un dead stickable models?

In news:vubRd.8976$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com, Steve Banks pecked:

Not sure about models, but there are a bunch of real aircraft that turn into bricks without power. The F-4 Phantom comes to mind...

Or the F-104. BTW are those REALLY wings or just mounts for external fuel tanks?

Ever try to dead stick an Airmadillo? Those puppies REALLY fly on the prop, not the wing.

Jim

"Dave Thompson" wrote in news:4FcRd.32855$6u.7997@fed1read02:

Crash site recovery crews call the F-16 a "lawn dart".

-- HPT

I've seen the F-104 up close. Wing section is really thin. It was coined "missle with a man in it", designed for high altitude high speed pursuit, not dog fighting. West German Air Force used them for a long time. They'd practice nap-of-the-earth with them. I guess in a sense you could call them a piloted cruise missle.

1/2-A profile C/L planes with the 18" wingspan did not glide worth a durn once power ran out. I had to quickly put the nose down and may be get a 1/3rd circle out of it if I was lucky. Otherwise they'd quickly stall and fall.

I think what it has to do with is planes with high wing loading usually don't glide too well. You have to keep up the airspeed so the wings are effective enough to create lift.

In a glide situation, airspeed tapers way off due to drag to the point the airplane cannot maintain enough speed for wing effectiveness. One might be able to put such a plane into a dive and hope that enough airspeed is built up to pull up at the last minute for a hot landing. A powered plane also has the propellor which accelerates movement of air faster than the airstream by forward movement, creating greater lift by the prop wash past the inboard wing section. That there is probably why the FMS plane flies well with the prop on but poorly with the prop off.

I had fun as a kid modifying those Northwest Pacific gliders and stick rubber RTF's. I'd take the stabilizer off a badly crashed one, split the stab in half and mount it as a wing in the plastic dihedral clip mount. I could get it glide decently if I moved the wing way forward past the center of balance, but it would wobble side to side like a pendulum while gliding.

Anyway, my 2-cents.

BTW, Ambroid, Testor's and Comet wood glues were life savers on those sheet balsa planes, I patch many of them up with the glue; flew them way beyond most kid's patience and ability.

-- HPT

I had two RC aircraft that turned into bricks when powered off. I built a Great Planes ElectroStreak and if I ran the motor battery too low the auto cut-off on the ESC turned it into a stone. Only way to flare was a near vertical dive followed by a hard pull-up just over the deck. Those high-speed belly landings on grass always induced some serious pucker.

Other culprit was a GeeBee from scratch. OS .46 and a span not much more than the prop dia. Only made two safe landings with that one. Third one on dead stick required a lawn rake. Never liked that plane anyway.

John Krueger

The drag of the control lines themselves was a factor there, and the low inertia of the airplane compared to its overall drag figured into it, too. Basic ultralight airplanes suffer the same sort of problem, with wires and struts and open cockpits and a stopped prop all creating a pile of drag. They can deadstick, but won't land too far from where the engine quit. Pilot has to be careful to flare just right.

Dan

The problem with the F-16 is it is not primarily stable! It requires the computers to keep it going straight. That's why it is so maneuverable. Quad redundant computer control. Lose one channel and you are OK. Lose two and you punch out!

Most of the time the CL problem was having the CG too fat forward. Many of the early Goldberg and Sterling 1/2As were like that. The best one I ever flew was the Lil Wizard. You could fly that one in cross winds so bad that on the upwind side, the plane could fly over your head on slack lines! What a hoot!

IDK how much a forward CG affects things but we used to be able to whip our .15 sized cl combat planes in figure 8s indefinitely given a decent crosswind. 'Course it's hard to take a cut when the engine's off :-)

"Paul McIntosh" wrote in news:42167eed$0$63934$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net:

Talking with the pilots, it doesn't glide well. The airmen who do the recovery of the plane call it a lawn dart.

-- HPT

"Paul McIntosh" wrote in news:42167f7f$0$61463$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net:

Well, there are a couple things going on. My OS .15 powered Ringmaster Jr. will glide in nicely for a landing. Steel lines don't seem to exhibit the drag that the dacron lines do. It's CG is at the leading edge, which hampers it's stunt performance. It was originally designed for the unmuffled baffle engines, which are about two ounces lighter. If I shortened the fuselage nose about an inch, it would probably balance okay. Except for the Schneurle ported engines being thirstier (drinks the two ounch tank dry if fairly short order), it seems to haul it around okay.

-- HPT

Dan_Thomas snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

That's pro'ly the closest to truth explanation I have had yet.

-- HPT

Yea, they glide like a brick! I was the QA on the simulators at Luke. We used to do silly things like see how little fuel we could use on distance runs down to the Goldwater range. Start on the end of the runway with 2000 pounds and see if we could take off, climb to 10,000, drop a bomb in the scoring ring and return.

I only made it once! Other times, when the tank ran dry and the EPU ran out, the plane would just become a tumbling die.

Boo wrote in news:42173036$0$8749$ snipped-for-privacy@news.zen.co.uk:

Actually, those C/L combat planes were the 1st 3D airplanes. ;-)

-- HPT

"Paul McIntosh" wrote in news:42177f24$0$61861$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net:

They are reminiscient of the $0.05 molded styrene plastic airplanes I used to buy back in the mid '60s. They had about a 4-1/2 inch wingspan and were a flying wing with turned up aileron tabs. They came with a rubber banded stick for catapult. They'd fly fine for about the first 75 feet, then fall out of the sky when air speed tapered off.

- HPT

Yup, that's about right!

Hehe... I have a Ringmaster Jr. with an OLD Fox .15 on the nose. Unmuffled, canted plug, and still perform very well. Makes the guys at the field stop and stare when I fly it.

I'm building a Brodak Flite Streak, the original was my first "big" CL plane back in the early '70s. Have a Fox 36X engine with a fresh piston and liner waiting for that one. No muffler for it either... it just wouldn't be right. :-)

Jack

"Jack Goff" wrote in news:BOORd.6202$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.southeast.rr.com:

Jest not right? Doesn't that describe C/L flyers in general? ;-)

I've got a Sterling F6F Hellcat C/L purchased just prior to them going under and a Testors 40 C/L baffle engine w/o muffler. I have a Dubro header muffler for it. Won't be totally AMA compliant, should remove "some" of the bark but not the bite.

-- HPT