1/2A Are we sure this is what we want?
Moderator: hbartel
1/2A Are we sure this is what we want?
Billy W showed up in Central Florida with a 1/2A plane today. Slam and I had been secretly working on our E-1/2A plane. Today was it's first flight. The capability of spinning a 6X2 prop up to 25000 RPM with an all up weight around 18 oz and a 350 Sq in wing seemed awful enticing. Slam and I showed up before Billy and got a test flight or 2 in. First off we noticed it was fast. TOO fast! At full power I was gettting Aileron flutter. OK lets power back to about 18000 RPM. Speed is slower=better. Man does this thing loop tight! billy shows up with his palne and finally gets it running. Speed wise if I kept it at 5/8 throttle we were about the same. It is a rainy soggy morning so streamers were left off and we just flew around. Talk about Furball Heaven! I quickly ascertained (In my Opinion) that there is going to be TIGHT furballs and a lot of carnage. After Billy lands...Damn Norvells! I fly around backing throttle down till I get a plane that is Slower and will not loop as tight. I note the throttle position and then land. Taching it (A 6X3 APC) at 12000 RPM.
My conclusion.....I think if this class is to have any success as a Low price, Entry level, Fun combat class, the paramaters need to be looked at a lot closer. I think the .061 is too big and makes too much power, maybe an .049. I think wing loading needs to go up, or better yet speeds go down (LESS POWER) so as to NOT have Super Furball Machines.
My conclusion.....I think if this class is to have any success as a Low price, Entry level, Fun combat class, the paramaters need to be looked at a lot closer. I think the .061 is too big and makes too much power, maybe an .049. I think wing loading needs to go up, or better yet speeds go down (LESS POWER) so as to NOT have Super Furball Machines.
my .02
billy's plane flew awsome. what a great flying plane!!!!!
second....billy's plane flew awsome.....loops are about 10' diameter. this seems awfully tight. with 5 planes in the air, i think the furball would be VERY tight. which probably means midairs.
speed seemed fast. i don't mind fast, but am afraid fast means damage. the reports i've heard thusfar indicates that damage is minimal, maybe with the lightened planes, the inertia is lower and damage is less. didn't check that (surprisingly with billy "the mid-air king" in the air).
i would love this class to take off. it is perfect for our electrics to be on equal ground with i.c. without a large cash outlay. there are alot of electric options, we are finding, that that would work.
drew's fuselage was made from a 1/2a fiberglass pylon racer (i believe), it was too delicate for combat, but worked for getting us in the air. the wing was a blue foam wing with 1/16" fiberglass rods and some strapping tape. we were shooting for the original specs of 18oz all up weight, with 2oz of fuel so our plane was 20oz. the wing was just over 350 squares.
the power plant was a mega 16/15/3 with a 2000ma 3 cell batt. with this setup and a different wing and maybe prop, speeds could be in the triple digits. the batt is way too large for the load, but felt we needed it to get weight up to 20oz. we could get down to 16 to 18oz with few modifications.
with some testing on drew's part we found that a double cdrom type outrunner would work, for 1.5oz less and you can find them for $25+. this would allow a much smaller batt also. also a 16/7/x mega would probably work.
bottom line........figure out what direction you are going with weight and squares, and speed and we will be there with you. can't wait to do some 1/2a combat.
slam
billy's plane flew awsome. what a great flying plane!!!!!
second....billy's plane flew awsome.....loops are about 10' diameter. this seems awfully tight. with 5 planes in the air, i think the furball would be VERY tight. which probably means midairs.
speed seemed fast. i don't mind fast, but am afraid fast means damage. the reports i've heard thusfar indicates that damage is minimal, maybe with the lightened planes, the inertia is lower and damage is less. didn't check that (surprisingly with billy "the mid-air king" in the air).
i would love this class to take off. it is perfect for our electrics to be on equal ground with i.c. without a large cash outlay. there are alot of electric options, we are finding, that that would work.
drew's fuselage was made from a 1/2a fiberglass pylon racer (i believe), it was too delicate for combat, but worked for getting us in the air. the wing was a blue foam wing with 1/16" fiberglass rods and some strapping tape. we were shooting for the original specs of 18oz all up weight, with 2oz of fuel so our plane was 20oz. the wing was just over 350 squares.
the power plant was a mega 16/15/3 with a 2000ma 3 cell batt. with this setup and a different wing and maybe prop, speeds could be in the triple digits. the batt is way too large for the load, but felt we needed it to get weight up to 20oz. we could get down to 16 to 18oz with few modifications.
with some testing on drew's part we found that a double cdrom type outrunner would work, for 1.5oz less and you can find them for $25+. this would allow a much smaller batt also. also a 16/7/x mega would probably work.
bottom line........figure out what direction you are going with weight and squares, and speed and we will be there with you. can't wait to do some 1/2a combat.
slam
-
- Posts: 1009
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:33 pm
- Location: Middle of f'n nowhere
I don't believe we're looking for a high-performance class with the Limited 1/2A concept and the rules as proposed are (hopefully) a shot at keeping performance capped. Between the rpm, prop, wing planform, and weight restrictions. There's a lot of effort ongoing in the lower-weight area and I think this is problematic. Why push ourselves into micro servos, light armor, light density foam, etc. if we can get better durability and still good performance at higher weight. Low weight does indeed reduce impact energy but speed is much more influential, impact energy goes up directly proportional to speed but with the SQUARE of velocity. It's not about straight-line speed, where weight has little influence. Light weight means maintaining speed more in tight turns which is where many impacts occur and that's where the impact energy increase from lighter weight comes about.
I keep saying if folks want high-performance 1/2As then there is already an existing class for them- Open 1/2A. I think we need a Limited 1/2A class with performance well below the potential of Open 1/2A, otherwise what's the point of another class. Simple, robust construction with tough, reasonably inexpensive servos should be workable for this class if we structure the rules correctly. Please post your comments to the Limited 1/2A rules proposal thread in the members-only section.
You bring up an interesting point on the electric vs. IC proposal, we have been considering electric and IC to be equivalent if they both meet the min weight and rpm/prop. But the IC meets the weight dry, and needs to carry glow fuel at roughly 1 oz (weight) to 1 oz (volume). Perhaps the electric guys need an addition to the min weight to compensate for this, i.e in 1/2A where you're carrying 1.5 ounces of fuel to start, the AVERAGE fuel load for the heat would be .75 ounce so the electric min weight goes up .75 ounce. In SSC where you carry 3 at the start, it would be 1.5 ounces, etc.
I keep saying if folks want high-performance 1/2As then there is already an existing class for them- Open 1/2A. I think we need a Limited 1/2A class with performance well below the potential of Open 1/2A, otherwise what's the point of another class. Simple, robust construction with tough, reasonably inexpensive servos should be workable for this class if we structure the rules correctly. Please post your comments to the Limited 1/2A rules proposal thread in the members-only section.
You bring up an interesting point on the electric vs. IC proposal, we have been considering electric and IC to be equivalent if they both meet the min weight and rpm/prop. But the IC meets the weight dry, and needs to carry glow fuel at roughly 1 oz (weight) to 1 oz (volume). Perhaps the electric guys need an addition to the min weight to compensate for this, i.e in 1/2A where you're carrying 1.5 ounces of fuel to start, the AVERAGE fuel load for the heat would be .75 ounce so the electric min weight goes up .75 ounce. In SSC where you carry 3 at the start, it would be 1.5 ounces, etc.
- Which_way_is_up
- Posts: 1637
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:54 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by sgilkey</i>
<br />I don't believe we're looking for a high-performance class with the Limited 1/2A concept and the rules as proposed are (hopefully) a shot at keeping performance capped. Between the rpm, prop, wing planform, and weight restrictions. There's a lot of effort ongoing in the lower-weight area and I think this is problematic. Why push ourselves into micro servos, light armor, light density foam, etc. if we can get better durability and still good performance at higher weight. Low weight does indeed reduce impact energy but speed is much more influential, impact energy goes up directly proportional to speed but with the SQUARE of velocity. It's not about straight-line speed, where weight has little influence. Light weight means maintaining speed more in tight turns which is where many impacts occur and that's where the impact energy increase from lighter weight comes about.
I keep saying if folks want high-performance 1/2As then there is already an existing class for them- Open 1/2A. I think we need a Limited 1/2A class with performance well below the potential of Open 1/2A, otherwise what's the point of another class. Simple, robust construction with tough, reasonably inexpensive servos should be workable for this class if we structure the rules correctly. Please post your comments to the Limited 1/2A rules proposal thread in the members-only section.
You bring up an interesting point on the electric vs. IC proposal, we have been considering electric and IC to be equivalent if they both meet the min weight and rpm/prop. But the IC meets the weight dry, and needs to carry glow fuel at roughly 1 oz (weight) to 1 oz (volume). Perhaps the electric guys need an addition to the min weight to compensate for this, i.e in 1/2A where you're carrying 1.5 ounces of fuel to start, the AVERAGE fuel load for the heat would be .75 ounce so the electric min weight goes up .75 ounce. In SSC where you carry 3 at the start, it would be 1.5 ounces, etc.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But of course any followup discussion about this will be put in the members only section. . . . . .[:)]
<br />I don't believe we're looking for a high-performance class with the Limited 1/2A concept and the rules as proposed are (hopefully) a shot at keeping performance capped. Between the rpm, prop, wing planform, and weight restrictions. There's a lot of effort ongoing in the lower-weight area and I think this is problematic. Why push ourselves into micro servos, light armor, light density foam, etc. if we can get better durability and still good performance at higher weight. Low weight does indeed reduce impact energy but speed is much more influential, impact energy goes up directly proportional to speed but with the SQUARE of velocity. It's not about straight-line speed, where weight has little influence. Light weight means maintaining speed more in tight turns which is where many impacts occur and that's where the impact energy increase from lighter weight comes about.
I keep saying if folks want high-performance 1/2As then there is already an existing class for them- Open 1/2A. I think we need a Limited 1/2A class with performance well below the potential of Open 1/2A, otherwise what's the point of another class. Simple, robust construction with tough, reasonably inexpensive servos should be workable for this class if we structure the rules correctly. Please post your comments to the Limited 1/2A rules proposal thread in the members-only section.
You bring up an interesting point on the electric vs. IC proposal, we have been considering electric and IC to be equivalent if they both meet the min weight and rpm/prop. But the IC meets the weight dry, and needs to carry glow fuel at roughly 1 oz (weight) to 1 oz (volume). Perhaps the electric guys need an addition to the min weight to compensate for this, i.e in 1/2A where you're carrying 1.5 ounces of fuel to start, the AVERAGE fuel load for the heat would be .75 ounce so the electric min weight goes up .75 ounce. In SSC where you carry 3 at the start, it would be 1.5 ounces, etc.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But of course any followup discussion about this will be put in the members only section. . . . . .[:)]
- Which_way_is_up
- Posts: 1637
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:54 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by drewjet</i>
<br />Since there is not a class yet made, and this is only discussing what we would like to see in 1/2 A combat, I don't see the need to put this in members only. I think this could be a great club type combat used to draw in new members.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
A simple point of clarification. Any discussion of rules for a proposed class or existing class will be done in the members section. Discussion of construction and designs are more then welcome in the public forum.
<br />Since there is not a class yet made, and this is only discussing what we would like to see in 1/2 A combat, I don't see the need to put this in members only. I think this could be a great club type combat used to draw in new members.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
A simple point of clarification. Any discussion of rules for a proposed class or existing class will be done in the members section. Discussion of construction and designs are more then welcome in the public forum.
-
- Posts: 3330
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
- Location: USA
To all:
According to the P&P of the RCCA, rules disscussion is suppose to take place in "members only" sections of the web page. Until this Fall, the only place available was the Soapbox section. I was a strong proponent of a "members only" area on the forum so that we would have a good place to disscuss specific rules or rule proposals.
I went to bat those of you who wanted the ability to have this type of thread.
Now that there is a specific area.... we need to use it. I did`nt make the by-laws that we work with, but as a District Rep it is my job to support and abide by them.
<font size="2">Roy is just doing his job as Webmaster. </font id="size2">
According to the P&P of the RCCA, rules disscussion is suppose to take place in "members only" sections of the web page. Until this Fall, the only place available was the Soapbox section. I was a strong proponent of a "members only" area on the forum so that we would have a good place to disscuss specific rules or rule proposals.
I went to bat those of you who wanted the ability to have this type of thread.
Now that there is a specific area.... we need to use it. I did`nt make the by-laws that we work with, but as a District Rep it is my job to support and abide by them.
<font size="2">Roy is just doing his job as Webmaster. </font id="size2">
-
- Posts: 3330
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
- Location: USA
I have copied this thread into the members only section. Please post and let me know if you agree with me, or if I am out of my head.
http://rccombat.com/forum/topic.asp?TOP ... hichpage=3
Thanks
http://rccombat.com/forum/topic.asp?TOP ... hichpage=3
Thanks