Biplane Fanatics

[pitviper51]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Hinckley Bill
	Even better closeup vid of a great looking and great performing Pitts S2C YouTube - aerobatics in a Pitts S2C with Grayout Aerosports Come on Bill ..... GO PITTS OR DON'T GO AT ALL

nice pitts flying! the uber low passes rock,, great avatar to..
mike

[Hinckley Bill]

	Quote: Originally Posted by pitviper51
	nice pitts flying! the uber low passes rock,, great avatar to.. mike

Mike,

Found the pic for the avatar by accident on a German RC manufacturer's website.....click on it and see the other pic in my profile.

Trying to make adrian proud!

Bill

[pitviper51]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Craven
	Well said QQ.

agreed.. i hate copycat builders.:7aa:

[Thirteen Wings]

I had a great conversation with Quique today. I hope he shares his same imput soon. I'll leave it up to him. Thanks again Quique!

[k3sui]

What every happed to the Reed Falcon. That is a very nice plane and seems to meet the criteria. I've had a couple of Ultimates and they were GREAT planes ... but I am getting a little bored with them.

The Pitts is a great plane ... but it is short coupled and has a straight lower wing. This is something which has been determined to be negative in prior postings. Also, some years ago, when I still had my flying license, I managed about ~20 hours in an S2. It was a beautiful plane, and I still love the design ... but I always felt that it was a ground loop waiting to happen. After landing one of those I felt like I had run the 100 yard dash!! I never looped it but I got a case of the puckers on more than one occasion. I would assume that this would translate into the model.

Barry in WV

[rcheliman]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Hinckley Bill
	Mike, Found the pic for the avatar by accident on a German RC manufacturer's website.....click on it and see the other pic in my profile. Trying to make adrian proud! Bill

Adrian will be proud of you, let's see some more.

[rcheliman]

	Quote: Originally Posted by toc pilot
	I think to really understand the differences between an Ultimate and the S-12's, one would have to have flown both. I have never flown the S-12's but I did see QQ fly his at the TAS. QQ is a master flyer and we all know that he could win flying a Kadet or at least make it look good. Maybe QQ can post his comments on the differences between the 2 planes. I am sure we would get a pro-S-12 report and would be very insightful between the differences. QQ????? As far as the Hanger 9 Ultimate, I think it is a great airplane!! It was a good decision to not go with flying wires to make it user-friendly for the customers. I think the changes I would make to the plane is to make the wings as thin as possible and add an airfoled tail section. IMO, I do not think I could ever tell the difference between a round fuslage and one that is not, at least in its rolling ability (differences). I do know that having both the Top and bottom wings swept really helps in the rolling of the airplane. I was speaking with Chip Hyde a few days ago and he also agreed that having a straight LE on the bottom wing of a bi-plane was bad news for rolling. For production purposes, the Ultimate could be build lighter and cheaper than an S-12. This is good for customers. Another plus for me is that I really like how the Ultimate looks. Now I know there are a lot of you out there that are tired of seeing Ultimates but you can't go wrong with them, flying-wise. Do mis-understand me though...... The S-12 planes look really cool and I like them a lot but for 'our' needs the Ultimate would be a better choice for the 3W-275. Mike B..... Do not joke about building a DR-1. You have no idea how close I am about designing a 50% bersion of this!!!! That would be really cool! BH

Bill,

Why don't you consider an Ultimate with the corrections you mentioned above and design it around the 3W 275 and put a really cool color scheme on it. Us guy's that are Ultimate fans would jump on board with both feet. Hangar 9 has definetly hit a home run with the 46% and there still making them, so you know they are great flying machines and people are still buying them. but with your help tweaking them a bit and up scaling them it would be awesome airframe.

[Quique]

	Quote: Originally Posted by toc pilot
	I think to really understand the differences between an Ultimate and the S-12's, one would have to have flown both. I have never flown the S-12's but I did see QQ fly his at the TAS. QQ is a master flyer and we all know that he could win flying a Kadet or at least make it look good. Maybe QQ can post his comments on the differences between the 2 planes. I am sure we would get a pro-S-12 report and would be very insightful between the differences. QQ????? As far as the Hanger 9 Ultimate, I think it is a great airplane!! It was a good decision to not go with flying wires to make it user-friendly for the customers. I think the changes I would make to the plane is to make the wings as thin as possible and add an airfoled tail section. IMO, I do not think I could ever tell the difference between a round fuslage and one that is not, at least in its rolling ability (differences). I do know that having both the Top and bottom wings swept really helps in the rolling of the airplane. I was speaking with Chip Hyde a few days ago and he also agreed that having a straight LE on the bottom wing of a bi-plane was bad news for rolling. For production purposes, the Ultimate could be build lighter and cheaper than an S-12. This is good for customers. Another plus for me is that I really like how the Ultimate looks. Now I know there are a lot of you out there that are tired of seeing Ultimates but you can't go wrong with them, flying-wise. Do mis-understand me though...... The S-12 planes look really cool and I like them a lot but for 'our' needs the Ultimate would be a better choice for the 3W-275. Mike B..... Do not joke about building a DR-1. You have no idea how close I am about designing a 50% bersion of this!!!! That would be really cool! BH

I agree with Bill about have to fly the airplanes to have a full understanding of the design. Thank you Bill for your comments about my flying skills. You are a gifted talent flier as I watch you flying for many years in the competition circle and a pioneer for big aerobatic airplanes!
I am not totally agree with Bill about his "Kadet" comment. As you know guys you can be a good flier but if you do not have the right equipment, the right airplane and the right set up then top performance will not show up. Pilot, airplane and set up all 3 elements and in not particular order are equally important to reach that top performance.

Me posting the difference between the two airplanes I do not think it is a good idea. I am a modeler like all of you chatting here at this thread but I also design airplanes so I do not think will be best idea to get involved in comparison of airplanes that belong to other designers. I can talk some about my own concept and design.

I did think few years ago that straight LE of the bottom wing was a bad news for rolls/performance but I learned is not. Same happened in the pass when I introduced the Yak54, round nose it was a bad news for performance.
Roll is not the only family maneuver we have to execute. In unlimited class we do all kind aerobatic maneuvers, 9 families’ right? If a family maneuver highlights today in IMAC, that family it will be the snap. But in my concept even snaps that are a key maneuver still only one family to do and not all the maneuvers. To me the design that best does perform, it is the one that best execute all of the family maneuvers and not just one or two. That will be the most balance design. That it is the best design. Big fuselage with thin wings it is best way to distribute the drag. Big fuse presents better. The airplane looks bigger. This is very important especially with biplanes as biplane’s fuse tends to be smaller in size in regards to monoplane with same engine size. Bigger fuse means more side lift, means less angle of attack when the airplane flies at knife edge. Result of this are very favorable, better rolls, rolling circle, rolling loop, knife edge loop…etc. In my experience I do not see bigger fuselage increases cost. For example the TI-12 fuse is round front transitioning to an oval shape turtle deck, rear side section and flat bottom, so it is structurally ideal shape to have a very rigid fuselage with very narrow formers, few stringers and minimum sheeting. The fuse is very light and rigid.
Finally and the most important it is coupling. For me absolutely the most important element to fly the airplane with precision, smoothness and enjoyment is to have none or minimum coupling. How much your enjoyment it will be if you touch the rudder and your airplane pitches and roll at same time? If we base our design on the 10% IMAC rule, keeping the looks and shape as close to the full scale, it will be difficult to achieve the balance and the performance that I just described above with a biplane design that would differ much in concept from the TI-12.
The look of the airplane it is very personal and all of us have a different taste about this matter. However there are always more people that like or do not like one or other design and that is what make some airplanes to be more or less likeable/popular than others. My vote goes for Ti-12 for looks and overall concept of the design; after all it is the latest release of full size aerobatic airplane. Full size TI-12 flew for first time ever Sep. 10th 2008!!

Regards.

[toc pilot]

Yes QQ, you are absolutly correct about the 3 elements we must have to be a good flyer. Having the right equipment, airplane and set up are a 'must'. I believe one of the most 'over looked' items people do not work on is; the set up of an airplane. It drives me crazy to watch an event like the TAS or an IMAC contest and see very good talented people struggle with their airplanes because they are not flying straight or true. When I am testing a new airplane it will take me 50-100 flights to get it just right. QQ, I am sure will back me up on this. When you fly a new airplane, you must spend time flying an analizing that airplane for perfection. You must make changes to the CG, programming, thrustline, incidences, differential, etc. Each time you make a small change, it will have an effect on all other parameters of the airplane and everything will have to be checked agian. I would say the most important factor in setting up a plane is the CG, differential and programming. Anyway, I am off track on the subject........ sorry.


QQ, thank you for your perspective on the TI-12. Hopefully one day I will have a chance to fly one of these. I am sure I would love flying or competing with one of these. I bet everyone here on FG would love a chance to fly one of these. Agian, you have brought new change to the RC industry, first proovng the Yak with a round cowling can be made to fly perfect with authority and agian with the TI-12!! Keep up the great work.

Bill

[Quique]

	Quote: Originally Posted by toc pilot
	Yes QQ, you are absolutly correct about the 3 elements we must have to be a good flyer. Having the right equipment, airplane and set up are a 'must'. I believe one of the most 'over looked' items people do not work on is; the set up of an airplane. It drives me crazy to watch an event like the TAS or an IMAC contest and see very good talented people struggle with their airplanes because they are not flying straight or true. When I am testing a new airplane it will take me 50-100 flights to get it just right. QQ, I am sure will back me up on this. When you fly a new airplane, you must spend time flying an analizing that airplane for perfection. You must make changes to the CG, programming, thrustline, incidences, differential, etc. Each time you make a small change, it will have an effect on all other parameters of the airplane and everything will have to be checked agian. I would say the most important factor in setting up a plane is the CG, differential and programming. Anyway, I am off track on the subject........ sorry. QQ, thank you for your perspective on the TI-12. Hopefully one day I will have a chance to fly one of these. I am sure I would love flying or competing with one of these. I bet everyone here on FG would love a chance to fly one of these. Agian, you have brought new change to the RC industry, first proovng the Yak with a round cowling can be made to fly perfect with authority and agian with the TI-12!! Keep up the great work. Bill

I back up Bill 100% with his comments about the time it takes to set up an airplane. That is very true infact some times never ends! Always something new to try, prop, engine, servos, pipe etc. As Bill say one change means some other change to match and move the overall performance to next level.
I appreciate Bill your comments. I also thank you for always pushing the envelope to get model airplanes bigger with outstanding performance.

Regards

[crhammond]

Bill And Quique - It is great of the two of you to come on line and discuss this stuff in the open with everyone. Your passion for the hobby and willingness to share are really helpful and inspiring to someone like me who only recently started competing in IMAC (3 years ago.) I don't own one of Bill's airplanes (yet) but I do have a QQ Python and it flies really, really well.

Whenever we do IMAC boot camps and seminars we are always pounding home the fact that you have to spend time to trim your plane and really get to know its characteristics before you can compete successfully with it. You can tell the guys who do vs. the ones who don't. I recently crashed my primary plane (40% Extra) right on the practice day before a contest. My backup plane is a 1st class airplane - but I did not have it trimmed out properly and was not comfortable with it. I can tell you I suffered all weekend so what you are saying is 100% true!

Bill - I'd love to see a big bipe for sure - but I'm also interested in how you go with the Yak 55M. So far a I haven't seen anyone competing with your big planes in IMAC but it seems like they really should be awesome for it - especially the 55M!

I saw a full scale 55M at an airshow this summer. It flew really great - but you are totally right about up close! I snuck accross the field to see it (parked way off to the side.) When I got there I was shocked how nasty it looked! No wonder they didn't want it where anyone could see LOL. But in the air - a thing of beauty!

[vsnap]

Quique,
Got the note thanks. I have a question for you. I am getting ready to start the Trueworthy pitts and will keep it in the M-12 layout for now (might make a second hatch) but I will use it for IMAC next year. What benefits did you find with a lower stab vs the stock location. Since I have not started this would be the time to change that part of the build if it makes for a big difference.
Thanks
Scott

[Mjmacleod]

Why isn't the Weeks Solution ever mentioned?

[crhammond]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Mjmacleod
	Why isn't the Weeks Solution ever mentioned?

It was ... I asked and on page 6 Bill said:

"Weeks Solution: great possibilities but I have one of these too and the airplane just does not track well. It will only be for freestyle. Weidner Modelbau already sells the 52% version. So why re-invent the wheel. Cool airplane though! I need more time with the one I own!"

[Thirteen Wings]

Thank you Quique for sharing our conversation....

Bill, how serious are you about really bringing out a "big" bipe? I have no idea what it takes, I'll admit that right up front. What would it take to really talk you into it? After 10 pages on this thread are you getting an idea of what you would like to do? (Or what would sell?) Nothing like being put under pressure. I guess the Wright Bros. felt a little of that in the beginning as well. Wing warping...what were they thinking?