Scale fidelity in 3696
Moderator: hbartel
Scale fidelity in 3696
I was wondering what kind of fudge factor is being allowed in 3696, primarily concerning wing tip and root chords. I was hoping to use the same templates for wing and root chords for several different aircraft, only altering the taper to more closely match the full scale wing of the plane in question.
If this was allowed, it would be a lot easier for me, anyway. I want to make several different aircraft, but have had enough of a time making one good set of wing templates, I don't want to have 5 different sets laying around...
FYI, the profiles I have now are modeled after the Mustang-I believe about 8.5" on the root and 4.25" on the tip.
Thanks!
If this was allowed, it would be a lot easier for me, anyway. I want to make several different aircraft, but have had enough of a time making one good set of wing templates, I don't want to have 5 different sets laying around...
FYI, the profiles I have now are modeled after the Mustang-I believe about 8.5" on the root and 4.25" on the tip.
Thanks!
- Ed Kettler
- Posts: 3437
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:20 am
The only way I could see it being an issue is if it was grossly overdone. Most planes I've drawn up plans for have a root chord between 8 and 9 inches, and a tip chord around 4. A few wierd ones like the MiG 3 have only about 2.5 inches of tip chord at this scale. But some planes like the Mustang and FW-190 have similar enough dimensions I wouldn't see the harm is using the same root and tip sizes, just get the taper right and go. As long as the wing area is good, of course.
My guess is this wouldn't become an issue until someone completely takes advantage of it. Most people wouldn't notice, I think, until someone shows up with a plane radically out of scale. Of course, steps could be taken to standardize a root and chord size. Each plane would use the same basic wing, with only the taper being different beween aircraft. This would simplify things greatly. A couple of the people lucky enough to have CNC equipment could mass produce the wings for the people that either can't cut them or have to do them by hand.
I don't mmuch like that idea, though. Might as well tell everyone they can only pick between 3 planes-a Mustang, a Zero, or a Bf-109...
My guess is this wouldn't become an issue until someone completely takes advantage of it. Most people wouldn't notice, I think, until someone shows up with a plane radically out of scale. Of course, steps could be taken to standardize a root and chord size. Each plane would use the same basic wing, with only the taper being different beween aircraft. This would simplify things greatly. A couple of the people lucky enough to have CNC equipment could mass produce the wings for the people that either can't cut them or have to do them by hand.
I don't mmuch like that idea, though. Might as well tell everyone they can only pick between 3 planes-a Mustang, a Zero, or a Bf-109...
-
- Posts: 3330
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
- Location: USA
This is the main reason for the max area of 250 sq in rule. There`s no problem with someone making the tips a little wider on say a Mig, as long as the squares are not over 250. With the min weight and the max area the wing loading of all planes will be the same. As long as power and wing loading are kept to spec, no one will have any unfair advantage.
-
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:00 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 3330
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
- Location: USA
-
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:00 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
There's no maximum deviation? Going from 27-29 down to 24 is a big change. I'm building ME-109's to the scale length (27.25"). But if everyone is going to chop their planes to 24".....
I guess I thought the intent of the "<i>or 5%</i>" clause was to allow planes that, at proper scale, may only be 23", rather than to allow any plane to be 24" with the same 36" span.
I guess I'll stick with scale for now, and if it becomes a problem I can always change later. Probably won't make much difference anyway [:D]
I guess I thought the intent of the "<i>or 5%</i>" clause was to allow planes that, at proper scale, may only be 23", rather than to allow any plane to be 24" with the same 36" span.
I guess I'll stick with scale for now, and if it becomes a problem I can always change later. Probably won't make much difference anyway [:D]
-
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:00 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
- Ed Kettler
- Posts: 3437
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:00 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ed Kettler</i>
<br /> I hope that everybody is building close to scale. I hope that we don't have to post dimension tables to catch folks "gaming" the system. If you find someone doing "chopping", call them on it, ban the plane and publish the facts.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Ed, I too hope everyone is building to scale. But I wasn't sure since as Lee said, the minimum length guidline for a 29" plane is 24". Of course, without a maximum deviation guideline, I don't see how you could ban a 29" plane that was chopped to 24" since it meets the rules.
It hasn't been a problem yet, so maybe it won't be something we need to worry about. If it ever comes up, it could be addressed then.
I just wanted to be sure I wasn't the only guy with a plane longer than 24"
<br /> I hope that everybody is building close to scale. I hope that we don't have to post dimension tables to catch folks "gaming" the system. If you find someone doing "chopping", call them on it, ban the plane and publish the facts.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Ed, I too hope everyone is building to scale. But I wasn't sure since as Lee said, the minimum length guidline for a 29" plane is 24". Of course, without a maximum deviation guideline, I don't see how you could ban a 29" plane that was chopped to 24" since it meets the rules.
It hasn't been a problem yet, so maybe it won't be something we need to worry about. If it ever comes up, it could be addressed then.
I just wanted to be sure I wasn't the only guy with a plane longer than 24"
-
- Posts: 3330
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
- Location: USA
Post dimension tables? Ban planes? Come on boys, I think you are taking things a little too seriously. All of this was discussed over a year ago when we were deciding on the "simple rules". Show me that planes built to the rules are at some distinct advantage.
Besides most planes will not be that far off in length anyway. The Me109 is a long skinny plane. Take a look at a Hurricane.
If it is built to exact scale with the span of 36", the overall length would be 28.2" (forgive me I rounded off a little it`s actually 28.197") But that`s the overall length. The overall length is from the tip of the spinner to the rear edge of the rudder.
The 24" rule is from the back edge of the prop to the elevator hinge-line. On a Hurricane the exact scale length would be about 25". It`s not that big of a deal.
If you want a class like this to attract new people to combat. Keep it simple. If it fits the (easy to enforce) rules let it fly and be happy that someone built a plane to come fly with you.
Besides most planes will not be that far off in length anyway. The Me109 is a long skinny plane. Take a look at a Hurricane.
If it is built to exact scale with the span of 36", the overall length would be 28.2" (forgive me I rounded off a little it`s actually 28.197") But that`s the overall length. The overall length is from the tip of the spinner to the rear edge of the rudder.
The 24" rule is from the back edge of the prop to the elevator hinge-line. On a Hurricane the exact scale length would be about 25". It`s not that big of a deal.
If you want a class like this to attract new people to combat. Keep it simple. If it fits the (easy to enforce) rules let it fly and be happy that someone built a plane to come fly with you.
-
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:00 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Lee Liddle</i>
<br />If you want a class like this to attract new people to combat. Keep it simple. If it fits the (easy to enforce) rules let it fly and be happy that someone built a plane to come fly with you.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Lee, I couldn't agree more. One of the things that turned me off from 2548 (besides being .25-size) was the points judging for scale-ness. I'm glad to hear that guys are building the planes to scale.
<br />If you want a class like this to attract new people to combat. Keep it simple. If it fits the (easy to enforce) rules let it fly and be happy that someone built a plane to come fly with you.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Lee, I couldn't agree more. One of the things that turned me off from 2548 (besides being .25-size) was the points judging for scale-ness. I'm glad to hear that guys are building the planes to scale.
I agree to. I mean a Zero barely makes 22.75" from front of cowl to the hinge line, but everyone knows that by know. I just worry at some point someone is going to take a FW-190 D model and shorten the fuse to 24" and then stretch the chords to completely non scale dimensions. It my not grant any real performance gain over a scale design, but it would shatter the intentions of a scale class.