F3A Biplanes have a future!

[Henderson,Eric]

Normally I would agree with you on the weight, BUT, the increased wing area of a 2M Bi-plane would handle and allow heavier engines.

As regards landing bi-plans the biggest negative is what happens when the tail drops out of the air flow in the latter stages of landing. Ultimate's have huge fins and rudders which work but yaw like crazy in crosswinds.. can't wait to see how we make the compromises that need to be made..

E.

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of patterndude at attbi.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:01 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: F3A Biplanes have a future!


Right on, Eric,
I do not support any change to our big 2 rules (2m 96dB).  Their simplicity and 
elegance have saved pattern from self destruction and provided stability in 
many ways.

The 3rd big rule: 5kg still perplexes me since heavier doesn't fly better and 
building light is hard to achieve for beginners.  However, I don't wish to 
reopen that nest at this time.

I'm not sure "living" is the term I'd use for landing a bipe in a crosswind.  I 
may have lost a few years doing it.
> Wing mounting on a bi-plane is much more problematic than what we are used to. 
> Do you use plug-on wings, what type of interplane struts, four servos for 
> ailerons or inter-control surface rods? Cabane design is always the toughest 
> problem on a bi-plane. Not to mention the trimming knowledge needed.
> 
> The wing failure(s) I heard about were in the wing mounts that had been made 
> light with balsa, and really needed ply. The parameters that we set for plane 
> weight and size bring out the best in the designers. I truly believe that we 
> will soon see competitive bi-planes.
> 
> One position I would like to take is that I am very much against changing 
> pattern rules/parameters, (2M and 5Kg and db), just because our more advanced 
> pilots can build and fly bigger or heavier planes. (There are options for those 
> needs in scale aerobatics etc.) In example form, a bi-pane might prove too hard 
> to make light enough with a suitably sized and possibly heavy engine. We should 
> not change the rules to allow a plane to be heavier if it is a bi-plane with a 
> 50cc gas engine that has an in-cowl muffler that runs @ 99db. 
> 
> Also before you all get carried away, and for those of you with no bi-plane 
> flight experience, you have not lived until you try and land one in a 20mph 
> cross wind... landing and take-off points in AMA classes still count towards the 
> win. In FAI they(we) just have to get it off the ground and roughly back in the 
> same area, with a couple of procedure turns, to get 10 points...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Eric.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of patterndude at attbi.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:05 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: F3A Biplanes have a future!
> 
> 
> Clearly building a pattern bipe under 5kg is pushing the envelope for most 
> builders.  Just like the breakthroughs in light laminate construction that are 
> giving us larger fuses, we need some technological advance in wing construction 
> techniques.  
>   There are a lot of wing construction experiments going on with hollow wings, 
> sheet glass skins, foam ribs, etc., but the best results seem hard to reproduce 
> and difficult for the home modeler to achieve. 
>   At first, the early adopters will pay the big bucks and take the bigger 
> risks.  Such is the cycle of advancement.
> 
> --Lance
> > >That makes three (publically known) biplane projects going on right now.
> > >Just when you think you've got the best.... ;>  Time to spend more money.
> > 
> > Two of which crashed on their first flight due to structural failure 
> > of the wings.
> > 
> > More money is right.
> > 
> > >
> > >I'm rather torn on this biplane issue.  Should FAI add a new rule that
> > >outlaws them?  On one hand, I'm sure they will improve our flights, but on
> > >the other I don't want them to be advantage over the planes we have now.
> > >Kind of like changing the 2m size limit to 2.5m.  The guys with the big
> > >factories behind them will have an advantage, while the rest of us will be
> > >alienated.  Going to biplanes might be no different than going to 2.5m, only
> > >it isn't against the rules.  Or, it might be like the switch to 2m planes
> > >from the .60 planes.  I would hate to go back to a 0.60 after flying a 2m.
> > 
> > Pattern will die before we go back to 0.60 sized airplanes. 
> > Pandora's box was opened a long time ago.
> > 
> > >
> > >That said, I want a biplane.  I do expect they will fly better, which is
> > >certainly a good thing, and someone has to develop them before I get to fly
> > >it.
> > 
> > When someone can properly define what "flying better" is, then we 
> > have something that can be debated.  Until then this is just 
> > marketing.
> > 
> > Jerry
> > -- 
> > ___________
> > Jerry Budd
> > Budd Engineering
> > http://www.buddengineering.com
> > =====================================
> > # To be removed from this list, send a message to 
> > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> > #
> > 
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to 
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
> 
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to 
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
> 
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#

==================# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#