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 »

Mike, I don't know where you go to watch Q40 and Q500, but they have been flown on the same course for eons. Q500 moved to the "long" course shortly after the arrival of the Nelson. Anybody remember them changing the pylon locations at Muncie, when they were off flying in the distance the same time Combat was going???

I hardly recall Kirk's SSC planes "wallowing." they look pretty nimble to me, with decent speed too. His performance at the spring Havoc and Richmond SSC nats seems to indicate his wings aren't too terribly bad....

Now as for flying skills, we all know the reason Kirk scores so many cuts has nothing to do with his flying skills- he has a secret streamer snatching field on his plane, powered by solar cells and castor oil residue. We'll see how good his flying skills are when he comes to our club meet in September, and I cut him five times before the first minute has passed. Just like every other time I fly against him....

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

Post by C/F »

Mark and Kirk,

I really appreciate your willingness to debate the pro's and con's while others just drop one liners or troll. RCCA combat is in trouble, The midwest NATS will be another casualty as it used to be a premier event that could rival any NAC's event yet it is not included, and less than a month from it, still no bantering exists.

So, Respectfully speaking Mark, your own words prove my point, tapered wings are more efficient because more of it works than with Hershey bars designs, However I contend that the Hershey bar does have the desirable effect that I am after, which is more drag to the flight envelope. That's the radical effect direction I would like to see since 3 years of SSC has shown my how a designs performance improves incrementally as the drag is decreased, wings are thinned and lengthend.

Kirk,
I think your racing back and forth is not much of a test to compare speeds. The Long tapered wings (LTW) accelerate or bleed less speed in turns, Hershey Bar (HBW) do not, so a true test of design comparisons is to do what we have done and it's allot of fun is to set up two pylon poles 600" apart, scoring includes laps completed as well as cuts along the way. Combat is strictly on an approaching streamer NOT doubling back. This will better show design speed diferances. And there's alot less damaging midairs as all energy is in the same direction.

You are correct in saying the pilots skills become part of the design parameters also why I oppose design limits other than no tapers. With your keen eye sight you do not need to do much chasing only sitting in waiting. The problem comes as those wanna b's think the top planes are there because of the top design and migrate towards them. You may design a HBW to accomadate your style which is less speed more agility, while others may go for the speed and suffer agility. In either case a no taper rule will have higher impacts on trade off's in design goals as compared to allowing the use of tapers.

If Tapers are so superior how come every trainer I can think of is a HBW?

If Tapers are so superior how come the designs of the national fun fly circuit do not include them? these are planes that loop on take off and land on the bottom side of the loop, they also go for the fastest time to complete 10 loops and 10 rolls. They also do climb and glide for duration. You know what?? I cant think of any tapered wings playing a roll in these venues. NOPE only the events designed for speed do I see tapered wings come into play. and those speed events designed for slower speeds adopt a HBW policy, and those events designed for all out speed allow LTW rules.

I maintain a cure all to improving combat woes is that the speed needs to come down, the wings need to shorten and thicken which will allow stronger more durable designs. This is the radical direction needed in any class IMHO, Tapers work in the wrong direction.

NO one gets excited about competing in combat because aircraft designs of this venue are so much superior to other venues, NO the intrigue comes from chasing streamers, why is it some feel it needs to be at 60-70 MPH and 3+lbs is the problem IMHO. After 15 years of combat at many levels only 3 in RCCA. I too will be doing more casual flavor as there still seems to be a heartbeat regionally, something I've been obliviuos to chasing the RCCA dream.

I think also part of the mental block comes from those that have only chased streamers their entire RC expieriance, I've been enjoying the thrill of R/c for 30 years now always at some level of competition and each venue adds another dimension to my continued enjoyment and RCCA combat has done that as well with no regrets.

RCCA is an important SIG and the forefounding wisdom to stop at .30 still amazes me since many .32's are still the norm locally. Why? I do not think they ever intended to combat at 70+MPH, they just wanted to get away from catapult launching requirements.

Thanx for hearing me out if you kept up this far......
C/F
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:19 pm

Post by C/F »

Scott,

Since I have not competed in Q500 since the inception of the NELSON and JETTS, I opted out at the Rossi 40 level. I do not think it was eon's ago.

Also if you read AMA rules pylon, section 13.1 there is inded a course differance between all venues for the AMA records you stated I pressume...[:)]
Grun-Herz-Geschwader
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 8:41 am
Location: Village Mills
Contact:

Post by Grun-Herz-Geschwader »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by C/F</i>
<br />Mark and Kirk,

If Tapers are so superior how come the designs of the national fun fly circuit do not include them? these are planes that loop on take off and land on the bottom side of the loop, they also go for the fastest time to complete 10 loops and 10 rolls. <font size="4"><b>They also do climb and glide for duration. </b></font id="size4">You know what?? <b><font size="3">I cant think of any tapered wings playing a roll in these venues.</font id="size3"></b> NOPE only the events designed for speed do I see tapered wings come into play. and those speed events designed for slower speeds adopt a HBW policy, and those events designed for all out speed allow LTW rules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Mike,

I fly quite a bit of SAM stuff and most of my climb & glide, RC DURATION,and 1/2 A Texaco Scale wins, are with tapered poly-hedral,& eliptical wing stuff, Playboy Sr,Jr, Zipper, Apache, Record Hound, Zombie.

I would like to be to take a Open B plane and just change the prop and muffler then fly limited B.

Ich bin der vorbote des todes!
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

C/F,
The Midwest Nats in Waverly <u>is a NACs event</u>. There is a thread talking it up. Just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

Lou Melancon
Alpharetta, Georgia
Devil Dog
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:37 pm

Post by Devil Dog »

I don't think the problem is the airplanes we fly or the differences in them. It just stops one more argument until the real problem can be addressed.

I think the real problem is how combat is flown. I don’t like when people ask me what the streamer represents, and I have to tell them it is just a target opportunity for others. Most people are very surprised when told, “you can still fly without a streamerâ€
C/F
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:19 pm

Post by C/F »

Lou,
Thanx for the correction, I guess I overlooked it on the contest site listing when I was looking for a pre-register site and none existed this pas Sunday evening 8/22. Then I seen the only upcoming events post was back on 8/7, and no replies. I apologize for the mistake. Go get um "NEAL"..........

Grunz,

Thanx, good no great example, BTW haven't some of those events also been tarnished by the Nelson/Jett syndrome?? Could be since??? since I sold one of my Jett .30 to an 80 year old club member and helped him set it up on some PLAYBOY ??? for a 30 second run...

So in this example the trades off's of speed to climb versus the ability to glide become the real issue in wing planforms, once again speed becoming a big driving factor.

In combat we do not need speed or the ability to maintain speed to enjoy the euphoria that one gets in cutting ribbons. No tapers does nothing but reduce speed by increasing the drag created by that lazy portion of the wing that does nothing but hang on for the ride.............

You guys who have never flown a 3" think HBW don't know what your missing. Some of the 3D fun fly stuff are a blast to fly, stall proof, slow and ultra manueverable.
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

I totally disagree that compareing speeds in the air is a bad way to compare speeds in the air. You don't need a pylon race to see who is going fast in a straight line.

Since we are talking about surviveablity, speed in the turns means even less than top straight line speed. Reducing mid-air damage is all about reducing impact forces, so talking about turning speed is not nearly as important as straight line speed, ie max-damage-speed.

So I'd say that trying to reduce someone's "pylon racing time" is not nearly as important as reducing the top level speed, and you're approach of looking at average time around a course isn't all that useful.

Along the same lines, trying to force guys to bleed speed in turns will break up a furball, but, IMHO, won't reduce mid-air damage at all. (it will reduce the mid-air rate, however).

Fwiw, speed in the turns isn't as important to me as to many others. I dump speed in the turns all the time, and it works just fine for me. You won't find me in an extended furball-style turning duel in any class though. why? because after about a few go-rounds I've lost too much speed. But my tactics don't rely on extended turning battles. (If I don't have your streamer in 2-3 circles, I'm probibly not going to get it in that attack anyway, so time to try something else)

Btw, there is a really simple reason why I chose to use a straight wing in SSC. I decided that a longer chord would stall at a higher AOA, and have a softer stall, and if it did tip stall, the rotation would be slower, allowing more time to fix it or even fly through the stall with out falling out of the sky. I also wanted more wing area while keeping the 64" span and the root chord to match my existing A class fuses. The higher Re of the longer tip chord looked good in Profili as well. So far, it's turned out just like I hoped it would. One thing I wasn't worried about was loosing a little theoritical speed, since I knew my L/D at lower AOA's was good enough to allow me to go fast enough to get in position on a target.

As for your idea of pylon-combat, I'm just not interested. That kind of combat would absolutely push speeds to the max possible speed, since if you couldn't catch up to someone from behind, you'd have no way to make a cut on them. Talk about encourageing the wrong thing (speed over everything else). I like that under current rules I can get behind a faster plane and wait for him to turn around to try to head them off. Totally getting rid of that tactic would, IMHO ruin combat for anyone who isn't flying the fastest planes out there.

As for my tactics, you actually have me a little wrong. I don't sit in the middle and wait for someone to go by. I pick a target and try to stay on them. I've become more willing to switch targets than I used to be, and that's resulted in my scores going up, but I certainly don't consider myself a furball pilot. My good eyesight allows me to carefully watch what my target is doing to better react, anticipate, and figure out where they are going to be in the future so I can set up an attack.



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 »

Just to follow up on something else:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If Tapers are so superior how come every trainer I can think of is a HBW?

If Tapers are so superior how come the designs of the national fun fly circuit do not include them? these are planes that loop on take off and land on the bottom side of the loop, they also go for the fastest time to complete 10 loops and 10 rolls. They also do climb and glide for duration. You know what?? I cant think of any tapered wings playing a roll in these venues. NOPE only the events designed for speed do I see tapered wings come into play. and those speed events designed for slower speeds adopt a HBW policy, and those events designed for all out speed allow LTW rules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't get your point. You first say that tapered wings are more efficient, then go on to claim that tapered wings aren't as good, otherwise they'd be used in these cases?

Trainers use straight wings for several reasons. First off, everyone expects a trainer to have a striaght wing, so I doubt the sales would be very good on a tapered wing trainer. Second, straight wings are also easier to mass produce on the cheap in the factories in china, all you need to do is bang out thousands of the same rib, rather than equal amounts of several different rib sizes. This makes for a much lower production cost. Oh, and lastly, a straight wing with no washout (easier to build with out washout) usually is pretty tame when it comes to tip stalling, something very desireable in a trainer.

That tip stall issue is probibly one reason why you don't see tapered wings in fun flys. Plus, they want as much wing area as they can get, and tapered wings have less area for the same span and root chord.

None of the above has anything to do with combat, or improving combat, reducing mid-air carnage, or reducing the turnover. It's a red herring.


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 »

WOW,

The red herring defined so poorly I guess, IS tapered wings and their associated benfits are all about higher speeds and maintaining those speeds, All something that is not needed in combat.

My trainer and other example confusion is to clarify my point that lower speed performing wing planforms are prevelant and can equal flight performance that exists today in combat "EXCEPT" for speed., ie, trainers and other venues where speed is not a main concern excellant performance exists.

Kirk,
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......

The RADICAL HERRING of outlawing tapers will naturally decrease wing spans and increase thickness, and slow things down WITHOUT any negatives other than reduced speeds.
MLaBoyteaux
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:43 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by MLaBoyteaux »

Yes Mike, constant chord wings do have advantages which make them more desirable for the roles you’ve described. You’ve mentioned that a constant chord wing will be more durable than a tapered wing. I think your logic is that the larger structure will translate to a stronger wing. For flight loads, close enough. However, we’re flying combat and there’s more to the story. I think tapered wings, when properly constructed, are more durable in an impact than constant chord wings and here’s why. The impact forces from a wing on wing impact cause the wings to attempt to “wrapâ€
C/F
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:19 pm

Post by C/F »

Fair enough Mark , I respect your opinions as much R/D work you have done for combat.

My logic to debate is: Don't you think the wingspans would HAVE to decrease if a no tapers rule existed? This is my logic as to how they would become more survivable. If true, then the airfoil thickness is going to need increasing to obtain the flight envelope we now enjoy, all with the net effect of increased drag and lower speeds, all positive things for combat.

You designed enough planes/wings, do you see anyway possible you could design @ a 64" starting point and no tapers? I don't see it. I'm thinking it would need be 50"-55" starting point and 2" thick.
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

c/f how many of those planes have you flown with Limited-B rules.I think it would be too much drag. You also keep avoiding one very important issue, where are newbies going to buy the kits, no one makes them? I think you REALLY need to do some real world demos before pushing everyone to except your ideas.Can't you find anyone to help you do some demos?

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
C/F
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:19 pm

Post by C/F »

Jimbo,
Now I repectfully kept this topic of debate out of the limited b topic you and Travis are working on. Now I would like the same respect from you on my topic concerning a No tapers pro's and con's.

My objective here is to gain insight into why it would not be good for combat in wing design as I see it, by harnessing the speed in a differant approach. If you care to weigh in on the subject I would like to hear it. If not good luck on the engine HP constraints. It's a simple enough band-aid to hang on to some local's for a season or two.

To catch on like SSC wild-fire I suggest one of you run for President....[8D]
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

I see now. I didn't know why you posted this again. Is this a proposed new class? What if any engine limits would go along with this wing? Would you want a span limit? If so how long? How about weight? I built and flew a 48" Raptor just like what you are talking about. I've posted a picture of it at RCHangout.com It was one of my fastest and tightest turning planes. I think the clean design of a Raptor is not slowed much if any by a straight chord wing.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
Post Reply

Return to “Proposed Provisional Classes”