Fuselages.

drewjet · Post by **drewjet** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:19 pm

Since I have personally settled on a 32" wingspan for my local area, it's time to talk fuselages.

I have the wing back almost 1" on a few models to get the CG right without adding weight. I feel that this still gives a scale look to the plane. Also on my P-51 at a 32" wingspan should have a fuselage that is approximately 2.5" at it's widest spot. Since foam is hard to find in 3" thickness locally I have started making them at 2" wide. In my opinion it still looks scale. I have gotten quite a few compliments from the other fliers (which is saying a lot, as I usually don't have the best looking planes). I think radials may still need to be about 3" to still give the right look.

What would you want as a scale rule?
Wing must be within 5% of scale location?
inline engined fuselages must be minimum 2" wide?
Radial engined fuselages must be minimum 3" wide?
Or would you prefer that everything has to be scale.

Drew

Lou Melancon · Post by **Lou Melancon** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:40 pm

DrewJet,
I am scaling a KI61 to 32" span today. I plan to make the fuse between and inch and and inch and a half.

I will set the wing where it needs to be for balance. I plan to cover the plane with tissue paper applied with thinned white glue then spray it with an airbrush. We'll see how it comes out.

I really think what will happen is that we will build planes and fly them against each other before the bigger contests this year. Once we fly at Paris, Havoc, Dixie and the Nats I think we can start putting rules together. Before then I think we need to be in development and trial and error phase.

gunfighter · Post by **gunfighter** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:54 pm

So Drew - you want to TOTALLY eliminate the FFF planes from this class without any testing?

This will (IMHO) eliminate a lot of beginners / pilots that don't want to or don't have the knowledge / equipment to cut foam wings and fuselages.

I think this should be a fun SEMI-SCALE class, not another 2105 (dead) 2610 (almost dead) or 2548 class. I mean, lots of pilots liked the idea of SSC warbirds but did not have the time / desire to build a scale plane just to have it destroyed in the first heat!

Lets fly a few designs in heats against each other before we try to outlaw simple construction methods! I think my FFF mustangs at 31 3/4" 8.7 oz. with the BP power system and 1320 LiPo will be competative. And in the air it looks good.

drewjet · Post by **drewjet** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:22 pm

I am NOT at the point of wanting to totally eliminate Fanfold. I am just stating what I like and what is working for me. I like a fuselage that looks about right. I like that it has a lot of strength and can take a hit.

Yes my plane takes a bit longer to build than Fanfold (about 5 hours) but I don't have to reglue my airplane after every hit. I have had many major mid-airs and virtually no damage so far. And the newbie is going to be scared away by having to reglue his fuselage together everytime it takes a hit as he would be if he has to spend a bit more of time building on int the first place.

So far I have built and flown 6 different planes (I have given away 4 kits to other electric fliers)to see what works and what doesn't.

I am NOT at the point of trying to make a proposal, just getting a feel for what everyone wants. I realize that you can't make one class everything for everyone.

We have rules in place right now 1/2A that would be perfect for open electric combat.... Hmmm I may have to start on one of those as well.

Drew

Which_way_is_up · Post by **Which_way_is_up** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:30 pm

From what I saw this last Sat. FFF will eliminate itself! [:0]

Have you seen a Cobra (or any other current design) fly against a HOR![}:)][:o)] That's what I saw between a FFF and Lee's P51. [:D]

irone · Post by **irone** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:30 pm

Gunfighter.......You are correct and right on. The rules we have been using makes no mention of fuse design so anythng is possible and legal. This was never intended to be a scale judging thing. Some have better building skills and equipment than others. RCCA can rule however they think, but will absolutly run off a lot of would be dues paying members. If they desire small memberships, and turn outs, to an over-regulated event, fine with me. I don't have to participate. It would sure screw up an otherwise fun event for everyone. I think you are also very correct in stateing in a descrete way that Drewjet has some sort of axe to grind and would very much like to see the TopGuns go away. Sorry but they are a very strong contender just as they are with the type planes that Drewjet is presently building and pushing. I have no problem at all with Drew's designs and they would be legal within the rules we have been using (without the brushless mtr.) I say bring it on big guy!

drewjet · Post by **drewjet** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:45 pm

I have no axes to grind, no problem with fanfold. I think Irones planes are great for what he is doing. More power to him. However I know that they won't work for me. As always we need kit manufacturers. I personally don't have the time or desire to do it.

The only thing I have is experience, I have been there and done it. I need a plane that holds together and fanfold won't for me.

Drew

gunfighter · Post by **gunfighter** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:08 pm

Drew -

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Wing must be within 5% of scale location?
inline engined fuselages must be minimum 2" wide?
Radial engined fuselages must be minimum 3" wide?
Or would you prefer that everything has to be scale.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Wow! I guess I misunderstood the meaning:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have no axes to grind, no problem with fanfold. I think Irones planes are great for what he is doing. More power to him. However I know that they won't work for me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Then why not let people build what they want to and test them before "outlawing" their designs by trying to implement a scale rule?

Roy - You, of all people, know we cannot base anything on 1 flight of an inexperienced combat pilot (sorry Irone) flying against the national champion!! From what I heard, there was no contact with each other to evaluate their relative strength. My first FFF mustang lost a wing hitting a tree at wot. My "improved" "combat hardened" mustang hit the same tree at wot in a steep dive and bounced off with no damage.

How about we settle right now on 3 classes?

1. Limited class - FFF designs, max gws 350 (or equivalent) BRUSHED motors with (or without) gear box, 2 cell LiPo (or 6 cell NiCad or NiMh), Max 32" wing, Min 8 1/2 oz weight. Design must be semi-scale reproduction of a front line ww2 front engine fighter.

2. Open class - Any motor (including brushless) 100 watts or less. Any battery configuration, max 36" (or whatever) wingspan. Minimum weight 11 oz.

3. Electric WW2 scale (100-05)- Max wingspan 36", Min weight 11 oz. any motor / battery configuration up to 100 watts (including brushless and LiPo) plane must be an exact scale reproduction (+or- 5%) of a front line fighter from ww2.

I will make you a bet that if these were the rules that limited class would out-draw the other 2 classes by a margin of about 10 to 1. AND we would probably gain hundreds of new RCCA members flying the limited class. That is - if we could show them a reason to join!

We had a bunch of prospective members run away from this site recently because of a few RCCA members that belittled their ideas and tried to shove a bunch of THEIR rules and ideas down every ones throat.

Somebody just does not get it. Maybe me - maybe you.

Lou Melancon · Post by **Lou Melancon** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:27 pm

I would respectfully submit that we are, at this moment, too ignorant to define classes. We need to build, fly, combat, then continue till we get to a point of comparison of a lot of ideas.

I do not favor making any "classes" yet, nor do I favor scale versus open; brushed versus brushless; or anything else yet.

We have a couple of good parameters that everyone seems to be developing from: 28-32" wings, and 10-12 ounce weight. Lets build to those two specs for now and then compare at Paris, Havoc, Dixie, the Nats and try to make this an event that:

<ul><li>Is fun to fly </li>
<li>Is easy to get into financially and time wise </li>
<li>That grows participation beyond the very narrow focus of existing RCCA Competition pilots </li></ul>

Lets not screw things up before we even know what we are doing.

Cajun · Post by **Cajun** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:14 pm

Lou has it right. Let's just build, design, and test fly these electrics for a while and see where we are going.

The vast majority of us have no experience in electrics and need a period of experimentation and learning just to find out where we're at and what we're doing. I intend to go this route and have fun at it. I think we are a long way from even thinking about making rules and setting up classes.

I'm just happy Irone set us on this path to Electrics. I see a lot of fun in just playing with it and his planes look like a good place to start.[^]

gunfighter · Post by **gunfighter** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:17 pm

Lou - I think you said the same thing I did but in different (and yes, softer) words.

Until we fly several designs against each other, we have no idea what they will do! Let's try all forms of construction, just like we did in SSC and see what works.

drewjet · Post by **drewjet** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:40 pm

Yes Lou does speak softly...and carries a big stick.

Again I am NOT proposing rules, I am stating what I have done and why. Anybody can build anything they want. I am trying to get feedback as to what people want, and giving suggestions. I have flown against one of Slam's planes that he bought from Irone. I have no problem flying with it as long as all we are doing is evaluating. If that becomes the Official RCCA event than that's what I will fly. It's just that I flew it, and it is not what I want.

If people get turned off from a little frank discussion, then they need to find a different environment than combat.

Drew

thojo · Post by **thojo** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:47 pm

Anybody seen these? www.foamfly.com. There called Unifuses. Its just fan fold cut to interlock. Might have good application in eCombat?

Here is an F86, pretty cool.

slam · Post by **slam** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:55 pm

i agree with everyone[:D]

as has been pointed out, it is too early to write anything in stone....having said that, i think we need to have a general direction so we can encourage participation in our evaluation prossess.

i think it is too early to rule out alot of things, including having a class that has both brushed and brushless.

drew is very polar about his ideas for this combat. he and i have been at this for a long time. we have both built many airframes and used many powerplants.

i have built one irone plane, two modified irone planes, 3 jugs, 2 zeros, lots of ifo's, a zagi type fixx, and mini speed wings.

i can't necessarily say what works....i am an expert at what doesn't work[}:)].

a jug to scale at 36" wing doesn't work particularly well. it came in at 13oz and i don't know how to put it on a diet.

the bp motor doesn't like much more than a 10oz plane.

poly glue gets heavy fast[:D]

it suks being the slowest plane[:(!]

just a couple words of wisdom. keep experimenting and keep us updated on what works and what doesn't. that's the only way we can make educated dicisions.

slam

wparmenter · Post by **wparmenter** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:39 pm

I like the idea of semi-scale fuses. They could still be mostly full bodied, or they could be cruciform or somewhere in between. I will wait and see whether fff or non-fff is chosen.I will fly whatever comes out of this if others in my area will fly it too.
As far as brushed or brushless goes, I am still up in the air on that too, but would hate to see a huge segment left out just because they are using a certain type of equipment. I will continue to experiment with what is available and cheap.