WW 1 rules update - Page 4 - RCCanada - Canada Radio Controlled Hobby Forum
RCCanada - Canada's Radio Control Hobby Forum
Combat Discuss Aerial Combat.

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-17-2004, 06:53 PM   #31
RCC Junior Contributor
deyeallen's Avatar
I am: mike a
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London ONT

Feedback: 4 / 100%
Posts: 200
Total Props: 0

       Remove this ad - become a site supporter!

You simply enlarge the 3 views or the scale plan you are using until you reach at least a wingspan of 42 inches. You increase everything together tail stab and fuselage.The only modifications from exact scale shape is you may lengthen the nose or shorten the tail to help with balance. The mods to the fuse are listed in top of this thread.Other than that just take the plane you are building and scale it up to at least 42 inches. The planes are about 1/8th scale but not all will be ,some will be bigger than 1/8th.Do not blow the fuse up to 1/8th and then keep going on the wing until you have reached 42 inches . Your aircraft at 1/8th you said has a 36 inch wing span so keep enlarging everything until you hit a span of 42.Your plane will look goofy if you stop at an 1/8th on the fuse and tail and go to 42 inches on the wings only.
deyeallen is offline   Quick reply to this message.

Sponsored Links - Subscribe to remove this ad.
Old 09-17-2004, 10:22 PM   #32
RCC Senior Contributor
Buzz's Avatar
I am: Dan P
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Maple, ON

Feedback: 0 / 0%
Posts: 694
Total Props: 0

With all due respect, what will look even goofier is if he ends up with a 1/6 scale plane, cuz thats just about where he's gotta be to get that wingspan up. For the extra 3" per side in wingspan, it will look alot better than increasing the overall diameter of his fuse.

For example, a 4.5" diameter cowl would turn into a 6" diameter cowl. Sounds a little extreme to me. "Close" to 1/8 is reasonable, but I dont think youd find anyone who would agree that 1/6 is "close" to 1/8.

Is the WW1 rule not the same as the proposed WW2 rule? I was under the understanding that next years rule for WW2 would be that the planes remained at 1/12 and the wingspans could be brought up to 40" or tailgroup increased by 20%.
Dan "Buzz" Paluzzi
MAAC# 38730
Secretary/Treasurer Humber Valley RC Flyers
MAAC R/C Scale Combat Committee
Buzz is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Old 09-20-2004, 08:56 PM   #33
RCC Junior Contributor
deyeallen's Avatar
I am: mike a
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London ONT

Feedback: 4 / 100%
Posts: 200
Total Props: 0
The rules posted at the top of this thread are for the London contest period.Whether they are adopted in or completely thrown out the window will be up to the scale combat committee and hopefully with input from participants in the event.The engine's were left open to choice because of building with coro and following the above rules you are going to get aircraft that have a 6 plus inch cowl, and heavier coro planes that will require an FX.There are also many planes that following the above rules will fly just fine with a bearing engine.I am going to propose to leave the rules the way they are with one exception.At a certain cowl or nose size you may use the FX and anything under that size must use the plain bearing engine.There is no way you can take all the designs that came from either war with all their differences in size, weight ,and engine power and create exact 1/12th or 1/8th airplanes and force them all to one engine. The above amendment will prevent overpowering planes that do not need it and will still allow bigger types to be used that a plain bearing engine will not be enough for. The WW 1 rules have nothing to do with the WW 11 rules. The other way around this problem would be to go the route you were mentioning staying 1/8th on fuse and extending the wings to 42 inches,allowing only bearing engines.The reason that I prefer my position is to have proper looking scale airplanes. They will not be proper scale to each other, but will perform about the same. In the position you stated you will have proper scale fuselages in proportion to each other and wing spans not in proportion to the aircrafts original span making the planes look semi scale, but again they should perform about the same.To Ken I would hold off a cuttin and a gluen until a set of rules are established for next years events.(especially what engine to buy.) :
deyeallen is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Old 09-21-2004, 12:05 AM   #34
RCC Senior Contributor
I am: Jason H
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Strathroy, SW Zone

Feedback: 0 / 0%
Posts: 500
Total Props: 1
I have been watching this WWI stuff for a while now and it looks very interesting. Here are some thoughts I have: Why not just pick a wingspan range, then say only planes that can fit this range at 1/8 scale qualify for WWI ? Although this will limit the types of planes flown, it will certainly remove any questionable scale looking planes, while maintaining the level playing field your looking for. As for the engines, there are a lot of FX's out there from WWII planes and many people won't want to purchase new engines. Couldn't a RPM limitation be used instead? Easy enough to check on the flightline. I don't know if I like the take off landing rules/points system. One part of me says just make take offs with undercarriage mandatory, but then what about the guy who folds his landing gear landing the previous run and can't fix it? The part I don't like now is that the guy who folds the gear on landing loses points, and then may lose points again if he can't change/fix the gear before the next round and has to hand launch. I'd think it's best to drop it all together.
Jason Holdaway

In theory, everything works.
Patch is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Old 09-21-2004, 09:34 AM   #35
RCC Contributor
Bent's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Feedback: 0 / 0%
Posts: 348
Total Props: 0
I'm still trying to get my head around the observed performance of these delightful airplanes. The Dawn Patrol event on Saturday was a spectacular success except for the high attrition rate. I think in the end 7 out of 10 models experienced moderate damage with only one right off (that Nieport was on it's 9th life anyway). In my opinion the main contributing factors to the heavy losses were excessive top speeds, excessive airframe weights, and construction techniques that don't account for impact stresses. The wind may of been the wild card that day but it's better not to add it to the big picture.

I support Mike's bearing engine recommendation. There were some sweet fliers on Saturday that were heavy and used a plain bearing engine. Slowing them down will require less weight or more wing area.
I tried all kinds of props on Albatros and saw no real difference in top end speed.

It' great to part of this core group of combat flyers / designers / builders in Southern Ontario. I'm sure everyone is already thinking about how to make a better WWI bird for next year. The priority for this group is to put together a super simple, crystal clear set of building plans specifically for new WWI combat pilots. We've used all the knowledge and experience gained through WWII to get us to this point with WWI. It's wishful thinking to expect people to sit down with some coro and three views and then show up at our contests next spring. Let's pick a sweet flyin, boxy airplane and pool our talents on this. I think the D7 has the most potential.
Bent is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Old 09-21-2004, 10:47 AM   #36
Bob Byrnes
RCC Expert Contributor
I am: Robert B
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bowmanville, Ontario

Feedback: 10 / 100%
Posts: 911
Total Props: 1
Gary: I think you have the right idea. The D7 is a good candidate. I also thought my SE 5a flew very well. It had the LA engine and was larger than most at 43 inch span. It weighed 4 pounds 10 ounces. I think having both wings being equal size and the extra wing area I had over the others with the smaller lower wing meant my SE 5a carried the weight very well. It certainly was not too difficult to build form the enlarged 3 views. I of course had a lot of you guys to lean on for advice but, all anybody has to do is ask and we will all lend our experiences. I was pleased with the impact absorption my plane displayed. The mid-air and fall to the ground did not stop me. I flew all six rounds. I did have a lot of landing gear jury rigging to do however and improvements to the undercarriage is to me the biggest hurdle left in this design. In terms of a first contest, beyond question the concept has been proven....
Bob Byrnes is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Closed Thread

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the RCCanada - Canada Radio Controlled Hobby Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Member names may only be composed of alpha-numeric characters. (A-Z and 0-9)

!!ATTENTION ADVERTISERS!! If you intend on advertising anything on this forum, whatsoever, you are required to first contact us here . Additionally, we do NOT allow BUSINESS NAMES unless you are an Authorized Vendor. If you own a business, and want to do sales on this site via posting or private message, you will need to follow the rules. Shops, Stores, Distributors, Group Buys without being authorized will see your account terminated.
User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Your Name
Your first name and last initial is required if you plan on using the forum.
Which city & province you live in. This is mandatory for classified listings.
Radio of choice?
Which radio is your current favorite to use?
Number of RC Vehicles?
How many boats, cars, planes do you own?


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
vBulletin Message

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 PM.

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.