jim_buxton
New member
So, is there any limit to motor size or cell count? I kinda like the idea of a cell limit and spec motor to keep things sane in both speed limit and dollar limit, but it looks wide open to me?
FTFF 2017 International Air races: Design-Off
- Thread starter willsonman
- Start date
Motor/battery specs may or may not be determined for races. Right now we are looking at limiting energy, or battery size, but not motor/prop/esc combo. These have not been defined as of yet.
On the design side . . . no. for a the design side, you need the motor to give you enough power to fly in a controlled manner and enough motor weight to reasonably balance the plane. after that, the "design" is sound.
On the race side, however, the motor is critical . . . and is still being hashed out. Current proposed rules under discussion include a 4s voltage cap with a Ah or Wh (V x mAh) cap, particularly on the endurance race -- if you've got an opinion, now is the time to voice it over on the other thread.
Max motor spec is really hard to limit sensibly (becomes a measurement headache), but limiting the fuel tank "pressure" will limit the airframe to modestly energetic flights, and limiting "capacity" will encourage keeping the motor sizes down, since your tank wouldn't be able to sustain a energy guzzling motor.
On the race side, however, the motor is critical . . . and is still being hashed out. Current proposed rules under discussion include a 4s voltage cap with a Ah or Wh (V x mAh) cap, particularly on the endurance race -- if you've got an opinion, now is the time to voice it over on the other thread.
Max motor spec is really hard to limit sensibly (becomes a measurement headache), but limiting the fuel tank "pressure" will limit the airframe to modestly energetic flights, and limiting "capacity" will encourage keeping the motor sizes down, since your tank wouldn't be able to sustain a energy guzzling motor.
Thank you, Dan. And I guess I am ignorant... I saw this first through FB. Can you direct me/us to the rules discussion thread? Thanks for your patience.
I really got interested when I found out Charles Holman won the 1930 Thompson Race with a bi-plane. My last name is Holman, so it has been really neat to research him and the Laird Solution plane. I'm still working on how to scale the thing, but trying to gather information at the same time.
Thank you for all you do.
Steven
I really got interested when I found out Charles Holman won the 1930 Thompson Race with a bi-plane. My last name is Holman, so it has been really neat to research him and the Laird Solution plane. I'm still working on how to scale the thing, but trying to gather information at the same time.
Thank you for all you do.
Steven
Sorry Steven, I shoulda linked it instead of just referencing it:
http://forum.flitetest.com/showthread.php?29080-Flite-Fest-2017-International-Air-Races
Rules for the race itself (and who and what will be built) are being discussed throughout, but the latest proposed list is toward the bottom of page 12.
http://forum.flitetest.com/showthread.php?29080-Flite-Fest-2017-International-Air-Races
Rules for the race itself (and who and what will be built) are being discussed throughout, but the latest proposed list is toward the bottom of page 12.
AlternateSource
Flite Fest is sooo close!
Ah heck, sign me up. I'll be attempting to design a model of the Hughes H-1 Racer from 1935
Design thread: (To come)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-1_Racer#Gallery
1/6 Scale should be around 5 feet.
Design thread: (To come)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-1_Racer#Gallery
1/6 Scale should be around 5 feet.
Attachments
Last edited:
FAI-F1D
Free Flight Indoorist
I've started the build thread for my Sk-4: http://forum.flitetest.com/showthread.php?29715-Flite-Fest-2017-Folkerts-Sk-4-no-compromises!
Follow along if you want to see utter madness and total corruption of anything resemblant of an FT style build. In other words, let the cries of heresy begin!
Follow along if you want to see utter madness and total corruption of anything resemblant of an FT style build. In other words, let the cries of heresy begin!
telegraham
New member
telegraham
1931 Supermarine S.6B
thread coming soon
1931 Supermarine S.6B
thread coming soon
Haven't found a rules conform plane yet that caught my fancy. They're either not "real" enough or served some kind of military prurpose like the He70 or the BF108 or their competitors in the European Tourist Trophy style races.
Thought maybe I'd do a twin, but the DH88 has been done to death and her competitors all turn out to be early airliners.
Good planes, mind you, but not exactly what you think of when thinking "air racer"
Not fond of radials in general.
Thought maybe I'd do a twin, but the DH88 has been done to death and her competitors all turn out to be early airliners.
Good planes, mind you, but not exactly what you think of when thinking "air racer"
Not fond of radials in general.
Have you looked at Wittman's Bonzo? That would be a pretty good choice. Nice and simple lines plus a big engine and stubby wings should be a winning recipe.
+1 on that ... the Bonzo was one I considered before I came across the SK3. Would be cool to see someone do it; I really like the body-tail flow, and how stubby the tail is.
I've had a look at it and I kinda like the lines. That landing gear, though...
Also stubby wings is all well and good but 5m span translated to 1/10th scale... my fun fighters have more span than that.
Oh right.
Got that mixed up because initially I wanted a twin.(still kinda do)
800mm sounds a lot less scary, which still leaves that ridiculous excuse for a landing gear.
I read somewhere (think it was the wikipedia article) that the plane had a different undercarriage before getting the spring steel abomination we see on the photos.. maybe I'll do some research in that direction...
Keep in mind that the landing gear is merely an option. it gets you a few more points but is a mere fraction of the overall score. I honestly would not be surprised to see that none of the designs use landing gear.
Thing is it's a fixed gear setup.. I have no problem with omitting retracts to make a belly lander, but fixed gear is a major scale detail. Imagine a Stuka or a peashooter without its undercarriage.
The tiny wheeled contraption might even be fun to look at in flight, but landing will be a problem.
By the way I found a picture of the plane with it's original gear setup, which looks a bit more substantial, but it omits the cowling and spinner that I think give the plane it's "face"...
Hmmm. I just had the funniest (or maybe stupidest) thought: how about I go gear down for exhibition and in flight but retract the gear to land? Do I get the extra points for retracts if the plane didn't have any?
Last edited:
LOL! Well, in that case, yeah, I would agree that the fixed gear is something to consider. On Gee Bees the landing gear did act like vertical stabilization so its something I would never omit on that model. It might be funny to make just dummy gear and have a bomb-drop mechanism drop them when you land. I'd get a good laugh out of that.
Similar threads
