Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
December 12, 2019, 04:35:05 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: The importance of slow flying speed in UK scale competition  (Read 2116 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,919


Topic starter
Russ Lister



Ignore
« on: October 14, 2016, 04:41:36 PM »

It must the the lengthening dark evenings ... I'm starting to think again!

I must say straight away that there is no 'gripe' attached to this ... in fact the idea came to me when thinking about Mike Stuart's unequivocably magnificent flights with his DH Fox Moth.

It got me thinking "no point getting my Fw190 finished ... it wouldn't stand a chance against Mike's Moth!"
But would it? Would the allowances for flying speed, stall speed and rate of climb still make it a contender.
I deliberately choose a more extreme example here to emphasise the question.

I gathered together a few approximate figures to give a comparison:

Blackburn Monoplane
Stall Speed:                Na.
Cruise Speed:       50 mph
Rate of Climb:      200 ft/min

DH Fox Moth
Stall Speed:      
Cruise Speed:      95 mph
Rate of Climb:      450 ft/min

SE5a
Stall Speed:      45 mph
Cruise Speed:      105 mph
Rate of Climb:      1000 ft/min

Fw190
Stall Speed:      120 mph
Cruise Speed:      295 mph      
Rate of Climb:      2953 ft/min

As you can see, the Fw190 would not even keep in the air at the cruise speed of the Fox Moth.
Also, working from the other direction the Blackburn should only be expected to achieve about half the height in the same time as the moth ... and very much less than the Fw.
The SE5 would significantly outclimb the Fox Moth in the same time etc.
In fact the Fw190 should be able to strafe the entire pits area in the time that the others are flying!

Should these factors be taken into consideration more so that we do not end up with a narrow band of suitable candidates?
Logged
daveh
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 12
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 470



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2016, 05:18:13 PM »

Russ,

As I understand it, the flights are (provided the minimum qualifying time is achieved) judged on realism of take-off, cruise and landing. Therefore, to my mind the characteristics of the prototype must be taken into consideration so a Fw 190 floating around in the same manner that Mike's Fox Moth does would not attract the marks that it would if its performance was more 'punchy'. However, if the FW 190 had its gear down all the time, it would have to fly as though it was below the gear limiting speed to be really realistic but then, of course, it would probably have some flap down.... Another thought springs to mind from the time that I once formated a (full size) F4 with a Hurricane and the difference in AOA/body angle was dramatic - he was at a comfortable cruising speed and I was close to the stall - so perhaps that aspect would have to be taken into account when judging the realism of a model. All in all it's an intriguing topic.

Dave
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,919


Topic starter
Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2016, 05:28:09 PM »

Thanks Dave ... yes, it was particularly the stall speed aspect of things that got me thinking. The cruise speed is declared but not stall and rate of climb. Not wanting to complicate things but it is interesting!

BTW I watched Mike's Moth on youtube at 1.5x speed .... it still looks great! (click on the 'gear' bottom right for settings if you have not done it before)
I slow mine down to half speed to make myself feel better!
Logged
Mefot
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 293




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2016, 05:32:33 PM »

I think the important aspect is a scale flying speed. It's certainly possible for a low wing monoplane to win. Richard Crossley managed it with his Brewster Bermuda a couple of years ago,although his winning score would have only managed second place at the last  nats..
By it's very nature the FW190 will fly quicker but if it's lightweight it should be possible to fly it at something close to scale speed. With good documentation and details it would be possible to beat Mike's static score too. Where it would catch up some points would be if it had a retracting undercarriage but of course the weight gain and complexity may be self defeating.
I do think the Fox Moth may start a trend and if you really want to win you may have to go down the same route. I know of at least one modeller thinking along the same lines with an even bigger biplane on the building board.
So my answer really is " It all depends " !!!  Smiley
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,919


Topic starter
Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2016, 06:20:57 PM »

Yes, I agree. I have followed the indoor scale scene for a good while and have seen low wingers win ... Richard as you say ... Graham in kit scale with Heinkel etc.
With Mike's Fox Moth we seem to have a new standard that will probably be followed as you say. I suppose the crux of what I am asking is ... because the flying speed of a model of this type is so appealing .... will this (to an extent) preclude faster flying types from now on?
The Fw190 was only an example to emphasise the range of flying speeds ... it might affect a good few types up to that speed?

I'm not complaining ... I could hack watching a hall full of similar models to Mike's for a good few years!
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,015




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2016, 07:08:27 PM »

You'd have to suspect that, on average and over the years, models flying too slowly are less penalised than models flying too fast. And sometimes even a fast type flying at a fast but scale speed might come off worse than a slower type going too slowly. Andrew Hewitt's Morane N hanging almost still like a kestrel is an interesting one. It looks fantastic, but did the real ones ever go quite that slowly? But then again it's a lot harder to build a scale model that flies really slowly, and it is also nicer to watch and somehow looks more authentic, so perhaps it is a good thing if the scoring is slightly skewed towards slowness.

Of course the slow flying speed wasn't the greatest factor in Mike's beautiful Fox Moth winning. An even greater factor was that he finished it in time and got it pretty much trimmed beforehand. Models still on the workbench do notoriously badly I've found, and none of the beautiful slow flyers built only in my head have done very well yet either!
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,919


Topic starter
Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2016, 07:53:53 PM »

We will stick to actual models then Pete ... remind me, when did you enter an imaginary one?  Roll Eyes
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 658



Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2016, 08:14:01 PM »

This is an aspect that has challenged us in NZ when flying to the F4A rules and been the subject of some discussion. The flying speed of WW1 and most light aircraft are in the same speed range and one would expect them to be marked in a similar fashion. Most WW1 biplanes I have observed often fly somewhat too fast when compared with say a Gipsy Moth or a Puss Moth or other light aircraft. Mike Smiths Sopwith Cuckoo is one model I think looks right but some of the other models at the 2015 Nationals were flying quite fast and seemed to be approaching WW2 fighter speeds. I realise this is all very subjective but this must be taken into account when judging realism of flight. The climb section of the pattern is also a challenge as power to take off often produced a fighter like climb that is not representitive of either WW1 or light aircraft and is not always marked consistantly. Some of the Australian modellers are experimenting with timers to reduce power after take off to address this. The availability od electric moter timers is the starting point.
Ricky
Logged
Hepcat
OOS, January 2019
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 278
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,777



Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2016, 09:14:48 PM »

Russ,
As I usually preface if on a scale subject, I am not a scale flyer; however, I have often thought that it must be very difficult to run interesting(fair?) competition when the purposes of the aeroplanes that are modelled are so different.  I think that flying speed is probably the main difference which immediately brings wing loading to mind.  I don't think for a minute that there is an easy solution but upper and a lower wing loading limits should even up flying speeds to some extent which might help.

John
Logged

John Barker UK - Will be missed by all that knew him.
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,015




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2016, 03:10:55 AM »

We will stick to actual models then Pete ... remind me, when did you enter an imaginary one?  Roll Eyes
Russ, in my imagination I often enter imaginary ones. They do quite well in the Imaginary Nationals and in that competition have often beaten the real models of much more accomplished modelers.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,715



Ignore
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2016, 03:25:48 AM »

It's all in the  Judges' guide, section 6.4.9.

Mike's model was very lightly-loaded = slow speed.  Rather like Mike Hetherington's Stosser some 40 years ago.
It was not very detailed and the static score was not unassailable. It was also inaccurate in places (Mike told me) as it was built from a published plan. Accurate shapes weigh no more than inaccurate ones, and that is where the marks are. It's always a balance between static and flying, but you rarely win with a museum piece that flies like a plumber's toolbag, no matter how much people try.

I also suspect Mike may have trimmed it before the event.

Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,919


Topic starter
Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2016, 04:03:26 AM »

Bill,
I'm pretty sure that Mike trimmed the model ... in fact I watched him do it!

Can we assume real and trimmed models from now then please?

Again, the main point is ... With some of the superb slow flying models that we have seen this year, can 'naturally' faster flying types still be competitive?
Mentioning one of my own models seems to have caused a problem ... It's not about me.
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 658



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2016, 05:56:46 AM »

Russ,
         At the Richmond meeting in Sydneythis year there was a 36" Gypsy Comper Swift that was very light and flew very slowly. ( we were blessed with perfect weather ) It did not look right as that Comper has a very crisp performance. I am not sure what his score was but it was third after an Avetek Tiger Moth that was about right. The video of Mikes model look good and it seems to fly about the same speed as Monica's D7 which is consistent with their respective performances. I would say provided your model is not out of character you should not be penalised. I put the cruising speed of the full size on the declaration for easy reference and to remind the judges. I would argue the biggest issue is getting a realistic climb. My veron Compers fly quite quickly but have a long motor so after take off the climb is shallow but fairly fast as it was a racer.
A FW190 has to fly faster to look right.
    Ricky
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,015




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2016, 06:56:08 AM »

With some of the superb slow flying models that we have seen this year, can 'naturally' faster flying types still be competitive?
Mentioning one of my own models seems to have caused a problem.

What problem? It's an interesting discussion. Essentially are you asking whether judges are as capable of accurately assessing faster speeds as slower ones? We do put the real aircraft cruise speed on our documentation as well as the model's scale, so it is certainly a level playing field in theory and in practice I'm sure every effort is made to get it right. Personally I think I'd always struggle to get beyond the "that looks right/wrong" level, but I'm not much good at assessing things generally.

My dad discussed this issue (as applied to large radio scale models) in one of his RCM&E articles. I think he did a field experiment involving a model, some friends, measured distances and stopwatches to find out if his model was anywhere near scale speed and then considered whether it matched the judges' opinions. Can't remember the conclusion. I might try and dig it out. I think there was some talk about the distance of the viewer to the model and the fact that smaller models need to be 'seen' as further away to seem believable, and this factor also makes a difference to the perceived speed.
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 697




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2016, 09:09:25 AM »

The 'nature' of the flight also affects the overall impression of realism, as well as the speed. Many of Chris Strachan's peanut Goodyear racers might be said to be flying faster than scale, but they look superb as they have the right sit in the air and groove round the circuit in the purposeful manner of a racing aircraft.

Mike's Fox Moth is the best i've ever seen at depicting the flight pattern and manner of the full size aircraft. The bar has been raised...
Logged
dputt7
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 90
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1,991




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2016, 09:11:06 AM »

I've just come home from Indoor tonight and was thinking about flying speed and as it turns out it continues on from Pete's post.
I watched a You-Tube clip of my electric Farman 190 and guessed by the markings on the floor that it was flying in 12mtr diameter circles and taking 10 seconds a lap and at 1/20 scale my tired brain worked it out at a scale speed of aprox. 266 klm's  per hour. However the full size has a top speed of 185 klm per hour.

Now this subject is of interest to me only as a Scale builder (I don't fly competitions) so would it help the judges If maybe a chart could be compiled giving an approx. scale time/circle diameter to suit the prototype flown.

I realise the judges probably have enough to do but even if a flying session could be organised with several model flown and the scale speeds worked out. Even if not used in competitions it should show just how fast or slow a model is flying and give them a better understanding of what to look for.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,015




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2016, 09:17:46 AM »

Mike's Fox Moth is the best i've ever seen at depicting the flight pattern and manner of the full size aircraft. The bar has been raised...
Graham, I've just had a look at your comments on the SFA forum. It seems the bar is about to be raised on what constitutes 'large and floaty' models in Kitscale too!   Shocked
All I can say is that it's a good job the pits area at Walsall is roomier than it was at Nottingham!
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 697




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2016, 09:23:40 AM »

Only if we can get them under 200g... Grin Grin
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,919


Topic starter
Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2016, 09:40:39 AM »

Pete,
I just wondered what the unfinished/imaginary/untrimmed thing was getting at, that's all.
Your dad's study sounds very interesting ... will ask more when I'm not prodding at my phone!
I did mention that cruise speed is declared .. perhaps stall or rotation speed is just as important though?

Graham,
You mention just the things that were on my mind .. always loved the way Chris Strachan's racers fly.
Also the effect that the 200g limit and the bigger hall have had

Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,015




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2016, 10:05:16 AM »

Pete,
I just wondered what the unfinished/imaginary/untrimmed thing was getting at, that's all.

Only that I, and dare I say most of us, have plans, models and ideas which never make it to the Nationals - or when they do are not in a reliably trimmed state and so don't trouble the scorers at all. For instance my Antoinette last year, or any of the scale models I've thought about and proposed on here but never even cut a stick for. I was just pointing out that Mike was ready and trimmed, which is a massive part of success no matter what speed the model flies at.
Without a new open scale model on my own building board I am certainly in no position to suggest that your largely completed FW190 won't be ready, so sorry if you took my ramblings that way!
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,919


Topic starter
Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2016, 11:01:38 AM »

No problem Pete ... sorry for thinking otherwise.
The Fw190 was never directly intended for competition ... and didn't really fit the bill for what it was intended for!
Probably the reason why it gets sidetracked so often.
I have only built two scale indoor models with competition in mind (Fiat cr32 and the SE5a). All the others just arrived at the right time.
Perversely,  all my better results have been with previously untrimmed models!
Yes, trimming is vital but I was assuming fully trimmed models etc. ie.all other variables set aside.
This is in the indoor category .... specifically uk indoor nats with the larger hall and the 200g limit.
.... and the magnificent performance of Mike's Moth!
Understandable that people are not on my wavelength .... I sometimes send out a weak signal!

Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,919


Topic starter
Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2016, 01:59:05 PM »

I must add that relevant experiences from outdoor scale are valid ... there have been some interesting ones already   Smiley
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,526




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2016, 02:50:12 PM »

Interesting question.

During my recent bout of Planitis, I drew up a table of wing-loadings for the main models on my shortlist, bearing in mind the original types:

- 18" late WWI biplane - well-powered for the era but draggy
- 13" 1920s homebuilt parasol - low powered and draggy
- 13" 1920's biplane - adequately powered but draggy
- 22" 1930s high-wing monoplane - adequately powered and reasonably streamlined
- 18" WW2 low-wing monoplane - high powered, well streamlined and fast
- 13" Postwar home-built/aerobatic biplane - etc

Working with best guesses for final model weights, I then looked at what effect moving from rubber to CO2 or electric would have on the range of loadings.  Needless to say 2-3g of rubber is a lot lighter than 7-10 g all-up of equivalent CO2/electric derived thrust.

But, in addition to flight-realism, scale undercarriage lengths and ROG are also factors, as is the right sort of noise too!

In the end I decided to build (albeit just for fun and the need to just get stuck back in) the Peck Peanut kit Pietenpol for a Gasparin G-24.  So theoretically ROGable, an almost scale-looking wooden prop with the cylinder mostly hidden in the mock Model-A Ford engine.  BUT it has the smallest wing area of my shortlist PLUS the additional weight of a CO2 motor, which doesn't bode brilliantly well for scale flying speeds, but therein the challenge of the lightest possible airframe weight....  Shocked
« Last Edit: October 15, 2016, 03:42:27 PM by Jack Plane » Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 658



Ignore
« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2016, 03:13:46 PM »

Jack,
        I think you have made a good choice using CO2 as the extra weight is in the right place. You may well have a lighter model as there should be no nose ballast to somehow put in the narrow space. Also the power burst at the start is more manageable. 
  Ricky
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,919


Topic starter
Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2016, 03:39:43 PM »

John,

I've not finished with my love of the Pietenpol ... I still think I have another one in me! 
I built the David Collin's 28" one for CO2 and then scaled the plan to just below allowable peanut scale (I kept the span to 13")
I didn't build in enough provision for downthrust on both ... it needed it.
The nose of the Peck version is a little enlarged as I remember ... this would help.

Sorry, I know I have posted this video a lot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajwfRtEnbbA
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!