Conquering Survivability?

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

Moderator: hbartel

User avatar
boiler
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:16 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by boiler »

The idea of the nylon sheer bolts on the motor mount is another way of putting the destrutive force where it won't hurt anyting important. I've been thinking about both those techniques along with a two piece wing. Right and left half with a tube hole for connecting. If you toast one wing half, the whole wing isn't gone. Of course you know what will happen. You will only break the left wing and a spare right won't work, or will it Chris?

Bob Loescher
Lima Ohio
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

Bob,
I think the EPP leading edge idea is really going to catch on with everyone. It reduces damage significantly. Roy tells me that 99% of his wing core sales are for the EPP/blue foam blend.

Lou Melancon
Alpharetta, Georgia
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

slam what are you going to do to get your wing loading down in Limited-B ??? Don't forget the span limit as of 1-1-05 will be 64" and the minimum weight will be 3 lbs. Your only choice will be to make your wing wider.Wider wings make much more drag so you will be slowing down, this I know from experience.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
Dawg
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:14 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Dawg »

Speaking of EPP LE. I just picked up 8 Smack II cores with the EPP LE from Mike Nemesh http://www.mindspring.com/~mnemesh/wings-1.htm. They are divided between Don Pruitt, Don Grissom, Jim Grizzle and myself for testing in the near future. We hope this gives us the reduction in LE damage.

David McGinnis
SSC McGrizzBat Flyer
http://www.hilltopflyers.com
AMA 767999 RCCA 698
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Post by sgilkey »

I for one do not buy the argument that Limited B will have less midair frequency, the more I think about it. SSC, based on my experience at least, has at least if not greater midair frequency to Open B, the midairs are just less destructive. The furballs are tighter and take place in a smaller space. Limited B will probably end up there as well.

Since when did we all agree that Limited B SHALL HAVE as of 1/1/05 a 64 inch max span? I thought we were still EVALUATING wing limits. If we start dictating rules like this, before people have had a chance to demo the event and CONCLUSIVELY (or at least convincingly) demonstrate that wingspans over 64 inches are not in keeping with the limited B concept, I don't see the rationale for obsoleting existing plane inventories and kit offerings. If we start dictating airframe limits this early, just because certain folks already have, and like, short-winged planes, my support is going to vanish. Have you shown that a 72 inch wing will consistently kick the butt of a 48 or 64 incher??? Seems to me you have been claiming the short wings turn tighter than anything out there- so what then is the "advantage" to 72 inches that calls for their banning?

Scott Gilkey
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

Scott,

Changes to the rules will be based upon the consensus opinion of the group. Jimbo feels that 64" should be the limit when/if the rules go live next year in Provisional Status. Me I can see the arguement but I'm willing to go with the what the crowd wants. We just proposed the idea, ya'll will take it where it needs to go. No dictators here[}:)][;)]

Image
Feathers
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: USA

Post by Feathers »

A.J.,

Love the post. You've stated some of the things I've (probably many of us) been thinking but couldn't justify.

This year has been an interesting one for us. We're now up to some 130 rounds of NPS between the two of us. Two of us flying 130 rounds is not enough for a scientific sampling of anything, but perhaps some of what we've experienced is at least interesting (and perhaps not?). Ryan started out this year with only some club combat experience last fall after soloing the end of June last year. So, when we started the year his goal was simply to fly his plane and keep track of it through the entire heat. I encouraged him to think of his goal as simply flying every round safely and to not concern himself with score. Why is this worth bringing up? Because we have two pilots flying identical planes at identical meets with very different skill levels (I’ve been flying R/C for five years- combat for three). How does experience and pilot skill factor into survivability?

First we should define exactly what differentiates experienced vs. inexperienced. Some of the classes I’ve attended that dealt with how we learn discussed things like the differences between our active thoughts and our underlying “subconsciousâ€
wrnstockwel
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by wrnstockwel »

I have been helping out a little with the RRCC portion of the North Texas Round Robin series for the past few years, I have not competed but have helped to judge a few rounds of Open B and SSC and flown in a Demo of the 2548, so call me an interested spectator. I can appreciate the flying skills and reflexes required for Open B combat, but I do not find it entertaining to watch. SSC has far more "entertainment" value than Open B, and 2548 takes this to the next level.
As an example, at the last meet I worked in May of this year, one of the SSC pilots had a fleet of planes that looked sorta like an A-10, every of the spectator fixated on watching that plane in the air, because they could associate with it. In more than one round he was in pursuit of or had the last streamer and was flying on the deck, up high, wherever, that type of flying the spectators really enjoyed. The 2548 birds were laying around and all the spectators that happened by (including the contractor that was there to bid on resurfacing our runway) commented on how cool the planes were and stuck around to watch the A-10 in the air. Now it didnt take a whole lot more effort to make the A-10 look alike, and he sure spared the planes no pain. The 2548 birds, to me are not that complicated to build, and throwing an extra 2 hours into "dolling" it up will not prevent people from throwing into the fray, putting their plane in harms way.
So what is my point? I believe there needs to be some consideration of the cool factor, if you want the sport to grow. Survivability is great, but you also need to bring new blood in, to grow the sport. The SSC warbirds always kept peoples interest by looking unique and somewhat identifiable and going slow enough for spectators to follow what was happening. Big furballs only attract NASCAR fans, who are there for the carnage and the one pilot they associate with. How many NASCAR fans drive race cars? How many Drag racing fans run on tracks on Friday and Saturday night? Both of them run on dollars, but in one the everyday guy will just have to dream about being behind the wheel, the other he can take his second car, without any serious money spent, just time and be competative at whatever level his wallet allows.

Scott

Derfanft's mei Gwand I'fuahr in himmeil
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

Scott,
I couldn't agree more that airplanes that look like real airplanes are more attractive to spectators, and from them come our next crop of competitors.

Tim,
When you have a moment or three would you please write an essay on how to get out of being stuck in your stage 2 to arriving successfully in stage 3. I need it.

To all,
The Kinetic Energy calculations are only an indicator. They are valid only for showing the amount of energy a weight, at a velocity is packing. To have validity you would have to model numerous scenarios like wing to wing midairs, engine to wing, engine to engine exactly opposed to each other, etc. But, you can safely assume that the calculated difference in kinetic energy between two weights at two different speeds will be the same calculated difference wherever the strike occurs.

What I means is, if one plane is holding 30% more kinetic energy than the other then it will have 30% more energy on a wing to wing impact than the lighter, slower plane having a wing to wing impact.

We don't have Cray Supercomputers, nor highly developed mathematical models to calculate stresses, damages, or survivability with accuracy. What we do have is the power of observation and some simple calculations to examine what "might" happen.

It seems to me that the perfect event would combine survivability, and spectator appeal, and that would be SSC Warbirds. Damn, I am good at bending the facts to my pre-determined conclusions!

Lou Melancon
Alpharetta, Georgia
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

Scott I think 95% of Open-B planes have 64" wings already. I may be wrong but I feel that we could use a 64"span limit for durability purposes, not performance reasons. The longer it is the more leverage tip strikes have and the easier the wing breaks. If someone can't grab a streamer with a 64" wing they need to take up R/C cars. How about we give this some test time and vote on it in 6 months? One thing that was said is VERY true, it is easier to delete a rule than add one. [:0]

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
thojo
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 1:20 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by thojo »

If you ask me, if your spans are over 60", your seriously overcompensating for some other inadequacies... [:D]

Pictures of airplane stuff:
http://jwtfamily.org/rcgallery
__________________________________
Speed is life
Altitude is life Insurance
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

I've actually been tracking my mid-airs by class this year, to get a better handle on just how often I actually hit another plane.

In SSC, I actually average a mid-air every round. The planes are slow moving but tight turning, which works out just like AJ says, it's almost impossible to get away from someone, sooner or later, you will hit them.

My lowest mid-air rate by far is in 2610. The planes go a lot faster, and spread out more. At Dixie this year, though, the combat box was forced to the right and closer in due to the trees and tall brambles. At Dixie, my mid-air rate was high in 2610, everywhere else, it's been about 1 mid-air every 4 rounds. A 1/4 of the SSC rate.

I don't at all agree that slower speeds mean you can see and avoid. It just doesn't seem to work that way, espeically with aggressive pilots. The 3-stage thing makes sense, but it doesn't really include the aggressive factor. Agressive pilots are more likely to mid-air because we are more likely to press an attack and more likely to try for a smaller streamer chunk. I'm not suggesting it, but do you guys think mid-airs would go down if string length went up, and no points were given for non-origional streamer cuts? I suspect it would.

I agree with AJ's observations about the demo at Nats when he and I were going at it. We were near each other, but didn't hit.

However, I was really thinking "this is not my airplane, don't break it!!!" a lot. I pulled out of moves I might otherwise have pressed, and didn't fly all out. However, I do think the mid-air rate in 2548 as we flew it would be acceptable.

I expect it to be higher than in 2610, but lower than SSC.

While the planes won't be able to furball quite as well as SSC and other current classes, they WILL furball some, you can't totally prevent it. And with the slower speeds, guys will tend to fly down and in closer, and the combat box will get smaller, packing the planes in to a smaller area, which leads to mid-airs. But the larger turning radius will keep things from packing too close.

One thing I did notice in 2548 was that the penalty for making a mistake was HUGE. If you broke the wrong way in an attack, it took forever to get back in to position. The turning radius plus slow speed meant it seemed to take all day to get back on a target. This factor would reduce mid-airs in small heats. In large heats, it will be a wash, since instead of going back after the missed target, the smart pilot will jump on someone else who is closer by.

I'm now thinking one of the keys is the turning radius compared to speed. To reduce mid-airs, you want to reduce turning ability at any speed.

My conclusion: speed and weight controls mid-air damage. Turning ability controls mid-air rate.


Kirk Montague Adams
RCCA 560
http://www.MidAtlanticCombat.com - Combat in the Mid-Atlantic Region
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

I've actually been tracking my mid-airs by class this year, to get a better handle on just how often I actually hit another plane.

In SSC, I actually average a mid-air every round. The planes are slow moving but tight turning, which works out just like AJ says, it's almost impossible to get away from someone, sooner or later, you will hit them.

My lowest mid-air rate by far is in 2610. The planes go a lot faster, and spread out more. At Dixie this year, though, the combat box was forced to the right and closer in due to the trees and tall brambles. At Dixie, my mid-air rate was high in 2610, everywhere else, it's been about 1 mid-air every 4 rounds. A 1/4 of the SSC rate.

I don't at all agree that slower speeds mean you can see and avoid. It just doesn't seem to work that way, espeically with aggressive pilots. The 3-stage thing makes sense, but it doesn't really include the aggressive factor. Agressive pilots are more likely to mid-air because we are more likely to press an attack and more likely to try for a smaller streamer chunk. I'm not suggesting it, but do you guys think mid-airs would go down if string length went up, and no points were given for non-origional streamer cuts? I suspect it would.

I agree with AJ's observations about the demo at Nats when he and I were going at it. We were near each other, but didn't hit.

However, I was really thinking "this is not my airplane, don't break it!!!" a lot. I pulled out of moves I might otherwise have pressed, and didn't fly all out. However, I do think the mid-air rate in 2548 as we flew it would be acceptable.

I expect it to be higher than in 2610, but lower than SSC.

While the planes won't be able to furball quite as well as SSC and other current classes, they WILL furball some, you can't totally prevent it. And with the slower speeds, guys will tend to fly down and in closer, and the combat box will get smaller, packing the planes in to a smaller area, which leads to mid-airs. But the larger turning radius will keep things from packing too close.

One thing I did notice in 2548 was that the penalty for making a mistake was HUGE. If you broke the wrong way in an attack, it took forever to get back in to position. The turning radius plus slow speed meant it seemed to take all day to get back on a target. This factor would reduce mid-airs in small heats. In large heats, it will be a wash, since instead of going back after the missed target, the smart pilot will jump on someone else who is closer by.

I'm now thinking one of the keys is the turning radius compared to speed. To reduce mid-airs, you want to reduce turning ability at any speed.

My conclusion: speed and weight controls mid-air damage. Turning ability controls mid-air rate.

Surviveability is equal parts mid-air rate and mid-air damage.

Kirk Montague Adams
RCCA 560
http://www.MidAtlanticCombat.com - Combat in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

<ul><li> </li><li> </li><li> </li></ul>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How many Cobras did Lee loose in Sherman, TX? What was the cause of those wing/spar failures? Speed, Mid-air Frequency or something else?

Why did none of the reports mention these failures?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

AJ, I lost my oldest and most patched up Cobra due to a HOR planting its crankshaft squarly on my spar about 4" left of center. I could put a new left wing on the plane, but the airfoil that I`m using now is slightly different, so I don`t have a core for it.

I didn`t consider a win with 2800 plus points in 8 rounds (heats averaged 5 planes or less) and the loss of one wing, a failure or I would have been glad to report.[:D]

This year I have flown close to 100 official heast, and logged an equal ammount of time in full contact practice heats. I`ve retired 5 airframes. That`s about one airframe per 40 heats. I`ll take that average all day/year long.

There were other Cobras damaged in Sherman, but since Cobras made up 60 to 70 percent of the field, I guess that should be expected.[:0]

http://hometown.aol.com/lee4f2d/myhomepage/sale.html
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

Great posts!

The key to a successfull class is to have even performance and allow a variety of airframe types to be competative. In my opinion this all relates to wing loading. Since the minimum weight is a given part of the rules the wing area becomes the variable.

Controlling wing area without doing some minor measurements is not possible. Setting a max wingspan is a big first. I'm a bit afraid that wings with very large chords might start showing up and your back on the road to a furball. Since I haven't flown or seen a plane with that type of wing fly I could be off base here but my experience has been that any increase in wing area and the lower wing laoding achieved results in a tighter turning plane. Most combat pilots count improved turning ability as a big advantage.

If you think about it it's not to tough to police. A max span is certainly easy enough to measure. A max number for root and tip chords added together is also simple and allows for some flexabilty in aircraft design while still keeping the majic wing loading number the same.

What does this accomplish? It allows nearly every design to have similar performance. Warbirds, Bat planes, Profile fusealges and Flying wings can compete on a pretty even basis and you have a fun class that's easy to participate in.

We'll do some testing at Detroit this weekend. I'm bringing my 72" realtively large chord Terminators and we'll do some side by side testing with planes with less wing area. I think we'll see the larger wing able to perform much tighter and more consecutive loops without stalling or snapping than the more highly wing loaded smaller wings.
Post Reply

Return to “Proposed Provisional Classes”