Scale fidelity in 3696

You got a cool electric WWII combat rig? This is the place to show it off!

Moderator: hbartel

Alex Treneff
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Alex Treneff »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by crash_out</i>
<br />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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Nick, I think as long as the culture says "make it scale", people will. If a guy makes a 24" FW-190 and everyone friendily says "Hey that's not cool" they'll fix it next time. Positive peer pressure should be able to keep it in check.

I got some paints today so hopefully I'll be able to post a picture of my new paint scheme tomorrow. [:D]
crash_out
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:55 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by crash_out »

I figured the verbal berating for not making a scale plane would probably elminate most of the problematic planes. But there's always someone that will say there aren't any rules against what they are doing, and get on a pedastal about it.

Cool on the paints. My airbrush didn't come in today, but my EPP did, so I'm off to graft it to the pink stuff for epp leading edges. Or at least just to see if it will work....

Nick
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

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

You need to keep up with the rules Alex. The points got voted out.
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

Lee, the short story version is: Does it look like the plane it is supposed to? If yes, go fly. If not, it doesn't.

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

Post by boiler »

I just measured my P-39 as it is almost as long as my 2548 Zero. I built it from a small 3 view drawing using a ruler and calculator. Everything was done free hand. The length turned out 32 inches. If I had chised her down, I could have been at minimum weight. I think it looks right and it flies fine since the P-39 wing has a little more area than the average. I plan on taking it to the LSN for a scale pilot to look at.
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

Bob, is 32" the over all length, or the length from thrust washer to elevator hinge line? I think that some of the problem when comparing length is that some are talking apples and some are talking oranges.
User avatar
boiler
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:16 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by boiler »

From the tip of the small aluminum spinner to the tip of the tail. That's what I had to go on in the drawing. I never was much good at scale detail but love to fly combat. If I get to fly more combat, I build more scale. I really like the 3696 idea since the weight and size are smaller. They are easier to build, easier to tranport, easier to fly in my back yard and with less carnage. They also start and run more reliably.
Alex Treneff
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Alex Treneff »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by boiler</i>
<br />From the tip of the small aluminum spinner to the tip of the tail.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Bob, The 24" minimum is measured from the rear of the prop, not the front of the spinner, so that ought to get you maybe an inch or so closer.
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

Bob`s plane probably measures about 28" or 29" from thrust washer to hinge line.
crash_out
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:55 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by crash_out »

I think the biggest thing is that it looks right. The rules may say there are specific dimensions to go by, but Most of us have enough knowledge of plane profiles and sesigns that if someone shows up with something that doesn't look right, someone is going to know. I've got an FW-190 D9 cut, and yes, it's substantially longer than any other one I have templates for. I don't think it's going to gain any advantage or give up anything to the much shorter Zero. I may be wrong, but to me, if it's not grossly overdone, I don't forsee a problem as far as fuselages are concerned.

I'm more weary of wing shapes. I'd rather someone not show up with a non-tapered rectanglar wing, or something that should have a 4 inch tip chord enlarged to 6. I've tried to stick to scale where I could, but I have, in the case of particularily small chords, increased them by 10%. A half inch, an inch maybe, I can see the allowance. I just don't want to see or argue with someone about a wing with a 6 or 7 inch tip chord that obviously isn't scale.
User avatar
boiler
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:16 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by boiler »

I got 26 3/8 from the prop to the hing line. I guess I'm OK. Right??
Alex Treneff
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Alex Treneff »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by crash_out</i>
<br />I'm more weary of wing shapes. I'd rather someone not show up with a non-tapered rectanglar wing, or something that should have a 4 inch tip chord enlarged to 6. I've tried to stick to scale where I could, but I have, in the case of particularily small chords, increased them by 10%. A half inch, an inch maybe, I can see the allowance. I just don't want to see or argue with someone about a wing with a 6 or 7 inch tip chord that obviously isn't scale.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Nick, I that's a good point. If I remember correctly, I think the Me-109's chord is about 4" and the Mustang is around 4.25". Something like that. I've seen pictures of planes that looked like the chord was enlarged at least an inch. My Me-109 and P-51 both have the correct chord dimensions and they still fly, so I don't see why a chord would be more than 10% over scale in a scale class. Making a 4" tip actually 5" is 25% off "scale".

Looking forward to some 3696 at Texas! [:D]
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

Yes, Bob there is just a minimum of 24" unless exact scale is shorter than 24" (only a few weird planes) and you can prove the dimension is correct.

As far as the wing goes. Tapered wings have less drag and fly better than non-tapered wings. So since there is an upper limit of 250 sq in, there will be no advantage to flying a non-tapered wing. No one has built one yet.
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

At LSN, as long as a wing has less than 250 sq in and has some taper in it, then it will fly. Those are the rules.
crash_out
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:55 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by crash_out »

One question that is probably stupid, but is the aileron area figured in with the wing area as well, or is the wing area figured by fixed wing surface area?
Post Reply

Return to “Electric WWII Fighters”