huge difference as well as anything else.

Pattern planes as a rule are designed by and for the top pilots in the world. They (you included) have specific requirements that a plane must meet for the FAI F sequence and unknowns in general. Just about any smaller and older plane will do very well in the preliminary pattern. But they don't necessarily have the best design in the world for all of the combined elements and rudder intensive/wierd angle of attack manuevers in the finals.

Large planes as a general rule are just harder for the average guy to fly in a nasty wind, that's really the bottom line. And that is a GENERAL statement, not specific to any particular plane. Some are better than others, that's a no brainer. Designs have transitioned through clean fast designs, through wide body bulbous drag-at-all-cost designs, and now evolving back to a large but clean(er) design. Yes, all of this is pretty general, but it's dynamic, ever changing.

You can't throw a good set of wings on a box and go kick tail anymore, the Kaos is pretty dated I am convinced the guys that make up the FAI manuevers are evil.

-Mike

PS wasn't this thread about the Tangerine? It was a blast, I can't wait until next year!

Hi Mike

Yep I have all the proposal sequences, for 2009-2011. Shoot me your email address and I will send them, as I cant (or dont know how) to post a PDF here, maybe someone else does?. From the looks of it proposals 1&3 for P and 1&4 for F will be the keepers (totally not confirmed yet, but this is what voting suggests). Check out the 1 Figure M in P....1/2 roll, 1/2 loop at the bottom

I am in agreement that planes are designed for certain types of maneuvers....mostly related to F...because thats what the big guys want and what the big guys want usually sells Although the Twister is better in the wind than my Enigma was its still a far cry from being easy to fly in the wind

Yes, off topic though Back to the Tangerine....wish I could make that event

My apologies for misdirecting the thread, but thanks for all the thoughts.
yes, fling season is over here also, windy, and some wind, with wind, and if no wind, fog.

Chuck

Hey Chad think you could send those 09-11 pattern proposals to [email protected] ?

Thanks

Chad if you would I'd like to see the proposed schedules also.
Steve Maxwell

Just got through going over these proposed FAI schedules. Thanks Chad! I am now truly, utterly convinced.......

The guys that write these things are pure evil.

But I love all of them!!!!!! Man those are cool!!!! I do notice a lot of the snap happiness has been replaced in favor of combined rolling elements. The snaps are still there, but the wierd stuff is very pronounced in a few places.

It's all good though, I'm looking forward to see which ones they pick!

-M