NO: Tapers in Span/Width/Thickness

This is the thread to aid in development of new ideas and classes. Post working rules and gather feedback!

Moderator: hbartel

sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Post by sgilkey »

Mark, maybe I'm just having a bad day, but I find this, in your post above, a bit irksome. "What you’ll wind up with is someone like me or Lee who’ll figure out how to build a machine within your rules that performs better than the average bird. "

These are not meant to be just OUR rules, they are meant to be the RCCA's rules, of which you, Lee, and others are a part. It is quite clear what we are trying to accomplish- a class where you don't have to build purpose-built machines to have a shot at being competitive, a class where newbies will not be slaughtered by the experts on their first match and get discouraged, a class where the tech race is slowed down. Rather than sitting back and letting "us" formulate rules that you can then figure out how to take maximumum advantage (should you choose to participate in the class), why don't you offer suggestions on how we can construct the rules to avoid just such an outcome!?!? C'mon, it's clear what we're trying to do, don't let this attempt go the way of SSC, where the class ends up morphing out of all recognition to it's original intent. Lower pressure, lower damage, less building, more attractive/less intimidating to newbies and casual competitors as well as seasoned vets. NOT another opportunity to out-tech and kill off the inexperienced.

What, in your opinions as excellent airframe designers, can be done with the rules proposals to help us stick to the intent of this class? The silence of certain folks on these rules proposals is deafening, and if you wait for us to set them, and then spring forward with a new killer design, it will be rather disappointing, as all this work will be for naught.

Scott Gilkey
C/F
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:19 pm

Post by C/F »

Jimbo,

Post the link I would like to see it. Was it in fact NO tapers in any planform of span/chords or width/and thickness. Not sure when you say straight LE? Also you were at 48" most will opt for more span grabbing wings than that versus the blazing speeds you enjoy to attack with, that's an absolute,[:)] Allowing tapers there's just not that much of a trade off.

IMO any limits on wing dimensions is not needed as tapers have gone unchecked and have maxed out in the 72" range. I do not foresee a hershey bar wing becoming that big, if so it will be a nice slow speed.


I also contend that I never built a plane strong ehough to survive a crash, but I have built them light enough to survive a crash. The Stickit style fun fly planes weigh 1.5lb-2lbs @ 500 sq and take off with full throttle into a loop landing at the bottom of the loop, and if you miss it lands straight on the nose or LE, bear in mind these are mousse can powered Webra .32 and all they do is break a prop for the most part.

I personally see anything beyond 3 lbs as diminishing returns on conquering survivability. I would favor limits on max and min weights to help remove the perception that expensive micro gear is required.

The problem with weights is they get taken to both ends of the gambit, at first rule making thinks it's to improve survivability and then the hardcore takes the limits and uses it to gain span in favor of disposable planes and shows up with a plane a round. Quite an overwhelimng picture for the onlookers with interest in showing up to watch an event. So rule making with this logic has not worked in the 7+?? classes that rules have been established to date IMHO.


The No tapers idea is IMO something radically differant than what has been tried before and I think 90MPH combat interest has peaked and if a provisional class can bring any value added features to the table I wondered if my designing logic of such a wing planform is real or perceived?

I continue to defend it by pointing out how speed is an important factor when tapers are used, and this is what I would like to harness more effectively than RPM limits. It was done this way in racing 25 years ago when an OPEN sport class existed and does exist today with the Q500/Q40 differances. But I honestly am not trying to take away from what you and Travis are doing as most will see the thrill of combat still exists with a 20 mph reduction in open B speeds.....

I am dissapointed with how the Engine RPMS in SSC and weights have become so abused at the upper level. There is no way a guy should be wanting to run so close to the top that he constantly tachs his own engine every freakin round analy and defends the pratice as being pro rules active.....

I'll be going the OS route with the drilled out muffler 18K+ based on nitro content and then using the dial down approach,[:(] why is the baffle allowed to be drilled to this level of RPM's????
Hindsight is 20/20 learn from it...
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Even with your own design HBW if you did not have to contend with the speed differance that exists between your HBW and 64" LTW in design pros/cons I am sure you would be able to thicken up your disposable wings......<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What ever gives you the idea that I WANT to thicken my wings? I designed my airfoil to fly like it does, and I'm quite happy with it. I didn't design it to allow or compensate for a constant chord wing, I designed the airfoil to have the traits I wanted, and I use the same airfoil in SSC and in my very highly tapered 2610 planes (60% taper ratio in 2610, if I recall). You really shouldn't make such huge assumptions about other folks' designs. It makes you look really stupid.

I wouldn't call my SSC wings "disposeable" at all either. I don't suffer any more wing losses in SSC than anyone else from what I can tell. And the losses I do take are 100% due to prop/engine impacts in the spar areas. I have wings that have dents from 6+ mid-airs on them, and they are still in service. That's hardly disposeable. I even had a 4-mid-air round this season, and the only reason the 4th caused me to land was because the prop was broken. I don't know why you keep making totally baseless comments about my gear to attempt to "prove" your point, but it's getting old, and you certainly aren't making a very convincing argument. Stick to facts for a change, you might find your arguments get more of a hearing that way.

If you actually want to know about my gear and how it performs, either ask me, or pay a lot more attention next time we meet. So far, you haven't gotten anything about my gear even close to accurate.

As far as I can tell, the only thing of note you've said is that constant chord wings are not as efficient as tapered wings. Given the same wing area, same span, and same airfoil, a tapered wing will be a little more efficient and result in faster level flight.

Ok, that's a given, no one has said that is not true. Now, <b>HOW MUCH?</b> show us how much of a differnece will make. IMHO, based on my experiences with my SSC design, the differnece will be minimal, maybe even non-noticeable. Either build some test planes to prove otherwise, or at least show some calcuations. Otherwise, I stand by my position that the change is too small to be worth while, and the rule isn't going to do any good.

So far, your only "proof" is to point at other applications of tapered and constant wings, but so far, all you've done is point out that other airframes intended for other uses make other design decisions than what we make for combat planes. It's hardly convinceing of anything.

You also seem to be saying that a requirement for a constant chord wing will shorten wingspans as a side effect. I think that's assumeing way too much. If you want to shorten wingspans, put in a max wingspan rule and get on with it. Could I build a 72" constant chord wing with good performance? I'm sure I could. I'd do it by keeping roughly the same area I have now, and going with a shorter chord. A quick calculation shows my chord would be about 8.5" vs the 9.5" that I have now, which is still enough to make the wing strong enough. I just have no interest in doing it. (I have transport and storage issues that make a 72" wing impratical for me right now).

Another idea you seem to be trying to push is to force a min wing thickness. A min wing thickness is not an automatic result of a constant chord wing, it's really a speperate concept, and I think we'll all do better to disucss it seperately. After all, we don't all use the same airfoil, and all our airfoils are not the same % thick, in fact they vary quite a lot.

If you go so far as to spec span, chord, thickness, and constant chord, then you might actually get the desired effect of slowing things down. But at that point, just spec the airfoil as well, and accept that you are really pushing a one-design class.

If you aren't pushing one-design or nearly one-design approach, then I just don't think you are correct.

Just adding a constant chord rule by itself to SSC will not slow the planes down at all with out adding other rules about chord, span, and thickness.




Kirk Montague Adams
RCCA 560
http://www.MidAtlanticCombat.com - Combat in the Mid-Atlantic Region
C/F
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:19 pm

Post by C/F »

"OH" NO SIR,....REE....BOBBY I got you pegged to a Tee there mister Kirk.[:D]

Your designs are slow, by any standards.[:)]

Your hershey bar planform is a compromise in agility and speed given the competitions speed.[:D]

If the field was slowed by 30 MPH you would add thickness at WILL not mandated is my theory.[:D]

I've judged you many times to make this baseless conclusions in an attmept to see how you get the scores you do. [B)]

I've been party to the peanut gallery crowd making such comments as a "little red POS" of your awe inspiring high rounds.[:0]

I've seen you on more then one occassion go vertical with your SSC only to come falling backwards and dam near cut your own streamer loose.[8]

No, these are the facts, you are just one awesome designer, builder, pilot at speeds we all should be flying @. [;)]

I am not a designer never cut a foam wing in my life, and buy the flavor of the day, thus why I am asking for input from people who enjoy doing such, and yes my expierance comes 30 years of many disciplines who've had to address speeds, yours my friend is a limited RCCA combat view finder where weights and HP have only been attempted to harnessing speeds.

Too enjoy the flight envelope most enjoy today (your's excluded),with a hershey bar wing I contend the trade off's in wing design planforms are going to include such items as speed/durability/agility, the ending result will automatically be a shorter fatter wing. That is automatically increased drag, which is automatically slower in speed, none of which needs to be mandated other than no tapers rule.

If you are so keen on "facts" where is it I've said any dimensions in planform need to be restricted or limited or spec'd????? NO only a no tapers.............


Scott,
You noticed the exact same thing as I have yet to spell out,
"THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING" of those that do dabble in creating wing designs. I however believe that the Hershey bar wing concept can be read into every line of AJ's conquering survivability post.......
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

Mike it is posted. It's at RCHangout.com in the combat forum.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

By the way Mike that wing has NO tapers.It may only be 48" long but it is 2 1/2 inches thick.[:0]

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
MLaBoyteaux
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:43 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by MLaBoyteaux »

Scott,
I will try to be as polite about this as possible. As long as a class, even a spec one, allows the pilots to construct their own planes, there are going to be subtle differences in construction techniques and designs, which can be used to give one design a slight advantage over others. This of course, is just my opinion, so it doesn’t make it fact. The ONLY way to have a completely level playing field is to specify an exact make and model aircraft which is to be used. When I say “your rulesâ€
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Post by sgilkey »

Mark, actually, among the top-flight airframe designers, you have been helpful with input. You don't seem to buy into our concept, that is fine, by hearing your dissension it helps us figure out if we're on the right track. No vocal minority is cramming things down the throats of the membership here, as far as I can tell. Some other top designers have been less forthcoming with input. Some have come right out and said, basically, "if you don't fix this hole, I'm gonna climb right thru it and slaughter the rest of ya." This is what helps us identify, and try to resolve, such issues as span or area limits, etc. I just hope the rest are simply occupied with other interests. I would be very discouraged if some experts watch us draft a set of rules that they see they can climb right thru and throw off the whole reason for trying this class.

Things may be different down your way. That's what these discussions are all about. BUt among the folks I have flown with, there is a lot of enthusiasm for the Limited B concept, including newcomers, and former combatters who have an interest in getting back in. Not that we're talking about 1000 RCCA members in the first year of Limited B, but I think it could help. In our area, combat interest is on the wane (well, actually, it fell off significantly to a currently low, but steady, level), not increasing. I attribute it directly to the high levels of performance, which do not appeal to the average combat recruit. Maybe it's because we have such a short flying season. Folks dont want to spend their short summer fixing planes. They want to fly on those few days we can fit it in!!!

Scott Gilkey
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

Scott,
You mention interest has fallen off in your area. I am not sure what your conclusion regarding the fall off is. If you could list it in the order of importance it might help Mark, me and others better define the problem we are trying to solve.

For instance the list might look something like this:
<ul><li>Damage, requiring too much shop time </li>
<li>Unable to fly at the speeds or turning ability of the airplanes </li>
<li>Too expensive, have to purchase too much equipment</li></ul>

Lou Melancon
Alpharetta, Georgia
thojo
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 1:20 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by thojo »

Frankly, lets just create an design spec class, with battle floyd type fuses, spec Clark Y airfoil, 13% thick, 10" chord, with a span of 48". Everybody flying the same thing, no more bickering, no more, "my design is better than your design", and lets see who the real combat heros are. A spec class would allow multiple vendors the opportunity to crank out the same design decreasing the cost for everybody. Mass produced airframes and wings would be cheap as popcorn and easy to build. The 48" max wingspan would limit tight turning abilities which I think is the true cause of most of our carnage anyway... my 2cents....

Pictures of airplane stuff:
http://jwtfamily.org/rcgallery
__________________________________
Speed is life
Altitude is life Insurance
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

My one piece spec class wing can be built complete (tape covered) in one hour. With a black flat bat body and coro feathers it is tough and cheap. Go look at the specs at RCHangout.com This would allow SPADS to compete in this class. Travis and I try any kind of combat, this one has been in the works for a while but we need help.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your designs are slow, by any standards.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

With the smilie, I can't tell if you're being serious or joking with that line. But my SSC plane was clocked at Dixie with the radar gun as one of the fastest on the field that day. Not the fastest, but faster than most. 54mph if I recall correctly.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your hershey bar planform is a compromise in agility and speed given the competitions speed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

All designs are compromises. I think I have a pretty good compromise in SSC. (B is a differnet story).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the field was slowed by 30 MPH you would add thickness at WILL not mandated is my theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you are saying here that if everyone slowed down that I would just go and thicken my wing, then you're mistaken. You seem to think I use a thin wing just to go fast. That's not true at all. My wing thickness is a result of my airfoil. The airfoil is a set % thick. The wing chord was set to get the wing area in a particular range with a given wingspan. The actual measured thickness of the wing came out to be whatever it came out to be, it was never a design target by itself. I WAS looking for an airfoil with good L/D numbers at low and high AOA's with out worrying about what went on in the middle. If everyone was suddenly going 30mph slower, I wouldn't change a thing. I'd just pratice hitting much slower moving targets.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've judged you many times to make this baseless conclusions in an attmept to see how you get the scores you do. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If all you are saying is that you have watched me fly by judging me at a few contests, then ok. I honestly don't know how many times you've scored for me, and I don't know if luck would have it that you wound up scoring more of my bad rounds than good or what.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've been party to the peanut gallery crowd making such comments as a "little red POS" of your awe inspiring high rounds.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic in here somewhere, but I honestly don't know what you were trying to say. Are you saying my plane is a POS and that I don't score high rounds? Are you trying to say that my plane is a POS, but I manage to score high rounds anyway?

My plane isn't pretty, so if you're saying it's a POS based on appearance, then I agree. If you're saying it doesn't fly well, then either you're wrong about the flight performance or I'm an incredible pilot who is somehow able to consistanly score highly with poor gear. Since I don't believe that I'm that good of a pilot, my only conclusion is that my airframe performs very competitively against others.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've seen you on more then one occassion go vertical with your SSC only to come falling backwards and dam near cut your own streamer loose.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, I use that trick a lot. Probibly too often, at some point someone's going to figure it out and nail me. I don't think any SSC plane can climb vertically with out falling off. However, rest assured that the vertical climb to vertical dive is something I do intentionally at times. I find it useful if a bit strange looking.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No, these are the facts, you are just one awesome designer, builder, pilot at speeds we all should be flying @. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok, that's obviously sarcasm.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Too enjoy the flight envelope most enjoy today (your's excluded),with a hershey bar wing I contend the trade off's in wing design planforms are going to include such items as speed/durability/agility, the ending result will automatically be a shorter fatter wing. That is automatically increased drag, which is automatically slower in speed, none of which needs to be mandated other than no tapers rule.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Right, that's your thought. And I just disagree. You asked the opionion of guys who have designed planes, and I'm telling you as someone who flys a constant chord wing, that there is nothing about a constant chord wing that forces it to have a shorter span or a thicker airfoil. If you want to force an increase in induced drag, you're going to have to get specific enough to really force the increase in drag.

Given your experience with composite structures, I'm really surprised that it hasn't occured to you that if you only require a constant chord, then someone with lots of access to such high tech methods can make a thinnner, much lower drag wing and keep it stronger than others with out that access. You'd hand a huge advantage to anyone who has access to that kind of materials. That seems like a big step backwards to me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you are so keen on "facts" where is it I've said any dimensions in planform need to be restricted or limited or spec'd????? NO only a no tapers.............<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You mis-understand me. I was trying to figure out what you meant, and then comment on some options. It wasn't clear to me if you were suggesting such limits, or if you thought that such limits would not be necessary. Clearly, you think such limits would not be necessary. As I've already said, I disagree. I followed that up by saying that if you did combine "no taper" with rules that actually did force increased drag, such as span, chord and thickness rules, that you'd actually achieve what you seem to want, but you'd have a spec class at that point, and a spec class is a whole other discussion.

As a related thought experiment, try this. Take two wings, both constant chord, both the same span. Make them the same measured thickness (say, 1"). One has a wing chord twice the size of the other. Which has lower drag? How do a 5" chord, 10" chord, and 15" chord compare to each other in drag? Is there a range of chord values with lower drag, but shorter than some point increases drag while larger than some other point also increases drag?

I think the conclusion is that constant chord with out any other restrictions on span, chord, thickness, or area is just not enough to force an increase in drag and limit speeds enough to matter. You may not need restrictons on all the above, but you will need something.

If we go your way, who knows, the future might wind up being 6" chord, 72" glider-like wings for those that can afford the materials to build them, shorter and wider for those that can't.

Another side thought. Just because chord is constant doesn't mean that wing structure has to be constant as well. If I wanted to build a very long, thin constant chord wing, I'd start with a conventional pair of spars that run full span. But I'd seriously look at adding 1 or 2 extra pair of spars that run only part of the span, or even using tapered spars inside the foam. This would keep the wing tips light but give the center section the strength needed to support the wing. I might also experiment with a really wide fuse or a fuse with a really wide wing saddle. If the plane was a low wing configuration, and the wing saddle wide enough, it might be possible to transfer some of the stresses from the wing to the wing saddle for positive-G loads. I might also think about using higher density foam in the wing center, and lighter foam at the tips. People are already using two different foams on the LE and rest of the wing, it's not a huge step to using differnet foams at differnet points in the span to make a long thin wing hold together. Right now, with out testing, I'm thinking 40lb foam in the center to help support the spars, but light EPP at the tips to allow the tips to fled and bend with out failing. Just some 2am wing design, I don't know if any of that would work very well, but with some R&B, I bet something would.


Kirk Montague Adams
RCCA 560
http://www.MidAtlanticCombat.com - Combat in the Mid-Atlantic Region
C/F
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:19 pm

Post by C/F »

Kirk,

Now with all the sarcasm and personal attacks aside your 2AM designing is what I am after.

I only speak from flight enevelope side of other venues and one thing I can see debateable with your thoughts are you think they will remain long if made to be HBW, I contend that they will shorten.

Your own admission is you deal with a decrease in speed while turning and also stalls to some degree.

IMO long wings only hit the scene 3 years ago with some wanting to have more streamer grabbing abilities, and then as a side benefit became aware that the turns held greater speeds and then this ultimateley led to higher flat out speeds because turning and looping is such a big part of the game. Others came on the scene already knowing these truths and started out even larger and disposable.

IMO most are not going to want to deal with any stalls and noticable speed bleed off during manuevers in a HBW so I believe you must thicken the wing to improve that piece of the puzzle. I have some think fat 3D fun fly airplanes that have no stall or shortness of agility and are idiot proof concerning flight envelopes.

Secondly I believe to stayt with a long planform in HBW it will either be thin and really disposable or thick and really draggy.

So far I on this discussion I have one theory mine they will shorten and thicken to get the performance tradeoffs back to what we now enjoy. With a perceived reduction in speed, based on the fact that other venues who try to harness speeds more effectively do it with wing planform specs.

I have Mark who states that A HBW is much more ineffeicent because there a portion of the wing that is slacking in work load. But feels a better mouse trap is inevitable and has not clearly stated if he feels speeds would go down.

I have Kirk thinking he still needs to design at the Long wing design level if HBW were the norm.

I have Scott who is listening and has tried a Q500 wing.

I have Doc Evil who likes wing planform restrictions but thinks a no tapers rule is step in right direction but the genie is out the proverbial bottle and theres no turning back.

I have Jay who says deigns don't matter period for combat attraction.

And then there is the silent majority who care not to discuss the subject. So for those I would like to ask that you atleast weigh in on a straw poll vote with a simple yes or no. See new topic.
User avatar
Dane McGee
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:57 pm
Location: Greenville, Texas

Post by Dane McGee »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For the good of combat in a radical approach to stopping the arms race of design and speed and improving the dropout ratio, I propose that instituting a, "NO" tapers of the wing in Span, width and thickness as the cure all.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

C/F, I'd like to debate this topic with you in a civil manner, but so far I've remained silent mainly because I know nothing about wings/spans/tapers and how each relates to the other and effects performance. In fact, I don't want to know anything about this stuff. I just like to cut streamers.

I do however have a couple of observations based upon this ignorance of aerodynamics in relation to your original proposal put forth at the beginning of this thread

First, I do not believe that "stopping the arms race of design and speed" will improve "dropout ratio". Dropout is going to take place regardless of what rules we implement.(See my post "Promote Open B")
As an aerodynamics ignoramous, if I had a list of one thousand reasons to dropout of combat...... "the arms race of design and speed" would be reason one thousand and one.


Second, I feel that exposing people to combat at the local level and being in a position to support them as they learn combat does more to further our cause than will more rules within our organization.


My post here is not meant to be a one liner or a smarta** reply.
I apologize for not adding to the nuts and bolts of your wing design proposal debate.......I simply do not know enough about it to argue specifics intelligently so I offer opinions only.


Dane "MadMax" McGee
Greenville, Texas
Bert Dodson
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:09 am
Location: USA

Post by Bert Dodson »

Our group flies combat every Sunday and most of us fly 15 engines on every type of plane you can imagine with taper wings and constant chord and spans from 36 to 60 inches and the difference in them is not very great.The constant chord wings seem to respond better with wider ailerons but they sure don't seem any slower. The bigest difference in all the planes is the weight.In my opinion the only way to slow down and at the same time level the playing field would be a spec class like Thojo said, with the unlimited airfoil shapes to choose from just a constant chord rule will not slow the class down for long because searching for more performance is a large part of the fun for many of us.IMO

Bert Dodson
Post Reply

Return to “Proposed Provisional Classes”