Wing Area Tests in Limited B

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

Moderator: hbartel

Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Wing Area Tests in Limited B

Post by Hat Trick »

After the RCCD meet this Saturday Scott and Brian Gilkey and I did some testing with my large wing area Terminators vs one of the Gilkey smaller wing area planes. We tried it with APC 10x3 and MA 10x4. We did it one on one so the differances could be more easily seen. Keep in mind that Brians young eyes and quick reflexes usually get the best of me.

In this case the results were pretty obvious. The large wing area plane had a huge advantage. It could keep on the other guys tail with out to much trouble despite his best efforts to get away and get on the offensive. When the lower wing area plane did manage to get behind the large wing area plane a reversal would happen very quickly. Usually 2 or three moves. The ratio of passes on the streamer was probably 70 to 80% for the large wing area plane.

These tests are concrete proof to me that a limit on wing area for limited B is a must if you want to keep a large number of designs competative. The effect will get even worse as you see the next generation of limited B planes come out.

This was the first time I flew limited B and I have to say that I did like it a lot. The planes handle well. They can be easily launched even in poor wind conditions by pilots who may not have a lot of experience at launching. The speeds are simialar to SSC. I think the top speed is probably less as the limited B planes do not seem to accelerate in a dive at all. The average speed may be a little higher because the limited B planes are able to maintain speed a lot better and don't stall out and stop at all like the SSC planes do. There was a lot of pursuit flying.

I found I needed to set the needle pretty rich or the engine would start to sag a bit.

We found no differance in the performance of the MA 10x4 and the APC 10x3. I think it would be good to allow the use of either one.

Scott wrote down some RPM numbers and hopefully will post them when he gets a chance!
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

We've been flying Limited-B every weekend for a month now and we see a pretty good difference between the performance of MA and APC. I'm very surprised to hear you say that.I don't see why we couldn't allow either prop, it's not a hard thing to check.I would like to hear everyones opinion on this.
What is the wing area of your plane?
What is the wing area of their planes?





Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

Hat,

When you get a chance can you RPM test the MAS 10x4 and the APC 10x3 on the same engine, please?

Thanks!
Ed

Image
Ed Kettler
RCCA 533
AMA 730493
Plano, TX
User avatar
Which_way_is_up
Posts: 1637
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:54 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by Which_way_is_up »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Hat Trick</i>
<br />. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

These tests are concrete proof to me that a limit on wing area for limited B is a must if you want to keep a large number of designs competative. The effect will get even worse as you see the next generation of limited B planes come out.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Yes while we're at it lets "dumb it down" to the "HOR" level. Are we going to make limited B politically correct? So that we can "main stream" our most retarded designs to be competitive. We may need to outlaw foam wings all together so that SPADs can be competitive. [:0][:o)]

Image
"Tail end Charlie"
Matthew 7:6
<b>Cobra and Smack II Kits at</b> http://www.texascombat.com
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

Roy are you going to fly Limited-B? Have you tried it yet? Right now all ideas are welcome as is any test results.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
Rabbit Leader
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:37 pm

Post by Rabbit Leader »

Actually, limiting wing area could be good or bad, depending on one's viewpoint.

In SSC, a pilot needs a clean airframe with loads of squares built pretty close to the minimum weight with a fairly thin airfoil to be competitive, primarily because of the low power to weight ratio that the class is based around. In Limited B, even though there's an RPM and pitch limit, the thrust available is huge compared to SSC, so you don't need a huge wing or a really slick airfoil to make the plane fly well. A Limited-B plane with a huge wing will still furball much better than say, one with a 55 inch or less span. In 2548, our wings are limited to 48 inches, and the planform is dictated by the scale requirements, causing most of the designs to be better in pursuit or WWII style dogfighting as opposed to "furballing"..there are no such constraints in Open B or limited B, so the combat can get close, and the opportunities for impact that much closer. A class with a limited wing area may be less prone to midairs if the above assumptions are correct..<i>HOWEVER...</i>

For Limited-B to really catch on, it might be best to just stick with the engine, prop and rpm limits already in place, so an Open B pilot can go play in Limited B with just a muffler and prop change, and possibly an adjustment in CG...that way there's more people in the pool ready to party, so to speak..

"Furballs are for cats!"
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

No one ever said Limited-B was meant to open loops.It was meant to slow things down some. A 10x3 at 15.5K does that.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
User avatar
Which_way_is_up
Posts: 1637
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:54 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by Which_way_is_up »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jimbo</i>
<br />Roy are you going to fly Limited-B? Have you tried it yet? Right now all ideas are welcome as is any test results.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Jimbo,

Yes I plan to dig out a couple of bandit fuselages and cut some custom wing cores for them. Might even build a couple of Cobras for "limited B". But I can't get too excited until I know that there's going to be a sane implementation and that I don't have to build down to the most retarded design so that every pilot can fly his worst nightmare. [:0][:o)]

<hr noshade size="1">

Image
"Tail end Charlie"
Matthew 7:6
<b>Cobra and Smack II Kits at</b> http://www.texascombat.com
User avatar
Which_way_is_up
Posts: 1637
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:54 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by Which_way_is_up »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rabbit Leader</i>
<br />Actually, limiting wing area could be good or bad, depending on one's viewpoint.

In SSC, a pilot needs a clean airframe with loads of squares built pretty close to the minimum weight with a fairly thin airfoil to be competitive, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Furballs are for cats!"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I realize that you haven't been able to fly much SSC and so I won't be too hard on your version of SSC reality but the SSC Falcon, first version Smack and first version Cobra all used a blunt LE, flat bottomed airfoil with root thickness of 1.75" and in a weight range of 44 to 48 oz.

The only place making comparisons to SSC and Limited-B are valid is when you decide whether Limited-B be should be like the wallowing pigs of SSC 2 years ago or the nice flying limited power planes they are today?

<hr noshade size="1">

Image
"Tail end Charlie"
Matthew 7:6
<b>Cobra and Smack II Kits at</b> http://www.texascombat.com
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

I'm not even sure where it is anymore and I'm not going to go look for it simply to quote it but Jimbo at one point asked for dimensions for all widely available kits. To me at this point that means TexasCombat.com, Team Seaholm.com, Lanier and AeroWright who is cutting wings for the Bandit and Go-Devil as well as the Piranah. From that we take the maximum dimensions currently in use i.e. longest wingspan eq 72" thinnest airfoil eq --" ect and those then become our mins and maxs for the class. This removes the possibilty of anyone going nuts with wingspans and thicknesses and doesn't obsolete any current designs. The specs could even be broken into flying wings and standard wings designs if necessary. I'm not sure how it could be taken beyond these limits without making it into a spec class. I saw a really cool quote today and think it fits well for our situation here...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try please everyone."

*Bill Cosby {American Comedian}

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">[;)]



Image
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

For right now I'm only interested in hearing facts from the guys that are giving it real world tests.
I'm starting to wonder if anyone knows how many square inches their wings are. I'll start, my wing is 591. Next please.......

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

My open B Cobra is aprox 550 inc ailerons. The SSC Cobra is about 485 inc ailerons.

http://hometown.aol.com/lee4f2d/myhomepage/sale.html
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

My current B class plane:
64" span
10.25" root chord
9.5" tip chord
632 sqin
about .8" thick at the tip.

I'm planning on working up a new design for next year, probibly with a smaller tip chord.

Kirk Montague Adams
RCCA 560
http://www.MidAtlanticCombat.com - Combat in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

This idea may work, and it's an easy one. Make the weight limit read like this.
1)Wing spans up to 50" Minimum weight = 3 Pounds
2)Wing spans up to 72" Minimum weight = 3.25 or 3.5 Pounds(take a vote) Just a thought.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

Can't go with you on this one Jimbo. My WASP's barely fly worth a darn at 3lbs 3-4oz's I'd hate to see them at 3.5 lbs. My first couple came in right at the Open B limit and weren't that great to fly with Open B power. Not saying it's not a good idea, just I can't go for it in my case, but like everything else I'll support it if that's what everyone else wants...

Image
Post Reply

Return to “Proposed Provisional Classes”