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

[SIMON CRAGG]

Paul, yes, that is the one.

 

I was lucky and found a minter for £125 including two unused 6s packs.

 

Its worth keeping an eye on the BMFA and marketplace, as they are expensive new.

 

I have spent a year trimming it for F3A, all good fun.

 

Hope you find one!

[Learner]

29 minutes ago, paul devereux said:

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.

I wouldn't class an Olympus as agile as a Wot4 and although you could perform some 3D with it is not a 3d plane.

It takes up a lot of sky and needs a reasonable length runway to land, certainly would not be suitable for a recreation ground

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Biggest advantage of a properly set up rate gyro is it makes practice in poor conditions more practical. I would definitely discourage any form of heading hold/“safe” facility for anything other than initial flights by someone learning alone from scratch. 

[Peter Jenkins]

Only problem is Martin in having to cope without it!  In my opinion, using any form of stabilisation for aerobatics, even or particularly when learning, is counter productive.  You either want to fly aerobatics or play at flying aerobatics.

 

Each to their own but where is the satisfaction in flying a geometrically accurate and wind corrected manoeuvre?

[Graham Bowers]

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

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).

My take on this, is that not all airframes perform in the same manner, and by both design and setup, they can be optimised for different jobs.

Selecting a design that's optimised for a particular task and setting it up (by CG position, control surface deflections, for example) seems like good sense to me, if one wishes to be successful in a particular aspect of flying style.

 

Electronic stabilisation is out of scope as far as this reply goes.

 

One wouldn't deploy a racehorse to pull a dray ;-)

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Fighter planes and bombers ?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

The stabilisation I was referring to Peter involves corrections for turbulence rather than holding a heading or attitude artificially and in my experience mainly makes a small model handle more like a bigger one in testing conditions.  Such stabilisation doesn't remove the need for crosswind correction and accurate flying but facilitates meaningful practice in less favourable conditions.  As experience is gained then the stabilisation can be reduced/removed but you will have been able to learn many of the basics and develop useful muscle memory by this stage.

 

I don't imagine that you'd argue against using a properly trimmed pattern plane to learn pattern aerobatics but wouldn't similar logic to your viewpoint mean that learning on an untrimmed Super 60 would be better?

[paul devereux]

8 hours ago, Learner said:

I wouldn't class an Olympus as agile as a Wot4 and although you could perform some 3D with it is not a 3d plane.

It takes up a lot of sky and needs a reasonable length runway to land, certainly would not be suitable for a recreation ground

No of course not, but I am lucky in having some private land to fly. The rules for the rec are under 250gm and "under control at all times", so that precludes learning. (Occasionally people fly helis and drones and the odd larger park-fly foamies, but that is their responsibility. I'm not their mum).

So, this is all learning for me, the Olympus-type planes are not 3-D? As I say, the plane I saw was about 40" span, thickish (i.e. not profile) fus and had large flying surfaces. It could fly very precise manoeuvres. It's the kind of flying I aspire to, and I'd like to learn to fly like that, but with a plane that looks at least vaguely like a full-size one, and doesn't have built-in aids to make flying easier.

I accept the 400mm 100gm Eachine warbirds need gyros, they are gimmicky toys that flit around like insects, they would be uncontrollable without them, but to me that isn't really RC flying. 

 

[paul devereux]

 

 

1 hour ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

I don't imagine that you'd argue against using a properly trimmed pattern plane to learn pattern aerobatics but wouldn't similar logic to your viewpoint mean that learning on an untrimmed Super 60 would be better?

I accept that you have more knowledge and experience, but I don't agree with this argument point at all. An untrimmed plane is a liability, no matter what you want to do with it- whether a model or full-size.

You are making a false conflation between trimming and having a stabilizer (if you mean gyro). In fact, I think a stabilizer may mean you don't realise you need to trim your plane- it will keep correcting errors.

Edited July 22, 2023 by paul devereux

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Paul, by trimmed I'm not referring to simple trimming for level flight but the fine trimming of C of G, wing incidence. thrust line, dihedral, differential etc. which is an integral part of more advanced aerobatics.  As I understand it you were looking for advice about learning the basics where practice is the most important factor - the considered use of a gyro may give you more opportunity but I'm certainly not saying that one is necessary.

[Peter Jenkins]

2 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

I don't imagine that you'd argue against using a properly trimmed pattern plane to learn pattern aerobatics but wouldn't similar logic to your viewpoint mean that learning on an untrimmed Super 60 would be better?

Martin, please don't twist my words.  

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Sorry - no intention to twist any words.  I largely agree with what you've posted but I'm trying to illustrate that there are circumstances where a gyro can be of benefit in enabling a novice to learn the basics in less than ideal conditions and that there are differences between simple rate gyros and those involving heading hold.

[Peter Jenkins]

Martin, we'll just have to disagree on the use of aids when learning to fly precision aerobatics.  I can't comment on learning 3D as I don't fly that discipline.  

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Learning to fly aerobatics to a high standard is a big topic, it requires discipline and learning on multiple fronts, most (IMO) start early with their trainers and follow up models, they develop a style/routine to include manouvres aplenty and constantly tweak their models to improve performance, no settling for the given c.g and designers recommended rates, experiment, find what suits your style, tinkering with props, thrustlines, it's a lengthy process that don't come packaged in pretty colours, eventually they're flying models designed for the task, there's no cheat, they fly well because they worked at it.

[Learner]

7 hours ago, paul devereux said:

Occasionally people fly helis and drones and the odd larger park-fly foamies, but that is their responsibility. I'm not their mum).

 

 

You can get quite large planes under 250g but if their breaking the rules dont be suprised if the rule makers decide to blanket ban all rc flight, its easier to police.

The Olympus is a big plane and does fly precision aerobatics quite well but the long rear fuselage doesnt help with 3d. It does need a long well maintained strip to land nicely and also require 5 or 6 cell batteries so more expensive. Fms do an explorer that is similar but smaller so runs on 3s batteries and would be more precise than your wot 4 but no more agile.

Your confusion with trimming is understandable ,after basic trimming for straight and level you trim to make it better in aerobatics  (coming from a car background I would call it tuning but rc flyers are funny folk😘)

[leccyflyer]

9 hours ago, paul devereux said:

No of course not, but I am lucky in having some private land to fly. The rules for the rec are under 250gm and "under control at all times", so that precludes learning. (Occasionally people fly helis and drones and the odd larger park-fly foamies, but that is their responsibility. I'm not their mum).

So, this is all learning for me, the Olympus-type planes are not 3-D? As I say, the plane I saw was about 40" span, thickish (i.e. not profile) fus and had large flying surfaces. It could fly very precise manoeuvres. It's the kind of flying I aspire to, and I'd like to learn to fly like that, but with a plane that looks at least vaguely like a full-size one, and doesn't have built-in aids to make flying easier.

I accept the 400mm 100gm Eachine warbirds need gyros, they are gimmicky toys that flit around like insects, they would be uncontrollable without them, but to me that isn't really RC flying. 

 

Have you actually ever seen the 400mm Eachine warbirds fly? As it happens, due entirely to the technology, they fly like a much larger model and don't flit about like insects, unless the pilot wants them to do. Their flight, in even a strong wind, is incredibly smooth, predictable and precise and flying several at the same time is a complete hoot. If you look closely you can see the ailerons in particular working like mad to keep the flight path smooth and under control. Fitting that tech into such a small package and getting 10 minute+ flights out of a tiny single cell battery is the stuff of dreams. It has precious little to do with the topics of the details of precision or 3D aerobatics, so not sure what relevance they have to this thread.

 

That must be a very clued up local authority you have, to be putting a sub 250g rule for model flying at their recreation ground. Most would probably just put a blanket ban in place - even Aladdin would be grounded.

[Ron Gray]

9 hours ago, paul devereux said:

they would be uncontrollable without them

Not true! With correct control throws they fly very nicely without, but, as Leccy has pointed out, with it on they can be flown around in conditions that would see much larger, non stabilised, models grounded.

[Ron Gray]

The whole subject of stabilisation/ gyros is very interesting and I would agree with Martin in that when used to just dampen external forces, eg strong wind gusts, rotors, shear etc they can give the opportunity to fly in conditions that would normally see a model grounded. There is also an argument that when affecting the rudder only it can help prevent issues with crosswind takeoff and landing (irrespective of the pilot’s rudder control) and provide emergency assistance in the case of an engine failure when flying multi engined models (this last one I know to be true as a rudder only gyro helped prevent my Tigercat from becoming a bin bag job.

 

A few years ago there was an article in the RCM&E regarding warbirds and the usual need to have quite a bit of nose weight added to obtain the correct C of G. The author came up with the idea that if a gyro were to be used then this could do away with the added nose weight as it would always be tiring to keep the model level. I was intrigued by this and did try it out myself, I experimented with, I think it was my foamie WOT4, adding tail weight then flying with the gyro on for the elevator, it really did work and didn’t really add too much disjointed feeling to the normal elevator controls. TBH I haven’t had the courage to transfer this knowledge to my somewhat larger and more valuable warbirds!

 

There is of course another form of ‘assistance’ that can be added to a model and that is a flight controller and whilst they too can add stabilisation they can go much further and when used in conjunction with a GPS semi automated flights can be achieved. I’ve spent quite a bit of time playing around with these in several models and what can be achieved is quite amazing but that is pushing flying models onto the automated drone arena.

 

So I would suggest that stabs / gyros do have a place and can be really useful. When training newbies I do not use them but if those newbies have their own place to fly and want less restrictions due to weather then why not? A lot of them now have SAFE features to assist if you get into trouble, if it saves your model why argue against them. There are some that also provide assistance for ‘3D’ flying, once again if they get you out flying and practicing then why not? And as for the argument that if you use a gyro you will never learn to fly ‘properly’ what a load of bull muck, it may take you longer but does that matter?

[Graham Bowers]

One way for new ideas to become accepted doesn't involve people changing their minds.

History has plenty of examples. 

Planck's principle ;-)

[Ron Gray]

Cadence braking > automatic anti skid braking.

[Brian Cooper]

Gyros: 

I have tried the best and have not liked them. . . I gave them away. 

It is like having a "Nanny" onboard, constantly wagging her finger and saying, "Nanny knows best."

Well, Nanny does NOT ruddy well know best. 

 

Gyros interfere and they delay your control inputs.

They are an infuriating gadget and utterly useless for spirited 3-D flying. 

 

There are no Nannies in any of my models.  

[Ron Gray]

1 hour ago, Brian Cooper said:

Gyros interfere and they delay your control inputs.

If adjusted incorrectly I agree, when adjusted (tuned) correctly you hardly notice them but they can be very affective.

[paul devereux]

15 hours ago, Learner said:

Your confusion with trimming is understandable ,after basic trimming for straight and level you trim to make it better in aerobatics  (coming from a car background I would call it tuning but rc flyers are funny folk😘)

This is new to me! Thanks for mentioning it! I shall do some research.

[paul devereux]

22 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

Paul, by trimmed I'm not referring to simple trimming for level flight but the fine trimming of C of G, wing incidence. thrust line, dihedral, differential etc. which is an integral part of more advanced aerobatics.  As I understand it you were looking for advice about learning the basics where practice is the most important factor - the considered use of a gyro may give you more opportunity but I'm certainly not saying that one is necessary.

Ah, now I understand! Thanks!

[paul devereux]

12 hours ago, Ron Gray said:

The whole subject of stabilisation/ gyros is very interesting and I would agree with Martin in that when used to just dampen external forces, eg strong wind gusts, rotors, shear etc they can give the opportunity to fly in conditions that would normally see a model grounded.

Thanks for the interesting post, Ron. In a sense I think it is a bit like the model equivalent of "fly-by-wire". My personal view, which may well be a minority view, is that I want to try to learn with a model that is a reasonable facsimile of a full-size GA plane without aids. We all have our own preferences, I suppose.