Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Large scale RC planes. | Forums

  1. #1
    Senior Member RedToo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    732

    Large scale RC planes.

    One or two are so big you would have thought they could build a real plane:

    http://www.flixxy.com/international-...-show-2011.htm

    Redtoo.
     

  2. #2
    Senior Member Crazy_Goanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Byron Bay, Australia
    Posts
    938
    Some very nicely built planes there
    thanks for the link Redtoo!!
     

  3. #3
    Senior Member Cajun76's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,239
    Awesome! Was that a model of a real plane around the 2:00 mark? The low, forward front wing had landing gear, and the rear wing was high and at the midpoint of the fuselage, and the tail only had the rudder. Interesting bird. The 109 landed quite realistically.
     

  4. #4
    Senior Member Cajun76's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,239
    I also wonder about how some of these faithful replicas fly when the real things are a bit unstable and require digital fly-by-wire controls and computers. The Nighthawk and Viper come to mind.
     

  5. #5
    Senior Member AndyJWest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,747
    Cajun, I think the tandem-wing model was a Rutan Quickie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Quickie, or one of the developments from it. Regarding stability, to a certain extent this depends on the centre of gravity, and you can move it forward a bit in a model, for stability at the expense of manoeuvrability.

    Some amazing models there - though why anyone would build an R/C Piper Cub that big, when building a real one would take little more effort, is beyond me...
     

  6. #6
    Thanks for the link. I really enjoyed watching that.
    Having flown RC models for many years I can really appreciate the large scale models BUT still can't understand why someone would spend so much money for a large scale model that only has a single or twin engine. The 109 flyby near the 2 minute mark is a good example.
    The scale appearance is good but the sound is embarrassing.
    There are some V type scale engines out there today and there are plenty of radial engines to choose from.
    A big part of why I like the WW2 era planes is because they sound so awesome!
     

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Cajun76 View Post
    I also wonder about how some of these faithful replicas fly when the real things are a bit unstable and require digital fly-by-wire controls and computers. The Nighthawk and Viper come to mind.
    Because there are certain concessions made in the build to allow for a more stable experience. Corsair comes to mind: compare the rudder shape on a model to the real bird. Big difference. Surface area (wing, stab) can also be increased to provide a more stable flight.

    Giant scale is a single wing with w.s. of +80inches and for a bipe 60". It does NOT have to conform to the real plane as far as dimensions, surface area, etc.

    In scale competitions, plane outline and markings and other smaller detail (c.ock pit panel for example--gol durn language police) are of key importance but if you were in a "stand-off scale" competition, that is different again (as opposed to "scale" competitions)--less stringent requirements.
    Last edited by voyager_663rd; 03-27-2012 at 06:50 PM.
     

  8. #8
    Senior Member Cajun76's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,239
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyJWest View Post
    Cajun, I think the tandem-wing model was a Rutan Quickie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Quickie, or one of the developments from it. Regarding stability, to a certain extent this depends on the centre of gravity, and you can move it forward a bit in a model, for stability at the expense of manoeuvrability.

    Some amazing models there - though why anyone would build an R/C Piper Cub that big, when building a real one would take little more effort, is beyond me...
    Thanks, looks like a Quickie to me too. Reminds me of a dragonfly, which, as insects go, are my favorite to watch as the zip around, hover and maneuver in all directions effortlessly.

    I was actually referring to the inherent aerodynamic instability built into the F-16 to make it more maneuverable: negative stability. I'm not sure if a simple weight transfer in a faithful replica would solve that. I suspect the elements that contribute to the instability have been slightly altered to provide positive stability.

    The F-16 was the first production fighter aircraft intentionally designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable, also known as "relaxed static stability" (RSS), to improve maneuverability. ... Aircraft with negative stability are designed to deviate from controlled flight and thus be more maneuverable.
    I have to disagree about constructing a real Piper taking just a little more effort than a large R/C though. Just the instrumenting and radios alone puts the price much higher, as well as the structure being different to accommodate pilot, passengers and/or cargo. Pesky humans and cargo are also usually in the way of the most efficient layout for the control linkages and cables.
    The scale is not where the effort lies except external details. It's the bits that accommodate a real pilot that would significantly impact the differences between a large model and the real thing.

    This is similar to the post about some Spitfire replicas being 90% scale or so. Some wondered why not build full scale, even though part of the point of the project was to make replicas that were less expensive and more accessible. The replicas don't need to carry a combat load at 400mph and 20,000 feet, so they don't need quite as big an engine, or as long a span to carry a smaller engine and no guns and ammo. If they keep the heritage alive, that's what matters to me. A kid watching his first Spitfire zoom by and getting the fire in his belly for aviation won't really care if it's 10% smaller.
     

  9. #9
    Senior Member Cajun76's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,239
    Quote Originally Posted by voyager_663rd View Post
    Because there are certain concessions made in the build to allow for a more stable experience. Corsair comes to mind: compare the rudder shape on a model to the real bird. Big difference. Surface area (wing, stab) can also be increased to provide a more stable flight.

    Giant scale is a single wing with w.s. of +80inches and for a bipe 60". It does NOT have to conform to the real plane as far as dimensions, surface area, etc.

    In scale competitions, plane outline and markings and other smaller detail (c.ock pit panel for example--gol durn language police) are of key importance but if you were in a "stand-off scale" competition, that is different again (as opposed to "scale" competitions)--less stringent requirements.
    Makes sense to me.
     

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyJWest View Post

    Some amazing models there - though why anyone would build an R/C Piper Cub that big, when building a real one would take little more effort, is beyond me...

    Insurance companies...FAA
    ...
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •