Are 3-D planes a bit of a 'cheat'?

[paul devereux]

I was walking my dog in our local rec today when I saw someone flying a 3-D plane: about 40 inch span, it wasn't profile (it had a thick fuselage), but it had comparatively huge flying surfaces and control surfaces, and vertical winglets on the ends of the main-plane and a small horizontal winglet on top of the fus. So it was custom-built for aerobatics. And he did a lot- consecutive rolls, rolls when climbing vertically, far tighter loops inside and outside than I could manage, and it all looked impressive. One dog-walker clapped and shouted "well done" when he landed and she wasn't being ironic.

Now my question is, to people more knowledgeable than myself:  he was obviously very skilled, and in perfect control of his plane at all times- but was he cheating by having a model custom-built to do these things? I'm trying to teach myself to do some basic aerobatics, using YouTube and this forum, but I'm not even sure if I had his skill that my little, battered Wot 4 would be capable of doing much like that. Or is it the case that, he probably learned on what I have, and that if I had his plane I would soon be in trouble, the same as my first flights on my sports plane used to get me in trouble then?

I suppose this question might boil down to: would I find learning basic aerobatics easier on a 3-D plane or easier on my sports plane? I'm well aware that my age is against me (old dogs and new tricks, etc).

[Nigel R]

Perhaps it is me, but I find that a Strange point of view. Particularly given the context of your post about aspiring to aerobatics of the standard shown in the fly baby video. 

 

I would simply answer no, they are not a cheat. Would you find it easier to learn on, probably not much, for now. 

[Peter Jenkins]

Paul, there are 2 types of aerobatics.  Precision aerobatics, or what used to be ordinary aerobatics, and 3D aerobatics where for much of the time the aircraft is relying on engine power to maintain its attitude and fly manoeuvres as wing lift is either zero or very small.  The biggest difference between the two airframes is that for precision aerobatics the control surfaces are relative small whereas for 3D, as you have seen, the control surfaces are much larger.  Again this reflects the lower speed, or no speed, of 3D aerobatics.  You can fly precision aerobatics with a 3D design but you need to turn down the control throws very significantly but it is not easy.  It is difficult, and some manoeuvres impossible, to fly 3D aerobatics with a precision aerobatic design.  CG for a 3D machine tends to be more rearward than for a precision aerobatic design which makes the 3D aircraft less stable.

 

You will find 3D impossible (apart from prop hanging if you have sufficient power) with your Wot 4 but you could fly precision aerobatic manoeuvres (these do not include the tight loops a 3D machine can fly) are well within a Wot 4's capability provided that you have the aircraft properly trimmed and set up.  I have written a book intended for beginners and improvers on flying precision aerobatics which has sold in 11 countries and has been well received.  If you would like to know more about the book please PM me.

[Learner]

No its not a cheat, its using the best tools for the job in hand.

Light weight 3d foamy planes are very common now and with the throws tamed in a light wind are no more difficult to fly than your wot 4.

 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

It's only advancing the flying world, from cavemen throwing stones, spears, free flight, balsa Artf, now 3D, a club member is well into it, and it'e amazing what he can do, although he is a professional architect and has all the tools to design and the spare time.

[Trevor]

A small (circa 1m wingspan) foamie can be a big help in practicing new aerobatics or just gaining the confidence to fly your existing repertoire a bit lower and closer. So no, not cheating, just an excellent aerobatic trainer/improver.

[Jon H]

It is a cheat if you allow yourself to think you are better than you are because you are flying a model which does half the work for you. 

 

Say for example you have a model which you are struggling with. You can either carry on, try to improve your skills, or take the easy way out and just buy something easier to fly. That's fine if you eventually swing back to the original model that caused you trouble and then master it once you have more experience, but if you just stop with the easy model and convince yourself that the other model was the problem and not your own skills then you have not done yourself any favours. 

 

As the others all say though its horses for courses. If you are using one of these to try and learn aerobatics (the goal being a 30 or 50cc jobby) then i would skip it as its going to teach you a variety of bad habits which the bigger model will not tolerate. If on the other hand smaller 3d type models are the models you fly most, or you aspire towards, then by all means have at it. 

[extra slim]

Just IMO, it is worth investing some time, understanding wing loading, and characteristics of aircraft with differing numbers. It isn't so much size, it is more about wing loading, weight, stall speed and characteristics, inertia etc. Lightweight and low wing loaded foamies with large surfaces, are often small and hence relatively cheap, are responsive, electric, and hence are good fun models to "practice" control inputs. HOWEVER, the flying characteristics of this type of model, cannot simply be extrapolated moving up in size, weight and powerplant, with wing loading being a valuable (but not limited to) indicator. A warbird is an entirely different animal, a WOT 4 equally different to the foamy, gliders, different again... there are all manner of differences.. but I would have a squizz at wing loading.. 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

If I understand Jon, you need to build a wooden plane, put a Laser engine in it and feed it with castor free fuel.😅

[Jon H]

Clearly did didnt read my post Paul. Thanks for playing though. 

[Brian Cooper]

It's not cheating. It's about timing and precision.

 

Learn to walk before aspiring to run.

[leccyflyer]

The very notion of "cheating" in something as personal and individual as learning to fly aerobatics is ridiculous. Use the tools to fly the way that you want to fly, whatever they may be. Personally 3D flying leaves me cold, always has done, but a well executed long slow axial roll along the entire length of the field is quite special. Prop hanging and torque rolling? Meh.  That's entirely a personal preference though and it's entirely up to the individual concerned, what type of flying they like and how they will achieve that.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Design and inovation produced a better tool for the style some like flying, no cheat there just a desire to push boundaries, they're good pilots with the everyday stuff as well.

[Nigel R]

6 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

a well executed long slow axial roll along the entire length of the field is quite special

And is, give or take, using some of the exact same skill set as 3d flying.

 

As Brian says, precision and timing. Reactions and spacial judgment. 

[paul devereux]

16 hours ago, Learner said:

No its not a cheat, its using the best tools for the job in hand.

Light weight 3d foamy planes are very common now and with the throws tamed in a light wind are no more difficult to fly than your wot 4.

 

 

8 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

The very notion of "cheating" in something as personal and individual as learning to fly aerobatics is ridiculous. Use the tools to fly the way that you want to fly, whatever they may be. Personally 3D flying leaves me cold, always has done, but a well executed long slow axial roll along the entire length of the field is quite special. Prop hanging and torque rolling? Meh.  That's entirely a personal preference though and it's entirely up to the individual concerned, what type of flying they like and how they will achieve that.

 

8 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

Design and inovation produced a better tool for the style some like flying, no cheat there just a desire to push boundaries, they're good pilots with the everyday stuff as well.

Good points, but, this is just speculation on my part- some pilots advocate the use of gyros, stabilizers, etc. Others advocate models specifically designed for aerobatics- light, huge flying and control surfaces, power-to-weight ratios far exceeding anything achievable in full-size aviation.

Is this taking away some of the skill? 

To take it to it's (il)logical extreme, if you had a plane with a stabilizer and a ground proximity warning sensor, and pre-programmed mixes for knife edge flight and endless rolls, and you flew a faultless aerobatic schedule, would you have achieved more or less than someone with a sports plane with a basic radio? I'm just wondering if aids take away some of the skill. I'm only asking as not being a club flyer, I'm interested in the consensus.

For me, at my stage, learning some basics like a stall turn, or an Immelmann turn is interesting precisely because it is hard.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

There's a world of difference between using a model designed for a particular discipline over attempting the same manoeuvres on a different type of model - or using one with massive artificial assistance.  The former would compare with playing Mozart on a violin or a guitar - you can, to misquote the great Eric Morecambe, play all the right notes in the right order on either instrument but the violin would enable subtle nuances not possible on the guitar.  Either would be capable of displaying the raw skill of the player.

 

In the case of the help from pre-programmed and assistive technology it would be like playing along with a recording by the London Philharmonic Orchestra where your input would be partially masked by their skills.

 

So to get back to model flying, the raw skills can be learnt on any model with the aerodynamic capability to perform them and artificial aids will often detract from the basic learning process - but may equally assist in learning the basics of manoeuvres in the early stages. I don't consider a flyer to be cheating if he uses technology to assist him in the learning process but I respect those more who can take a less suitable model and demonstrate mastery of it with their sheer skill.  Whether they have used technology to reach this level or relied on manual flying exclusively is immaterial.

[Learner]

7 hours ago, paul devereux said:

 

For me, at my stage, learning some basics like a stall turn, or an Immelmann turn is interesting precisely because it is hard.

Then I suggest you get yourself a plane with only rudder elevator as your cheating with your aerobatic wot 4!

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Learner

[Wookman]

On 20/07/2023 at 22:23, paul devereux said:

but was he cheating by having a model custom-built to do these things?

No. It is having the right tool for the job. Would you put a nail in with a screwdriver?

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

1 minute ago, Wookman said:

No. It is having the right tool for the job. Would you put a nail in with a screwdriver?

Why not, in the 60's Wiggins the builders 'persuaded' wood screws to hang doors in new houses with a hammer.😄

[Wookman]

30 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

Why not, in the 60's Wiggins the builders 'persuaded' wood screws to hang doors in new houses with a hammer.😄

Which is exactly why I didn’t say “put a screw in with a hammer”

[Brian Cooper]

Bottom line:

Those who are proficient at flying aerobatics make it look easy.

Those who are learning to fly aerobatics are convinced the experts are cheating. 

 

Proficiency is gained by practicing. 

There are no shortcuts. 

There is no substitute for practice. . . . and yet more practice. 

[SIMON CRAGG]

I have got an Olympus F3A model which is sold as both F3A and 3D capable.

 

Can be flown on either 5 or 6s.

 

Different props for the two disciplines.

 

Interesting concept.

 

Worth a look?.

[paul devereux]

42 minutes ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

I have got an Olympus F3A model which is sold as both F3A and 3D capable.

 

Can be flown on either 5 or 6s.

 

Different props for the two disciplines.

 

Interesting concept.

 

Worth a look?.

Thanks. Is it this one: FMS F3A OLYMPUS 3D SPORT PLANE – Inwood Models ?

I also found this thread on F3A:

Yes, I'm definitely interested in such models. I shall see how I get on with my sports flying and consider investing in something more agile.

Edited July 22, 2023 by paul devereux

[Peter Jenkins]

The Olympus is an excellent choice for the first proper F3A acrobatic aircraft.  However,trimming an F3A aircraft takes time and involves making sure the thrust line is correct so that effects of power changes are negated as far as possible.  There is slso the task of getting the relationship between the wing and tail incidence.  These are difficult to achieve with the Olympus so it is a compromise but nevertheless an excellent choice for improving your precision aerobatics.  I cannot comment on how good it is at 3D as I have no interest in flying 3D.

One thing to remember is that, like all foamies, it does not hold trim well in comparison with all wood construction.  Be prepared to have to re-trim the Olympus every flying session.  If you think that is not the case then your flying skills still have some way to go as does your ability to observe what the aircraft is doing - it's just a fact.  The Olympus does provide resistance to minor damage that would require a trip to the workshhop for a "crunchie" though!

Remember that less control movement is better for precision aerobatics - something that new comers to the discipline find hard to understand until they fly a properly set up F3A airframe.

[paul devereux]

On 20/07/2023 at 23:31, Nigel R said:

Perhaps it is me, but I find that a Strange point of view. Particularly given the context of your post about aspiring to aerobatics of the standard shown in the fly baby video. 

 

I would simply answer no, they are not a cheat. Would you find it easier to learn on, probably not much, for now. 

That's why I'm asking. It's similar to my doubt about gyros. I want to learn to fly proficiently, but really learn, if you see what I mean. My concern about having "aids" is that they might actually prevent me from learning. I'm just trying to get advice from more experienced flyers.That's all.