Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jan 28, 2010, 04:34 PM
The blade numbers go up to 11
stumax's Avatar
Sydney, Australia
Joined Aug 2002
4,380 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanTasticModels View Post
Stu.
you don't know how close the GR-7 is to my heart too ,but it doesn't meet the constant taper rule. I'm sorry .
jerry small
Here's the rule off the NMPRA website:

"3) Chord: No limit, however, the wing taper, in addition to other distinctive design features, is subject to the design approval requirements of paragraph g) below."

"g. Replica rule.
Models entered in this event shall be of conventional layout as defined in 7.1 and be recognizable replicas of full-scale, human-carrying, propeller-driven aircraft that either raced in or were built for the 190/200 cubic inch class of Formula I closed-course racing competition. Models of full-scale aircraft that do not meet the objective requirements of these rules (for example, a model of Wild Turkey whose wing thickness does not progress in a “straight line or convex taper” as required by paragraph I.b.3), or a model of the monowheel version of Fast Lane Exit that does not meet the main wheel track requirement in paragraph I. (d) are prohibited.
1) Wing and tail outlines shall maintain the integrity of the outlines of the full-scale prototype aircraft, as show by photographs or 3-views
2) The fuselage side view shall maintain the integrity of the outlines of the full-scale prototype aircraft, as shown by photographs of 3-views.
3) Except as necessary to achieve the minimum width across both cheek cowls as stated in paragraph 1.c.2) above, the fuselage top view shall maintain the integrity of the outlines of the full-scale prototype aircraft, as shown by photographs or 3-views."

I don't see anything in there to exclude a GR-7, the taper rule says constant or convex taper, which is there to prevent models having a 1" thick root which quickly tapers to much less, then tapers more slowly towards the tip. The GR-7 planform has a convex taper, and so with the wing thickness.

Stu.
stumax is offline Find More Posts by stumax
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jan 28, 2010, 04:47 PM
Registered User
Calgary, AB, Canada
Joined Oct 2002
1,834 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien_Tech View Post
I don't think it meets the constant taper requirement though...
Not intending to propose rule changes, more an aside on rules in general...
Iíve always wondered about this when it comes to replica based, model pylon racers. I can see the intent if strictly applied to Q500 (to maintain constant chord except for the very outboard tips). Or to similarly preclude complex swervy-curvy wing planforms if its perceived to be faster or open the door to cnc moldyís & turn off newbies in a starter class. But if the real plane had a curved LE or segmented eliptical based planform, itís a shame the model canít replicate that & be true to its heritage. Some of those planes originated in the 1950ís, itís not like its high tech anymore.

And what does Ďconstantí anything really accomplish anyway? If I have a different root & tip airfoil section (vary common), some combo of max thickness%, high point placement & a constant, linear tapered LE & TE planform (rules dictated) the resultant 'section' along a spar line will likely be non-linear, non-constant 'taper'. If I had to cut these ribs by hand they would be a complicated varying blend of the section airfoil(s), yet that is a perfectly legal wing, no? Maybe it has historical roots in easily validating panel surface areas, I dunno. But these days everyone has access to a cad program that can bang this stuff out & be validated by the approval folks.

I like the min thickness + min/max span & area type rule. Those parameters by & large throttles drag (= speed) & cotrols wing loading. The rest is cosmetics.
ptxman is offline Find More Posts by ptxman
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 05:20 PM
Registered User
Arch Adamisin's Avatar
Taylor,Mi,USA
Joined Mar 2001
109 Posts
Stu,
I understand your feelings. I have attempted to have 3 designs approved that were denied. I've drawn a Wild Turkey, Alley Cat and Pushy Gallore. All of these designs were clearly within the rules, cross section(6x3), wing area and everything in between. They were denied because it was felt that the possible preception from those, outside of the racing community, might be that they have to have one of these different designs to compete. We all know that is an incorrect perception, but we're trying to get new people involved that haven't raced before or even bring back some of those that we've lost, for whatever reason. If it means this event will work, I can hold off on these different designs, just be sure that this event can get started. This is a work in progress, all of it. The rules are a starting point. Until we can get a dozen or so of these things to the field at the same time, we're only guessing that the course length is right.
Let's get the event up and running, and if it means I can't do my Turkey or Pushy for a couple years, so be it. Let's all just go with the constant cord or simple double tapered wing planforms right now and save something special for a couple years down the road, when we're looking for a way to increase the excitement. I'm committed to helping Jerry and the NMPRA turn this into a viable event.
I know you're a very talented guy and we could sure use your help.

Arch
Arch Adamisin is offline Find More Posts by Arch Adamisin
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 05:28 PM
The blade numbers go up to 11
stumax's Avatar
Sydney, Australia
Joined Aug 2002
4,380 Posts
I just don't see what's so difficult about a double taper wing? At these speeds there's nothing to be gained aerodynamically, and really, with some airfoil tweaking you can achieve the same affect by changing the airfoil along the wing, which is more complicated as it means you can't just cut foam cores. A double taper wing just needs 4 smaller cores glued together and sheeted as one. In fact the old F3D GR-7's used a single core with the LE and TE cut back. If it's desired to keep certain designs out for fear of the event becoming a one design event, then perhaps we need to build one first and see if there is a clear advantage. I don't think there will be, as the max wingspan rule forces us to all have the same aspect ratio, the double taper wing has lower Re at the tip, therefore more drag, and the low wing will have more drag than the mid wing layouts of other aircraft. I only chose the GR-7 because it was the only 3-view I could find. I was planning to post a plan of it here for anyone to build one. It looks like a very simple model to scratch build, with slab sides and a turtle deck, unlike the oval shaped fuselages of the latest F1 racers which require a lot more design work.

Stu.
stumax is offline Find More Posts by stumax
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 05:30 PM
Registered User
dkane's Avatar
USA
Joined Jul 2002
747 Posts
Stu,

Keep in mind the rules are not final. And currently, we are correcting the rules as we go. Therefore, the Denial of your design is nothing against you. It just doesn't fit into the scope of what we are trying to accomplish at this point. "PERCEPTION"... difficult to handle. If it is perceived that this design is required for winning even though it isn't then everything else becomes obsolete. We don't want the large distributors to be defeated before they even start.

Your Design is perfect. I tried submitting the GR7 and it was denied as well.

The rules listed are a starting point and all these discussions allow us to go back and correct our errors before it explodes. We have the luxury of changing the rules at any point now. Due to the fact we are not governed by the rigors of AMA rule cycles. We can work with this for now and advance as time goes on. Hopefully, this makes sense. The intent of this event is to keep it as level as possible. In the beginning we want to stay with what is already being mass produced.

I love the energy this is envoking. Keep it up and in the very short future stuff will be available to the masses.

DK
dkane is offline Find More Posts by dkane
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 05:50 PM
The blade numbers go up to 11
stumax's Avatar
Sydney, Australia
Joined Aug 2002
4,380 Posts
OK, no worries, I can see the logic, but I'm gonna build a GR-7 anyway (just because it's cool and would make a great sport model anyway, and a nice change from the expensive big EDF models i seem to be crashing far too frequently), and design something else and see if there really is an advantage. It's not going to be like the giant scale F1 racing where you do need a GR-7 in order to win, I think flying and prop selection is going to be the most critical part of the event. BTW, what are you going to do to stop people making a model of "Endeavour"? It has a straight taper wing, area ruled fuselage, gotta be the cleanest F1 racer I've seen. It's ugly, though, but it would turn it into a one design event if done properly.

So, who has a 3 view of something else I can design? A plan? A kit for me to build? My impulsive enthusiasm tends to last about one week, so if I don't get going on something soon I might lose interest and just get my electric F3D model going instead. I do have lots of pics of an F1 racer called "carbon slipper", but no 3 views - will photos suffice for design approval? It's like most other home made F1's a Cassutt tubular fuselage covered in foam and glassed, with a foam/glass wire cut wing. As the fuselage is all streamlined (like Outrageous), it's a lot more work to design and scratch build, though.

Stu.
stumax is offline Find More Posts by stumax
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 05:56 PM
Registered User
dkane's Avatar
USA
Joined Jul 2002
747 Posts
Lastly, Jerry also designed the F3D (Kaze Killer) GR7. As he said it was near and dear to him.

Stu, you are absolutely correct. You know, I know, Jerry knows it. The problem is if a line isn't drawn in the sand, where does it stop? I don't want Jerry to take the brunt of this. He is not on an island all by himself. Several are working on this cohesively. I happen to be one. Our intention is to generate interest (which we have), discuss possible modifications to the rules (which we have), and get planes out there for people to fool around with (VERY CLOSE!!!).

Please understand what the means to the end is. IF we open the door now, basement gets flooded later.

DK
dkane is offline Find More Posts by dkane
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 06:06 PM
The blade numbers go up to 11
stumax's Avatar
Sydney, Australia
Joined Aug 2002
4,380 Posts
Dan, I understand completely, but I just don't see how we can stop something like Endeavour, as it fits all the requirements and the rules which haven't been written yet to keep it simple. Perhaps the only way is to create a list of acceptable prototypes, all of which are of simple, conventional layout. I'm not unhappy about this, don't think for a second I'm having a go at Jerry (even though his GR-7, in the hand of Dub Jett, beat me & Ranjit at the 91 world champs), I just want something to build and fly. I have been looking at building a 70's style pattern model (a Mach 1, actually) with big power so I can go fast and do precise aerobatics, but this has taken my interest away from that.

Getting planes out there for us to fool around with is imperative, which is why I want to design something and post plans for everyone, as it's more than a little frustrating sitting here so far away from it all and watching you guys having all the fun.

Stu.
stumax is offline Find More Posts by stumax
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 06:37 PM
One Idiot is plenty...
Dbox's Avatar
Planet Earth
Joined Jun 2005
5,119 Posts
Where I could find a plans for that red "Endeavour"?
Thanx.
Yuri.
Dbox is offline Find More Posts by Dbox
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 06:48 PM
Current project: Electrolyte
pdawg's Avatar
United States, OH, Dayton
Joined Apr 2004
5,462 Posts
I'm more than happy racing an LR-1A but I eventually would love a race legal Nemesis or Polecat.
pdawg is online now Find More Posts by pdawg
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 08:08 PM
Pile-it
Alien_Tech's Avatar
United States, CA, Palmdale
Joined Nov 2007
1,680 Posts
Mt first two choices were a GR-7 and Alley Cat. Unfortunately they don't meet the current specifications. I can accept that as I really just want to come and play at this point.

I'm sure someone will turn up with a Nemesis sooner or later
Alien_Tech is online now Find More Posts by Alien_Tech
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 08:55 PM
Registered User
USA, TX, Midland
Joined Nov 2002
199 Posts
***
JFisher304 is offline Find More Posts by JFisher304
Last edited by JFisher304; Jan 28, 2010 at 08:58 PM. Reason: Beating a dead horse.
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 09:53 PM
Registered User
USA, TX, Midland
Joined Nov 2002
199 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by stumax View Post
OK, no worries, I can see the logic, but I'm gonna build a GR-7 anyway (just because it's cool and would make a great sport model anyway, and a nice change from the expensive big EDF models i seem to be crashing far too frequently), and design something else and see if there really is an advantage. It's not going to be like the giant scale F1 racing where you do need a GR-7 in order to win, I think flying and prop selection is going to be the most critical part of the event. BTW, what are you going to do to stop people making a model of "Endeavour"? It has a straight taper wing, area ruled fuselage, gotta be the cleanest F1 racer I've seen. It's ugly, though, but it would turn it into a one design event if done properly.

So, who has a 3 view of something else I can design? A plan? A kit for me to build? My impulsive enthusiasm tends to last about one week, so if I don't get going on something soon I might lose interest and just get my electric F3D model going instead. I do have lots of pics of an F1 racer called "carbon slipper", but no 3 views - will photos suffice for design approval? It's like most other home made F1's a Cassutt tubular fuselage covered in foam and glassed, with a foam/glass wire cut wing. As the fuselage is all streamlined (like Outrageous), it's a lot more work to design and scratch build, though.

Stu.
Maybe the Aero Magic Cassutt http://home.att.net/~f1race43/

or the Snoshoo www.snoshoo.com

Yellow Peril http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cassu...cer/1273155/L/

Judy http://www.airliners.net/photo/Kreim...-IV/1145051/L/

Sly Dog (Okie Swinger) very similar to the Sundowner http://www.airliners.net/photo/Wagne...Air/1643689/L/
JFisher304 is offline Find More Posts by JFisher304
Last edited by JFisher304; Jan 28, 2010 at 10:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2010, 11:21 PM
One Idiot is plenty...
Dbox's Avatar
Planet Earth
Joined Jun 2005
5,119 Posts
Great pix ,but still no 3D view.
Yuri.
Dbox is offline Find More Posts by Dbox
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2010, 07:23 AM
Registered User
Southlake, Tx
Joined Apr 2002
370 Posts
Wow,
the three views of the Snoshoo look very good.
Also, the best 3 views found in one place are in a 2 book set by Robert S Hirsch.
"Goodyear & formula one racing". Volume one covers 1947-67 and volume two covers1967-95. Search google. They are not that expensive and have a wealth of drawings.
jerry
FanTasticModels is offline Find More Posts by FanTasticModels
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Formula One Scale Racing El Pe High Performance 9 Sep 26, 2013 07:30 PM
Sold HPI Racing Formula Ten w/lipo speedcontrol and motor $200.00 Shipped Mikemynameis Cars - Cars and Parts (FS/W) 1 Nov 09, 2009 01:14 PM
For Sale HPI Racing Formula Ten w/lipo speedcontrol and motor Mikemynameis Cars - Cars and Parts (FS/W) 2 Nov 09, 2009 12:52 PM