Does your scale model fly realistically ?
03-07-2013 | 10:23 AM
#51
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
Another issue touched on here is the viewer's perception of what they think the model should look like to look real.
Take jet airliners and large bombers for example. Our usuall mental image of these things are of lumbering beasts dragging their way down final to a landing.
When in reality these planes spent most of their time at over 350 MPH. Now if you fly one at a contest honking around the patch at what are in essence fighter plane speeds virtually eveyone will disreguard you and your plane as if you don't know what you're doing.
I saw a BUFF blow down Tinkers' runway at 350kts once and pull up. IT was VERY impresive. It is hard to remember that things that big really do go that fast.
You guys do know that above 45,000 feet a B-52 can stay on the tail of an F-15 all day long, so long as the Eagle doesn't roll?
Take jet airliners and large bombers for example. Our usuall mental image of these things are of lumbering beasts dragging their way down final to a landing.
When in reality these planes spent most of their time at over 350 MPH. Now if you fly one at a contest honking around the patch at what are in essence fighter plane speeds virtually eveyone will disreguard you and your plane as if you don't know what you're doing.
I saw a BUFF blow down Tinkers' runway at 350kts once and pull up. IT was VERY impresive. It is hard to remember that things that big really do go that fast.
You guys do know that above 45,000 feet a B-52 can stay on the tail of an F-15 all day long, so long as the Eagle doesn't roll?
03-07-2013 | 11:12 AM
#52
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: otrcman
Right on, Bob. ''Its NOT THE PHYSICS of the full scale plane that is being replicated but an approximation.'' That was my original premise in starting this thread. And the question that I posed was: What can be done to more accurately duplicate flying characteristics ?
Several constructive suggestions have been made regarding piloting technique to make models fly more realistically. But what about gust response ? That's the ''twitchiness'' that we see when watching a model fly.
And not to gang up on you, Don, but have you ever considered the non-scale implications of attaching a rigid servo link to an all-movable rudder such as the DRI has ? On a real DRI there is no fixed fin, and the rudder is free to trail with the local slipstream regardless of how badly the airplane is sideslipping. The rudder contributes almost nothing to directional stability. Only the pilot's active effort keeps the airplane from sideslipping. When you attach a servo to the rudder on the model, the rudder is converted to a fixed (but controllable) fin. This change has a profound effect on how the scale model flies relative to the full scale airplane.
Another example of non-authentic scaling is rigidly attaching the elevator to a servo. On a real WWI plane the elevator is free floating and contributes very little to pitch stability. What we are doing by making the elevator rigid is effectively making the horizontal stabilizer far larger.
Dick
ORIGINAL: BobH
Don, I may be mistaken but I think you are missing the engineering points. No one is saying that Scale models can't fly well. Nor is anyone saying that they can't fly convincingly. However its an illusion that we create with our flying skills and our planes. Its NOT THE PHYSICS of the full scale plane that is being replicated but an approximation. We can't have 1:1 physics unless we are 1:1 scale. On that there can be no disagreement.
And Aerotech doesn't make WWI planes.
Don, I may be mistaken but I think you are missing the engineering points. No one is saying that Scale models can't fly well. Nor is anyone saying that they can't fly convincingly. However its an illusion that we create with our flying skills and our planes. Its NOT THE PHYSICS of the full scale plane that is being replicated but an approximation. We can't have 1:1 physics unless we are 1:1 scale. On that there can be no disagreement.
And Aerotech doesn't make WWI planes.
Several constructive suggestions have been made regarding piloting technique to make models fly more realistically. But what about gust response ? That's the ''twitchiness'' that we see when watching a model fly.
And not to gang up on you, Don, but have you ever considered the non-scale implications of attaching a rigid servo link to an all-movable rudder such as the DRI has ? On a real DRI there is no fixed fin, and the rudder is free to trail with the local slipstream regardless of how badly the airplane is sideslipping. The rudder contributes almost nothing to directional stability. Only the pilot's active effort keeps the airplane from sideslipping. When you attach a servo to the rudder on the model, the rudder is converted to a fixed (but controllable) fin. This change has a profound effect on how the scale model flies relative to the full scale airplane.
Another example of non-authentic scaling is rigidly attaching the elevator to a servo. On a real WWI plane the elevator is free floating and contributes very little to pitch stability. What we are doing by making the elevator rigid is effectively making the horizontal stabilizer far larger.
Dick
Bob
03-07-2013 | 11:20 AM
#53
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
The DR1 has balance tabs out on the tips of the elevator. Along with the ailerons as well. Regardless of the full flying rudder on the DR1, at least on the models I have flown, they have been very stable in yaw. One thing is for sure, it is the kiss of death to lose your rudder on a DR1, by this I mean have it detach in flight. I have heard of this several times.
03-07-2013 | 11:24 AM
#54
Thread Starter
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
[/quote]
Does the elevator have a boost tab on the DR1?
Bob
[/quote]
Nope. Neither boost tab nor trim tab. Just some aerodynamic balance area to reduce pilot control forces.
Dick
Does the elevator have a boost tab on the DR1?
Bob
[/quote]
Nope. Neither boost tab nor trim tab. Just some aerodynamic balance area to reduce pilot control forces.
Dick
03-07-2013 | 11:55 AM
#55
Thread Starter
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: Instructor
May I ask you how the pilot is controling the Fin/Rudder? If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the DR-1 have cable
controls for the Fin/Rudder and the Elevator? If so, then the pilot uses the Fin/Rudder to sideslip the DR-1 by
moving the rudder pedals or tiller bar in the cockpit the same
way he controls the pitch with the control stick hooked to the elevator by cables.....
Larry
May I ask you how the pilot is controling the Fin/Rudder? If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the DR-1 have cable
controls for the Fin/Rudder and the Elevator? If so, then the pilot uses the Fin/Rudder to sideslip the DR-1 by
moving the rudder pedals or tiller bar in the cockpit the same
way he controls the pitch with the control stick hooked to the elevator by cables.....
Larry
Yes, the rudder of the DRI is cable controlled. But remember, there is no fin. Just a rudder. The plane will sideslip one way or the other all by itself and has no natural tendency to come back to center. It requires active pilot input to keep the plane anywhere near straight. That's a difficult concept to wrap your mind around if all you have flown is modern airplanes (say, 1920 or later) with actual stability.
The advent of a fixed fin on full scale airplanes was a total game changer for the pilot. Once there is a fixed fin (of sufficient size) the airplane will fly with little or no sideslip all by itself. Before fixed fins came along, maintaining zero sideslip was the pilot's job. Normally, the way the pilot sensed sideslip was to feel whether the wind was equal on both sides of his face.
In pitch, there is a big difference between an elevator that can "float" versus an irreversible elevator. That's why we see reference to stick-fixed versus stick-free stability in aerodynamic testing. Stick-fixed is more stable in almost all cases, because you are essentially making the fixed surface larger by locking the elevator.
In a typical light airplane, the pilot isn't maintaining the control surfaces rigidly in place at all. The surfaces are pretty much floating in the slipstream and the pilot is just applying pressure one way or the other when he exerts control. Not the same as an R/C plane where the servo keeps the surface from floating in the slipstream.
An easy way to think of the concept is this: A fixed tail surface (fin, stabilizer) is where the stability comes from. A movable tail surface (rudder, elevator) is where control comes from.
Dick
03-07-2013 | 12:47 PM
#56
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
Some more food for thought, at least for the Dr.1
Several years back, late in the season flying my old Great Planes Fokker Dr.1, the centering spring came detached on the rudder stick on the transmitter - in essence, no auto return to neutral.
The triplane became extremely difficult to fly, as the tail wandered all over the place as I started chasing neutral. The landing was at best an arrival (fortunately no real damage that mission).
We take for granted the return-to-neutral our modern radios give our primary controls, but in the real world it's a whole 'nother animal. This is one ( of many ) reason that the Triplane earned such a reputation - it had to be constantly flown, whereas any decent model is going to be much easier to fly because our radios give us an automatic neutral reference point AND an enormous advantage the full-scale version does not.
Not real sure I'd enjoy flying that way too long (nor could I probably afford the repair bills!!).
Best regards,
Lee McD
Several years back, late in the season flying my old Great Planes Fokker Dr.1, the centering spring came detached on the rudder stick on the transmitter - in essence, no auto return to neutral.
The triplane became extremely difficult to fly, as the tail wandered all over the place as I started chasing neutral. The landing was at best an arrival (fortunately no real damage that mission).
We take for granted the return-to-neutral our modern radios give our primary controls, but in the real world it's a whole 'nother animal. This is one ( of many ) reason that the Triplane earned such a reputation - it had to be constantly flown, whereas any decent model is going to be much easier to fly because our radios give us an automatic neutral reference point AND an enormous advantage the full-scale version does not.
Not real sure I'd enjoy flying that way too long (nor could I probably afford the repair bills!!).
Best regards,
Lee McD
03-07-2013 | 01:14 PM
#57
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: otrcman
Yes, the rudder of the DRI is cable controlled. But remember, there is no fin. Just a rudder. The plane will sideslip one way or the other all by itself and has no natural tendency to come back to center. It requires active pilot input to keep the plane anywhere near straight. That's a difficult concept to wrap your mind around if all you have flown is modern airplanes (say, 1920 or later) with actual stability.
The advent of a fixed fin on full scale airplanes was a total game changer for the pilot. Once there is a fixed fin (of sufficient size) the airplane will fly with little or no sideslip all by itself. Before fixed fins came along, maintaining zero sideslip was the pilot's job. Normally, the way the pilot sensed sideslip was to feel whether the wind was equal on both sides of his face.
In pitch, there is a big difference between an elevator that can ''float'' versus an irreversible elevator. That's why we see reference to stick-fixed versus stick-free stability in aerodynamic testing. Stick-fixed is more stable in almost all cases, because you are essentially making the fixed surface larger by locking the elevator.
In a typical light airplane, the pilot isn't maintaining the control surfaces rigidly in place at all. The surfaces are pretty much floating in the slipstream and the pilot is just applying pressure one way or the other when he exerts control. Not the same as an R/C plane where the servo keeps the surface from floating in the slipstream.
An easy way to think of the concept is this: A fixed tail surface (fin, stabilizer) is where the stability comes from. A movable tail surface (rudder, elevator) is where control comes from.
Dick
ORIGINAL: Instructor
May I ask you how the pilot is controling the Fin/Rudder? If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the DR-1 have cable
controls for the Fin/Rudder and the Elevator? If so, then the pilot uses the Fin/Rudder to sideslip the DR-1 by
moving the rudder pedals or tiller bar in the cockpit the same
way he controls the pitch with the control stick hooked to the elevator by cables.....
Larry
May I ask you how the pilot is controling the Fin/Rudder? If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the DR-1 have cable
controls for the Fin/Rudder and the Elevator? If so, then the pilot uses the Fin/Rudder to sideslip the DR-1 by
moving the rudder pedals or tiller bar in the cockpit the same
way he controls the pitch with the control stick hooked to the elevator by cables.....
Larry
Yes, the rudder of the DRI is cable controlled. But remember, there is no fin. Just a rudder. The plane will sideslip one way or the other all by itself and has no natural tendency to come back to center. It requires active pilot input to keep the plane anywhere near straight. That's a difficult concept to wrap your mind around if all you have flown is modern airplanes (say, 1920 or later) with actual stability.
The advent of a fixed fin on full scale airplanes was a total game changer for the pilot. Once there is a fixed fin (of sufficient size) the airplane will fly with little or no sideslip all by itself. Before fixed fins came along, maintaining zero sideslip was the pilot's job. Normally, the way the pilot sensed sideslip was to feel whether the wind was equal on both sides of his face.
In pitch, there is a big difference between an elevator that can ''float'' versus an irreversible elevator. That's why we see reference to stick-fixed versus stick-free stability in aerodynamic testing. Stick-fixed is more stable in almost all cases, because you are essentially making the fixed surface larger by locking the elevator.
In a typical light airplane, the pilot isn't maintaining the control surfaces rigidly in place at all. The surfaces are pretty much floating in the slipstream and the pilot is just applying pressure one way or the other when he exerts control. Not the same as an R/C plane where the servo keeps the surface from floating in the slipstream.
An easy way to think of the concept is this: A fixed tail surface (fin, stabilizer) is where the stability comes from. A movable tail surface (rudder, elevator) is where control comes from.
Dick
No doubt fixed surface area is a good thing, but it is a bad thing when we got to supersonic flight. The stabilator solved the compressabilty issue with the jets.
Also, if you have ever had a triplane, then you would know how much fun that full flying rudder is! Many have just not gotten comfortable enough with theirs to really play with it.
03-07-2013 | 01:16 PM
#58
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: otrcman
Bob
[/quote]
Nope. Neither boost tab nor trim tab. Just some aerodynamic balance area to reduce pilot control forces.
Dick
[/quote]
OK I see,
Bob
03-07-2013 | 01:26 PM
#59
Thread Starter
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: WinterHawke
Several years back, late in the season flying my old Great Planes Fokker Dr.1, the centering spring came detached on the rudder stick on the transmitter - in essence, no auto return to neutral.
The triplane became extremely difficult to fly, as the tail wandered all over the place as I started chasing neutral. The landing was at best an arrival (fortunately no real damage that mission).
Lee McD
Several years back, late in the season flying my old Great Planes Fokker Dr.1, the centering spring came detached on the rudder stick on the transmitter - in essence, no auto return to neutral.
The triplane became extremely difficult to fly, as the tail wandered all over the place as I started chasing neutral. The landing was at best an arrival (fortunately no real damage that mission).
Lee McD
Thanks, Lee. An excellent example of one of the changes we make when we scale down and R/C an airplane like a DRI. Flying a full scale Triplane is much closer to what you experienced without the centering spring in your transmitter.
My only full-scale experience with an airplane that was truly unstable in yaw was the Jenny. I have considerable time in other light planes that are marginally stable in yaw, but the difference between marginally stable and unstable is the difference between day and night. Even though Jenny has a fixed fin, it is too small to make the plane truly stable. It was very difficult for me to fly since I wasn't used to sensing sideslip by the wind in my face. The first trick I discovered was that I could look at my feet to see if the rudder bar was cocked off to one side, and then center the bar visually. Then, at least for a while, I could fly reasonable straight. Then I'd have to look back down at my feet again to see how I was doing.
Dick
03-07-2013 | 01:40 PM
#60
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
Thought you guys may enjoy this video taken at the flying field our club flies at. There is a full restoration outfit that owns the field and they have several aircraft like this in the hangers.
Bob
http://vimeo.com/9623403
Bob
http://vimeo.com/9623403
03-07-2013 | 02:29 PM
#61
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
Hi
Here,s my TopFlite Elder , with a Saito 56 . I think it fly,s scale ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7cWm...ure=plpp_video
Michel
Here,s my TopFlite Elder , with a Saito 56 . I think it fly,s scale ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7cWm...ure=plpp_video
Michel
03-07-2013 | 02:37 PM
#62
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: otrcman
And not to gang up on you, Don, but have you ever considered the non-scale implications of attaching a rigid servo link to an all-movable rudder such as the DRI has ? On a real DRI there is no fixed fin, and the rudder is free to trail with the local slipstream regardless of how badly the airplane is sideslipping. The rudder contributes almost nothing to directional stability. Only the pilot's active effort keeps the airplane from sideslipping. When you attach a servo to the rudder on the model, the rudder is converted to a fixed (but controllable) fin. This change has a profound effect on how the scale model flies relative to the full scale airplane.
Another example of non-authentic scaling is rigidly attaching the elevator to a servo. On a real WWI plane the elevator is free floating and contributes very little to pitch stability. What we are doing by making the elevator rigid is effectively making the horizontal stabilizer far larger.
And not to gang up on you, Don, but have you ever considered the non-scale implications of attaching a rigid servo link to an all-movable rudder such as the DRI has ? On a real DRI there is no fixed fin, and the rudder is free to trail with the local slipstream regardless of how badly the airplane is sideslipping. The rudder contributes almost nothing to directional stability. Only the pilot's active effort keeps the airplane from sideslipping. When you attach a servo to the rudder on the model, the rudder is converted to a fixed (but controllable) fin. This change has a profound effect on how the scale model flies relative to the full scale airplane.
Another example of non-authentic scaling is rigidly attaching the elevator to a servo. On a real WWI plane the elevator is free floating and contributes very little to pitch stability. What we are doing by making the elevator rigid is effectively making the horizontal stabilizer far larger.
I'm not denying the "scaling effect." What I'm rejecting is making non-scale changes to our models, like increasing the size of the elevator or rudder, lengthening the nose, lowering the undercarriage, etc. that have nothing to do with making the model fly more like the original. These are changes that are done solely to make the model easier to fly. I also contend that for most WWI models a scale or near-scale airfoil will work just fine. This might not be true for a small scale P-51, but for most WWI models, scale EVERYTHING works fine. I'm not sure I completely agree about the affect of attaching a servo. After all, on the real aircraft you've got a 150lb (or so) pilot with his boots constantly on the rudder bar. Maybe that's a little "mushier" and might be like adding springs to the forward end of the pull-pull cables. Remember also that the design rational behind the Fokker comma-shaped rudder wasn't just to "look cool" rather the portion ahead of the pivot line provided aerodynamic balancing just like the tips on the elevator halves (and the ailerons).
03-07-2013 | 02:40 PM
#63
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: LesUyeda
''I disagree. I do think we can FEEL how the model is flying (perhaps for the reasons explored in the ''psychology'' thread).''
I do not find the my flying feels anything like the real experience my son gave me with a rented plane, and I have been doing RC flying since 56.
Les
''I disagree. I do think we can FEEL how the model is flying (perhaps for the reasons explored in the ''psychology'' thread).''
I do not find the my flying feels anything like the real experience my son gave me with a rented plane, and I have been doing RC flying since 56.
Les
03-07-2013 | 02:44 PM
#64
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: otrcman
Thanks, Lee. An excellent example of one of the changes we make when we scale down and R/C an airplane like a DRI. Flying a full scale Triplane is much closer to what you experienced without the centering spring in your transmitter.
Thanks, Lee. An excellent example of one of the changes we make when we scale down and R/C an airplane like a DRI. Flying a full scale Triplane is much closer to what you experienced without the centering spring in your transmitter.
03-07-2013 | 02:57 PM
#65
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: abufletcher
But this really isn't a ''scaling problem'' at all. It's a problem of using different technology on the model than is used on the full-scale. On the other hand, I agree completely the Lee that the technology of our transmitters makes our job a lot easier. The self-centering is a good example as is the availability of trim, not to mention such exotic computer features as mixing and throttle curves.
ORIGINAL: otrcman
Thanks, Lee. An excellent example of one of the changes we make when we scale down and R/C an airplane like a DRI. Flying a full scale Triplane is much closer to what you experienced without the centering spring in your transmitter.
Thanks, Lee. An excellent example of one of the changes we make when we scale down and R/C an airplane like a DRI. Flying a full scale Triplane is much closer to what you experienced without the centering spring in your transmitter.
Bob
03-07-2013 | 03:12 PM
#66
My Feedback: (16)
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
I don't know if anyone here has ever read about the "Sprit Of Saint Louis", but I recall reading that Linburg had the horizontal stab built small enough to make the pitch unstable. When he was asked why he did it that way, he said: "I didn't want to fall asleep during that long flight, so I had it made small so I had to keep correcting the pitch". Just goes to show you why we enlarge the stab and elevator to keep our models flying level without input......
Larry
Larry
03-07-2013 | 03:57 PM
#67
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: stony point, NY
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
i gave this a lot of thought and figured that there is no way anyone would want their model to fly realistikly,,,,,my 450 stearman was an absolutly unbeliveable performer, but it would not be much if scaled into a 25% scale model. it would do a great 1000 ft immalman from 80 mph. sure looked great and was an eye opener for a passenger but to scale ? your model would run out of steam at 250 feet just when the modeler would want it to be hauling butt straight up ! dont get me wrong butt a stearman was great with all that power from 985 cubesw butt scale performance would be crappy to say the least. a scale cub ???? my God,,,a 65 Cub cruiseds at about 70 mph indicated. dont get caught 200 miles from home fasing a 25 mph head wind. hehe,,,,,the stearman cruised at about 85 indicated. and staled at 54 for a perfect 3 point landing. scale that down and your models would still be flying until it ran out of gas. ,,,,the4 best you can do is slow the mopdel way down and do you things very slowly and bore yourself to death.
03-07-2013 | 04:10 PM
#68
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: sensei
Are you stating that the size of the model has no real effect on flight realism, and the real problem is all because of the use of a different technology in models versus full scale?
Bob
ORIGINAL: abufletcher
But this really isn't a ''scaling problem'' at all. It's a problem of using different technology on the model than is used on the full-scale. On the other hand, I agree completely the Lee that the technology of our transmitters makes our job a lot easier. The self-centering is a good example as is the availability of trim, not to mention such exotic computer features as mixing and throttle curves.
ORIGINAL: otrcman
Thanks, Lee. An excellent example of one of the changes we make when we scale down and R/C an airplane like a DRI. Flying a full scale Triplane is much closer to what you experienced without the centering spring in your transmitter.
Thanks, Lee. An excellent example of one of the changes we make when we scale down and R/C an airplane like a DRI. Flying a full scale Triplane is much closer to what you experienced without the centering spring in your transmitter.
Bob
I fully accept that air molecules don't scale. But I'm not really interested in that. My main point throughout this thread has been that (accurate) scale models of different aircraft fly differently from one another. In other words, a model DrI doesn't fly like a model Pup...and that's a good thing. And therefore flying a model of the DrI can give me some small measure of feeling for what it was like to fly a DrI. Enlarging the rudder on a DrI model DOESN'T make it fly more like a full-scale DrI. It just makes the model easier to control on the ground for the Sunday fliers. This is the sort of re-engineering I object to.
03-07-2013 | 04:11 PM
#69
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: abufletcher
I think there's a lot of promise for interesting discussion here. Thanks for starting us off!
I'll add one simple observation: Different models do indeed fly differently. We can "feel" the difference when we fly them. Some models seem "heavy" in the air, others "responsive." My Puppeteer is a real "dog" but nevertheless (or perhaps precisely because of this) fun to fly. Some models almost fly themselves...and where's the fun in that? Other models take every bit of our concentration to keep them in the air...or to get them back onto the ground in one piece. So it seems clear to me that the basic shape and configuration of a model (at whatever scale) does indeed strongly affect its flying qualities.
So I think we can all agree that a model of, say, a Fokker DrI flies differently than a model of a Sopwith Pup. And if I had to describe HOW the two models were different, I'd say that the model DrI flies more like the full-scale DrI and the model Pup flies more like the full-scale Pup. Nevertheless it might still be true that the ways the two models fly ultimately have more in common with each other than they have with either the full-scale DrI or the full-scale Pup. It may be true that models fly like models and full-scales fly like full-scales.
I think what I was basically objecting to is the attempts to make scale models easier to fly than the original. I don't want a model DrI that flies like a trainer...or a Pup.
I think there's a lot of promise for interesting discussion here. Thanks for starting us off!
I'll add one simple observation: Different models do indeed fly differently. We can "feel" the difference when we fly them. Some models seem "heavy" in the air, others "responsive." My Puppeteer is a real "dog" but nevertheless (or perhaps precisely because of this) fun to fly. Some models almost fly themselves...and where's the fun in that? Other models take every bit of our concentration to keep them in the air...or to get them back onto the ground in one piece. So it seems clear to me that the basic shape and configuration of a model (at whatever scale) does indeed strongly affect its flying qualities.
So I think we can all agree that a model of, say, a Fokker DrI flies differently than a model of a Sopwith Pup. And if I had to describe HOW the two models were different, I'd say that the model DrI flies more like the full-scale DrI and the model Pup flies more like the full-scale Pup. Nevertheless it might still be true that the ways the two models fly ultimately have more in common with each other than they have with either the full-scale DrI or the full-scale Pup. It may be true that models fly like models and full-scales fly like full-scales.
I think what I was basically objecting to is the attempts to make scale models easier to fly than the original. I don't want a model DrI that flies like a trainer...or a Pup.
Great thread... Yes different real aircraft feel different and that is important to me in the models also..
Often people comment whyi have so many TXs, the reason is because I set the stick tension up differently to reflect different types of aicraft..
EG, I have heavey spring tension on my WW2 Warbirds and much lighter tension on the EDF jets, same with helicopters, different tension for various types. it really adds a great new dimention to flying because the planes really do FEEL different instead of just responding differently to the stick inputs that "Feel the same" when using a single TX for all aircraft / helis.
Just my perspective and one way to get more out fo the hobby..
"Some" of my TXs in the pic below.. - I have several more..
The real aircraft I fly these days have "yaw dampers" I can simulate this on my models with a little Rudder / Aileron mixing.. this automatically counters adverse yaw when using ailerons, just like a real yaw damper..
03-07-2013 | 04:24 PM
#70
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: WinterHawke
Some more food for thought, at least for the Dr.1
Several years back, late in the season flying my old Great Planes Fokker Dr.1, the centering spring came detached on the rudder stick on the transmitter - in essence, no auto return to neutral.
The triplane became extremely difficult to fly, as the tail wandered all over the place as I started chasing neutral. The landing was at best an arrival (fortunately no real damage that mission).
We take for granted the return-to-neutral our modern radios give our primary controls, but in the real world it's a whole 'nother animal. This is one ( of many ) reason that the Triplane earned such a reputation - it had to be constantly flown, whereas any decent model is going to be much easier to fly because our radios give us an automatic neutral reference point AND an enormous advantage the full-scale version does not.
Not real sure I'd enjoy flying that way too long (nor could I probably afford the repair bills!!).
Best regards,
Lee McD
Some more food for thought, at least for the Dr.1
Several years back, late in the season flying my old Great Planes Fokker Dr.1, the centering spring came detached on the rudder stick on the transmitter - in essence, no auto return to neutral.
The triplane became extremely difficult to fly, as the tail wandered all over the place as I started chasing neutral. The landing was at best an arrival (fortunately no real damage that mission).
We take for granted the return-to-neutral our modern radios give our primary controls, but in the real world it's a whole 'nother animal. This is one ( of many ) reason that the Triplane earned such a reputation - it had to be constantly flown, whereas any decent model is going to be much easier to fly because our radios give us an automatic neutral reference point AND an enormous advantage the full-scale version does not.
Not real sure I'd enjoy flying that way too long (nor could I probably afford the repair bills!!).
Best regards,
Lee McD
Every full size aircraft I have flown (except Helicopters) also have automatic centering of controls, either hydraulic, or simple aerodynamic balancing..
If you roll any aircraft and let go of the stick it will centre and the aircraft will stop rolling... same with pitching up or down (assuming aircraft is in trim) The RC aircraft also do this..
The one thing missing between Real and RC is the 'Seat of the Pants" feeling.. you can "FEEL" when the aircraft is not in trim very easily and you can feel it yawing slightly if you don't correct with rudder during power changes (prop aircraft) or aileron application..
You can learn to fly RC using the rudder in unison to ailerons and but its rough at best because you are basing it on sight only and don't have any real feel for the balance of your rudder inputs.. I usually mix rudder with aileron to "simulate" what i would normally do in an aircraft anyway wheni can "feel it"
03-07-2013 | 08:37 PM
#71
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
I’m on Abu’s and Vertical’s side on this discussion. I really believe everything about a scale model scaled down from the full size dimensions can replicate the flying characteristics. True the stiffness of model will not represent the stiffness of a full size wing and aero loads will twist and distort differently from model to full size changing aerodynamics but let’s take Abu’s point here. Perfectly scale down models fly like the real thing and show the bad habits of the real thing period. Yes a servo is more accurate then a foot on the rudder bar but that’s not the point here.
03-08-2013 | 12:11 AM
#72
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
let me know if this makes sense to you guys, here goes....whenever I come out to fly , the boys always ask why I have so much throw on my control surfaces. this is my thoughts on that , real airplanes don't have exponential or dual rates although I use it sometime but mostly not..when full scale pilots try out rc they find it odd because of the missing seat of the pants feeling..really all we have is the visual aspect and the sensitivity we developed as skill to fly rc airplanes.. I torque all my gimbles down to have that wired connection to the aircraft but due to the experience of flying many types of rc aircraft, I can sense heaviness, lightness , out of balance or how the aircraft responds in heavy or light lift.. in turbulence ,I either fly thru or correct as needed.. I still think flying smooth and precisely is the key.. that or build the plane as big as possible to sound more real and fly more real..
SLOPE FAST - SOAR DEEP
guamflyer
SLOPE FAST - SOAR DEEP
guamflyer
03-08-2013 | 02:02 AM
#73
Member
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Booyal, AUSTRALIA
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
we had on interesting front brought up while chatting out at the field about scale trainers. we were saying how even though in real life they may be good doesnt nesecarily mean that they are good rc trainers. for example take a plane with a wing area of 4'x40' which gives an area of 160 ft squared. if you scale it down to 1/4 scale you end up with wing dimensions of 1'x10' and a wing area of 10 ft squared. not exactly a 1/4 of the wing area now
03-08-2013 | 03:44 AM
#74
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: Scrubmonkey
we had on interesting front brought up while chatting out at the field about scale trainers. we were saying how even though in real life they may be good doesnt nesecarily mean that they are good rc trainers. for example take a plane with a wing area of 4'x40' which gives an area of 160ft squared.if you scale it down to 1/4 scale you end up with wing dimensions of 1'x10' and a wing area of 10 ft squared. not exactly a 1/4 of the wing area now
we had on interesting front brought up while chatting out at the field about scale trainers. we were saying how even though in real life they may be good doesnt nesecarily mean that they are good rc trainers. for example take a plane with a wing area of 4'x40' which gives an area of 160ft squared.if you scale it down to 1/4 scale you end up with wing dimensions of 1'x10' and a wing area of 10 ft squared. not exactly a 1/4 of the wing area now
That is correct for 1/4 scale...
Same happens whenincreasing size...
1 kilometer by 1 kilometer is 1 square Km..
Double each side and you have 2 x 2 = 4 sq / km...
Volume of the 1/4 scaleaircraft will 1/4 cubed... or 1/64 the original.. Ie three dimensions..
