|
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
I don't get how the wingover is different from the barrel roll.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPoS9ztQba4[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTGcSUhalUw[/youtube] |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
Interesting video.
We can't really perform the manoeuvre at constant power settings, though, since we have fixed-pitch props. Barrel rolls are things that I practice. I find that I have to reduce power once the nose falls below the horizon, so as to help keep the speed under control and maintain a degree of symmetry through the manoeuvre. |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
A wing over is a 180 degree change in direction and a barrel roll traces a "cork screw" through the sky with no change in heading.
Jaybird |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: abufletcher Isn't a light weight a sort of double-edged sword? If it's light you can fly it slower. But if it's light it bounces around more. Bob |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
That's clear in the second video I posted. Not so clear in the first. Regarding barrel rolls, my old Flair Puppeteer (which is a pretty typical WWI flier) certainly can't do a crisp ailerons only roll...and I wouldn't want it to. But it'll do a big, ugly barrel roll if I start with a shallow dive then pull the nose up to a full 45 degrees before rolling it. And during the roll, it'll drop like a brick so I need to make sure I have enough altitude when I do one. But it doesn't look very scale.
|
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
My old beater Fokker DVII would do the prettiest barrel rolls with just a tad up elevator and a smidge of right or left rudder. Then of course it would do the most amazing snap roll with full up elevator and full left or right rudder, and then return to its original flight path in less time than it takes to think about it. Good luck shooting someone down when pulling that one! Apparently the P51 Mustang could do a similar move at high speed, and it was used on more than one occasion to give angry Messerschmitts the slip.
ZZ. |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
That sounds EXACTLY scale for that kind of aircraft with it's inherent performance limitations. It should have to dive to build up speed since it's already at full power and then it's going to loose a lot of it's energy as soon as the ailerons are put in and then start to slow as it goes inverted. Now gravity is your friend as it will pull the plane (nose first) through the rest of the manuever at the bottom of teh corkscrew.
Again, watch John Mohr in his stock Stearman if you want to see energy management at it's finest. Jaybird |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
Not sure if this link still works, but it's one I posted earlier in another forum, and really gives you an idea of the "feel" of a WWI type engaging in combat maneuvers. One of the few I've ever seen that gives you that sense of space and time. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZ82...eature=related ZZ. PS. Be patient, about halfway through he starts wringing it out in a way you will seldom see done with an authentic full size WWI machine. |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
The first video says "Wingover Roll" equal to barrel roll. Second that says "Wingover" is more of a sloppy "Lazy Eight." Chandelle is called the Chandelle. With all the maneuvers you are holding a climbing elevator and rolling the airplane to control the climb. Kind of like flying a single channel RC plane.
|
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
A "lazy eight" is two wing overs in sequence...one to the left followed by one the right. I think it's called "lazy" because once established with the 10 degree bank angle and pull up, you let gravity do the rest of it as you go along for the ride. A wing over to the left requires little to no rudder input while one to right requires some amount to help the nose track where you want it. These were a lot fun in the Stearman and you can hear the isntructor talking me through them.
I also flew in an AT-6 Texan many years ago and any manuauver with a vertical element started with a dive to build up airspeed even with all that horsepower up front compared to a Stearman. Again, it's all about energy management. Jaybird |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
has anyone took a radar gun to check there speed
|
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
|
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: Rob2160 ORIGINAL: abufletcher ORIGINAL: Rob2160 ...I fly real jets for a living so the last thing I want is my hobby to feel like my job.. Flying RC I fly the way I want to fly... Huge difference.. LOL. |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: bogbeagle Flying for endurance ...? Minimum power to maintain flight. That would qualify as "scale flying" ... even if rarely used in the real world. if you fly too slow the induced drag increases dramatically and the efficiency of a fixed pitch propellor reduces also, IE flying too slow will burn extra fuel.. Sorry,i usually avoid getting too technical in these forums but since the topic is Scale realistic flying, lets get into some real aerodynamic concepts also shall we?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-induced_drag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics) This article is good also.. it defines slow flying as any speed LESS than the maximum endurance speed.. it does correctly state that slow flying "practice" is good for developing flying skills ( i don't disagree with that at all) http://www.gremline.com/index_files/page0013.htm Just that other than doing it to improve your flying skills, flying just above the stall speed is not really something you do in day to day flying. Hoping to promote discussion and not wanting to offend any previous comment. |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: ZoomZoom-RCU Not being argumentative, but just wondering why anyone would want to fly around slowly just above the stall speed? That's not really the only thing thats being recommended, allthough you will learn from it. Actually what's being recommended is to fly slower (in all ranges of power) than just full or practically full bore and for various reasons. A more scale appearance is one benefit, and learning to handle the plane on the wing and not just the motor is another, and there is a wide range where one can do this, not just barely above the stall. ZZ. Except when hovering with thrust capability greater than 1:1 a plane is always flying on the wing.. (remove the wings and try to fly on the motor - see what happens) |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
By the phrase "handle the plane on the wing" are you referring to operations at the bottom of the drag curve?
Except when hovering with thrust capability greater than 1:1 a plane is always flying on the wing.. (remove the wings and try to fly on the motor - see what happens By this I mean that our generally over-powered planes have so much engine power, more so by ratio than most full size machines, that we are used to simply over throttling and relying on the motor more than the wing. This can translate in a number of ways, and yes, your point is correct that unless you are flying a glider or sailplane the engine is always contributing to remaining airborne. Its a ratio issue. Because we know we have this power threshold, we then start to rely on it solely at the expense of the other end of the spectrum, which is doing with less throttle, and more energy management and along with this a better understanding of how our particular plane handles this.....and handles in general. For instance, if you have not yet, take a look at the video I just posted with the full size fokker DVII doing maneuvers. You can forward past all of the preliminaries to where he is actually doing aerobatics. Notice how he noses down to pick up speed before most of the aggresive maneuvers. You gotta know that wing and know that plane to do this stuff......he doesn't have gobbs of power in reserve like we do, and he also knows how draggy that airframe is. Look at the one maneuver he does that is like a loop with an inverted split S "I guess"lol where he loops, dives and rolls, and then pulls out. Notice how slow it seems, at the same time notice how much altitude he loses in the process. You gotta know your plane to do this, and you have to know how to fly on the wing, cause that motor aint pullin you out if you screw up! At least not in a big hurry.;) ZZ. PS. Here it is again, in case you don't wanna scroll up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZ82...eature=related |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
if you think your flying scale with your plane how do you really know after 3 days of reading about everyones idea of scale flying i dont think you ccan fly a model plane scale
|
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
Again, I don't think the goal is to fly JUUUUUUST like the full size. After all thats practically impossible as has been outlined here earlier. It is however possible to fly in a more SCALE-LIKE manner. Lending the impression of a more scale appearance by speed reduction, but also gauging your power to be more (but not completely) authentic in the handling of the plane.
ZZ. PS. To answer your question though, stop worrying about it. This is supposed to be fun. Play around with trying to fly with less power and more on the wing and see what results you can garner. If YOUR eyes see a difference and are satisfied, well thats enough. One example from my experience: When I was a more neophyte flier, I used to just gun the throttle on take off. My departures looked like......well....carrier launches. This is really idiotic looking, especially when flying a WWI biplane. Over time I learned the feel of gradually adding throttle through the different stages of take off. Not only did this reduce the inherent swerve that resulted on takeoffs, requiring a great deal of corrective rudder, but I didn't end up after this correction anywhere near full throttle on departure, lending again to more gentle, less steep, and much more realistic looking take-offs. The parallels are manifold, and widespread in how we fly. |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
there is not any way you can fly a model plane scale its all in the mind of the flyer you think your flying scale the man next to you says thats not scALE then what
|
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: ZoomZoom-RCU PS. Here it is again, in case you don't wanna scroll up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZ82...eature=related |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
there is not any way you can fly a model plane scale its all in the mind of the flyer you think your flying scale the man next to you says thats not scALE then what
As long as you are happy.....who-cares. ZZ. Yes Abu.....I love watching this vid too. "Gracefull" is all that comes to mind.;) |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
It has been suggested that possessing a lightweight airframe is kinda like a double edge sword due to the bouncing around in gusting wind, truthfully the advantages of a lightweight aircraft far exceed their heavier counterparts by: 1 possessing the ability Fly much slower without nasty stall characteristics. 2 possessing the ability to immediately jump back on the wing at near zero airspeed maneuvers, or transitioning from one maneuver to the next at very slow speeds, this is especially useful when flying slow and low. 3 possess the ability to utilize much smaller power plant requirements that allows for a better airframe/power matching. Something many of you may not realize while watching the two videos I posted was in both those huge models I was running a 200cc power plant, that sounds like allot of engine doesn't it, truth is all this type aircraft currently available in this size range weigh in at around 70 - 85 lbs. and utilize 275cc - 342cc power plants. Now if you google and watch a few videos of these other giant scale monsters you will see that with all the extra HP these giants are utilizing do not have the performance or slow flight ability of my lighter aircraft with much smaller power plants. So remember, (Horse Power in not and antidote for a heavy wing loading) My dad once told me that if you place enough HP on a cinder block you can make it fly but.....
Bob |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
that is right i can not understand why there is so much talk of this fly like u want to and be happy even if you go to a scale contest there is not any expert there to say if u fly scale or not
|
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
Thats interesting sensei. Which would beg the question, wouldn't building them to handle smaller powerplants, therefore lighter (and less beefy internals needed to support such a large powerplant), result in a twofold benefit: A lighter airplane that flies on a smaller engine, and with much more scale like flight characteristics. I think so, cause thats how I build. It does work.
ZZ. that is right i can not understand why there is so much talk of this fly like u want to and be happy even if you go to a scale contest there is not any expert there to say if u fly scale or not PS. Don't know what to tell you oneaew, all I can say is I can see the difference between a well flown properly built machine and the proverbial cinderblock with an engine strapped on flown by a ham-handed throttle fiend. And if you cant, then all of this will be lost on you. So if you can't tell the difference, dont sweat it. |
RE: Does your scale model fly realistically ?
ORIGINAL: ZoomZoom-RCU By the phrase "handle the plane on the wing" are you referring to operations at the bottom of the drag curve? Except when hovering with thrust capability greater than 1:1 a plane is always flying on the wing.. (remove the wings and try to fly on the motor - see what happens By this I mean that our generally over-powered planes have so much engine power, more so by ratio than most full size machines, that we are used to simply over throttling and relying on the motor more than the wing. This can translate in a number of ways, and yes, your point is correct that unless you are flying a glider or sailplane the engine is always contributing to remaining airborne. Its a ratio issue. Because we know we have this power threshold, we then start to rely on it solely at the expense of the other end of the spectrum, which is doing with less throttle, and more energy management and along with this a better understanding of how our particular plane handles this.....and handles in general. For instance, if you have not yet, take a look at the video I just posted with the full size fokker DVII doing maneuvers. You can forward past all of the preliminaries to where he is actually doing aerobatics. Notice how he noses down to pick up speed before most of the aggresive maneuvers. You gotta know that wing and know that plane to do this stuff......he doesn't have gobbs of power in reserve like we do, and he also knows how draggy that airframe is. Look at the one maneuver he does that is like a loop with an inverted split S "I guess"lol where he loops, dives and rolls, and then pulls out. Notice how slow it seems, at the same time notice how much altitude he loses in the process. You gotta know your plane to do this, and you have to know how to fly on the wing, cause that motor aint pullin you out if you screw up! At least not in a big hurry.;) ZZ. PS. Here it is again, in case you don't wanna scroll up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZ82...eature=related Ah yes,I think I understand.. you are describing good energy management and understanding how a real aircraft requires it but an RC aircraft has so much surplus power that energy management of this style is unecessary.. That does make perfect sense and I agree entirely.. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:33 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.