Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 52

.

Levenron's, Rodio
Pry,Ltd.
. 226PirSt., Sydney.

i
ii

i..i
i.

D E S IGN
Fo
AER O M o D ELLER S
A Treatiseon the dcsignof
all woes of model aircratt'
i" a PracticalwaY
-u.iia
without the use of formulae, and with notes on sur:
able sizes of metenats'
based on Ron Warring's
articles ln
series of
AEROMODELLER -..,It'S
You'''
Dcsigned for

Published

THE MODEL

CLARENDON

wAT?oRD

'

1955

CEAPTRONE ,..

... GLIDERS ...

C H A P TE R Two. . .

... RUBBERMODELS

II

CnaprrnTgrus...

... PO\trERDURATION

t7

CHAPTER
FouR ...

... CABIN PO!qER

2l

CHAPTER
FrvE

... LOW VING POV/ER

z)

CHAPTBRSrx

... PAA.LOAD...

29

CHAPTn SsvEN

i..

CSAPTFRErcIIr

... CONTROL LINE STUNT

CnrprrnNrNs ...

,.. CONTROL LINE SPEED

42

C H A P T E R T E N ...

... TEAM RACERS ..,

47

Cneprrn EnwN

... RADIO CONTROL

52

CHAPTER
TwxLvE

... BIPLANES

2l

CHAPTTR THIRTBEN

... FLDAT DESIGN FOR SEAPLANES

61

...

bY

AERONAUTICAL PRESS'LTD'

38

CONTENTS

ROAD
ITBRTS

J!r!^

33

CHAPTER FoTTRTEEN

CANARDS ...

ot

CHAPTER FIRTEEN

HELICOI'TERS

7l

CSAPTIR SETEBN

TAILLBS S

/o

CHAPTER SEWNIBTN

INDOOR

8l

INDEX

87

APPENDICES

89

GLTDERS
r^lrpL^!E srloulo aE MouNrEf)
IIICH ENOUCHTO CLEAFCROUND
VIIII MOOEI AI PEST,I' POSSIAL

FOREWORD

5
'It

I
c.n
P^n^L|.[L

CHOFD Oll

sL^BSTOEO

T^PetEO w|NCS (lN SnC^MUXeO


SHOULOEP WING TAYOUI

publication attempted to cover the


f T is very many years since any model
design
io a single book. So much
of
aeromodelling
range
whole
during
the post-war ycarsthat any
developmenthas taken place in the hobby
such attempt must necessarilydeal only briefly with each type of model,
indeed, some of the more complex ty?es merit a whole book devoted to
them alone.

:
L
I

'ii

lr
i1
. Jti

:'I
.l!

til
ll

I'i
Ii

But the t'ro designeris urged to persevere'If he c:n follow the basic
principles set out in this book, and bring reasonablemanual skill to his ai4
so that he really doesfly what is laid out on his drawing board, then we are
confdent he will not have to wait long for successin whateverbrancheshe
may be attempting.
C. S. RUSHBROOKE,
EDrroRoE A EROMO D ELLER.

ll

lr

t
[]

t;
tt
lil
\,
l:

Within these limitations, however, we feel that DFsIGNFoR ArRodoes provide in easily readable style the basic facts behind the
MoDELLERS
design of all types of models.Vith its aid the comparativenovice can move
easily from the first Phase of building other people's designs into that
infaitely satis$ing secondphase of designing his own' Possibly these early
"own designs" will not equal the contest winning efforts of the experts that
he has former$ copied,but at least he will be able to say "all my own workl"

lli
i! l

r,i i
'1
l

t-:::'l
s a . Mr- a rR c u L ^ n o i

CHAPTER ONE
design is comparatively
/.TLIDER
\J
straightforwird, for flighi stabitity
problems are minimised. Almost any
combination of wings, tailplane and fuselage can be made to glide, even if some of
the components are badly proportioned.
As a typical example, let us take frn area.
A 6n of only three or four per cent. of the
wing area is adequate for stability on the
glide with orthodox rigging and layout,
but such a fin will be lound fa! too small
for to@lirrc sldbilil! in conditions other
than a flat calm.
Basically, it would appear from numerous practical tests, that any model r,vhich
,- is stable unde! tov can be made arsrable
by moving the centre of gravity back,
even though the free flight tdm may be
adjusted to give excellent results with this
new C.G. position. Conversely, some
models which have oroved Lnstablelnde\
tow have beer|made-stableby re-trimmrng
with the C.G. farther forward. With a
fixed (pre-determined) C.G. position the
praclical solution to this problem is an
adiustable tow hook oosition.
-sort
instability of any
is aggravated
by speedingup the model. Thus, a model
which has only marginal towline stability,
may prove quite satisfactory in still air
cooditioas, where the actual airspeed
during the launch can be kept low. The

GLIDERS
same model, however, in gusty or windy
conditions can become quite unstable on
the line, since, *s soon as the airspeed is
allowed to build up for any rcason,
instability sets in and is usually pro'
gresslve,
Obviously, then, it is no good having a
glider which is only stable on tow under
celm conditions. Nor is it safe to assume
that any model is stable under tow until
it has bcen tested under rough v/eather
condltrons.
Directional instability due to oflset
rudder (or other free flight turn tdm) can
be countered bv mechanical metns, and
there ate two 6asic ways of doing this.
Tlre 6$t, and simplest, is to oflset the
tow hooks to one side of the fuselage,
so that the pull on the line tends to turn
rhe modelin one direction.This is counteracted, for a straight tow, by ofiset rudde!,
which, once the model is releasd,gives
circling glide in free flight which is highly
desirable-Fie. l.
Any deerei of rudder ollset will act
aeainit thi turn under tow, induccd by
tf,e offset hooks. Control is then entirely
in the hands of the launcher, who adjusts
the towing speed to suit the coDditions
prevailing and thus maintain a straight
tow uD.
Thisecond method utiliscs a mechanical

GLIDERS

DasrcN roR AERoHoDTLLIRS

!.!.9,_-t

form of rudder 4djustment which holds


the rudder central ior a straight tow and
then, as soon as the model is off the line'
allows the rudder to move ovr a Pre_
determined amount for a circling glide.
In other wotds, the aerodynamic set
uo is such that. with strrieht trim ihe
model has adequnte lowline slxbility
and the onus for a successfullaunch lies
in the design of the model, rather than
in the skill of the launcher.

Auto-Rudders
The original auto-rudder method,
wotked ofl a pivoted tow hook. With the
line in position the tow hook is pulled
forward, moving the rudder str:right.
Once the line is rcleased,the tow hook is
spring loaded to move back, releasingthe
rudder which then movs over to grve
circling gliding flight. Schemesessentiaily
similar to this are in wide use to.day, or
the alternetive rudder-lock device,
The rudder-lockschemeis sketchedin
Fie. 2. Rudder movemcnt is controlled
by a pivoted arm called the "trigger"
which is normally tensioned to rest
to
againsfa [orwardslop; this corresponds
offset rudder for free flight conditions, For
tow launching, a wedge of balsa is tied
to the line and inserted in the fuselage
between the trigge! and its stop, moving

the trigger to a new positioo. Thfu allovs


the rudder to move over against its cntlc
stop, giving straight tudde. for the tow
launch.When the line {allsfree it pullsout
the wedgeand the ruddei snapsover for
circline flieht at oDce, An alternative'
somew-hatslmplified hook-up is alsosho\Yn.
The great advantage of this system
is that it is absolutely posilive from
the time the v,'edge is inselted to the
time the towline droos off the model,
In other words, varying line tension,
which may cause trouble on the original
auto-rudder svstem, has no eflect at all.
Nor is any iailure likelv, due to thc
wedge jarnrning in posiiion, provided
that the line joining it to the towline is,
at least, as strong as the towline.
The other form of towline instability
is also aerodynamic iu origin, and can
therefore be discusscd very briefly,
before going on to deal with specific
design layouls for gliders of all types.
Jhis is "hunting," where the model swings
from side to side under tow, each srving
generally getting worse than the one
before it, until the model may even turn
right round and become completely
uncontrollable. This, in facl. is the
dangerous form of towline instability
which is often extremely l'Iard to cure.
Small fin areas, excessive dihedral and
aft C,G. Dositionsare three possiblecauses,
Tow hook position, also, h;s sn effcct, for
the farther alt the point of line attachment
the greater the tendency for the glider to
"wander" on the line, but this should not
be considered as a major factor. To get
maximum height under tow it is necessary
to get the tow hook reasonably far aft.
Instahilitv under tow should be cured ra
the design ilselJ iather than by using a
forward tow hook position. This rvill only
be effective in mild cases of instability
(if originally wirhin the acceptedlimits),
and will in anv caseresult in lossof initial
height duringihe launch. It is no good, for
example, using a forward hook position
to gei a reasoiablyslrble tow, and lhen
6nd that it is only possible to get about
I00 feet of initial heieht from 164 feet oI
line with that hook position. It is quitc
common to find that models like this, of
I.A.I. or heavier loeding, iust cannot be
toved up during calm conditions. Quite

heavy

modcl

ho*evct,

which

bas a

gcn.rous reserve of towline stability,


can use a tor hook position well aft undcr
such conditions, and be towcd up to the
firll height oI tbe line rvithout the iauncher
haviDg to ruD uDduly fast.

Basic glider t]?f

I+
II

.']

ll

lr

.l
li

Six basic glider tvpes are shown in


Fig.3. The simple parasol arrangement
is much tavoured. wirh slabsided or box
fuselage,probably on rhe principle that
lhe parasolwing layout is generallythe
most staLlelor almostany tvDe of model.
But although excellentiesulis can, and
have been achieved with patasol wing
gliders, it is the one rype 6n which thi
inexperiencedare mosI likely to go wrung.
Parasol models are almost invariablv
rigged witlr lhe tail-plane lifring and
coDtributinga part of ihe total lifr. That
is, the ceDtre of gravity is rigged behind
the centreof lift of the winps.An aft C.G.
position can lead to towfine instability
and therfore lhc uhoh dcsiga becontcs
nzorc aitical. Unless the lavout is such
that a geDerousreserveof towline stability
is present, thc set-up may be(ome unstable in anything but relatively calm
conditions, Unfortunatelv. it is not
possibleto boil down the desienrequirementsfor towline stability to a few simple
Propotrrons.
Fl c t
Where a simple, orthodox, functional
dcsign is rerluitcd,the normal high wing plug them together and then lash them
Iayout is probably better, for this is easiei on top of the fuselage.
to tr;m with a lorward C.G. position, if
Some very successfuldesigns,in thcse
found necessaty.A more ,,refin;d,' design orthodox forms, have used i lerrsthened
is the shoulder wing model, where tle
nose-$ithgood ellect on torvlinest-ability.
wing remainsal rouphlythe sameDosilion Briefly, t[e effect is that a forwa;d
as on
high wing layout. The iuselage mounte.l fin (in these cases increased
deck -the is humped so lhat rhe wrngs forward fuselageside area) has Droved
-line
actually
plug into rhe fuselagesides, rn particulerly eflectivein eiving eood ruwlhe shoulder position.Thir gives a neat line stability. Consequently,a" narru*,
and effective iombination fo1 a strearlrather deepfuselagewith a liirly eeneruus
lined fuselage,but has also been adopted nose length is, generally,berteain this
on many of the Iargeand very largemodels respectrhan a slim fuselagedesign with
rvith a slabsided fuselage,Onee the soan /lttle ot no noseareaof the model exceeds;bout four to hue
This may account,in part at least.for
feet, the wings have to be made in two
the undoubted successoi parasol mooers
(or more) pieces, in any case. It is then of type (iv), where the
wins is carried on
probably simpler, and quite as ef{ectrve, a cabin-type superstructur;
which is. rn
to plug ach wing half into the fuselage effect.a forward fin, The remainder
of thc
with a shoulder wing hyout, rather than
fusclageis then very slirn, usually diamond.

Y
I
GLIDERS

DESTGN FOB AEROMODELLERS

s..tion, or fully streamlined, reducing


wctted area to a minimum.
Further, more unorthodox layouts also
incorporaie "forward fin" effect' e.g., the
,,hat6het" tvpe and "pod.end-boom"
fuselages.Thi; have proved particularly
efiective in the small and medium class
reflge.
Probablv the size of the finished model
-influenceon the design layout
has more
than manv people appear to realise.
Where the-m6de[is iniended for tegular
flving. such as contest work, the larger
the altual sizeof rhe model the more the
tendencv to ador:t a simplified layout. In
the veri largest ;lass of gliders, of a-round
eleven io tielve feet sPan, we find that
box luselaqes ale almost the universal
rule, From aerodynamic considerations
however. one rvould expect that, to utilise
the incieased aetodynamic efficiency of
the larqer modelsto the fullest advantage,
full streamlining would be applied to the
fuselage.
Th.e is little doubt that, &ll other
tiinss being equal, the larger model will
beat"tbe s;allit model under almost all
conditions. Therefore, Ior contest wolk
iD Darticular. the ldrger the model you
cat' efiord io build lboth in material,
cost aod time) the better.
Actually the significance of the wing
loadine rule tends to disapPear as size
increaJes. Above about 300-600 sq. in'
wing area, a glider of F.A.I. loading -will
generally oui'perform a more lightly
ioaded irodel bf the sam" size, mainly
because it has better Penetlation' The
lishtlv loaded glider makes little or no
hiadwav and te-ndsto sink straight down
in aoy ilight breeze and, in fact, about

the onlv time that it does shov . possible


advantaseis in absolutedeadair conditions

fte oett of size


For contest work, any glidel of below
about 40osq,in. wing area is now con_
sidered (oo small. At lhe other end of the
scale, a figure of nearly 1,000sq, in. has
been reached and, on an overall aYerage
basis, models with wing area exceeding
1,000sq. in. have placed consistently in
maior glider contestsduring the past ieo
or ihrJ" ve*tt. The exception still crops
up. where the smaller glidet ha-sa lucky
hieak and makesthree excellentthermal
flishts to top the list, but the trend is for
m6re and more of the competition places
to eo to the larger models.
ihe new "Nordic" class comes at the
lower end of the contest scal, as lgards
size. With conventional tailplane area
tbis soecification corresponds to a wing
area 6f about 100-460 lq. in. A handy
size for building and carrying about, this
is at the seme time, large enough to Prove
a good contest model when comPeting
wiiir modelsoflargersize in "open" events.
The Nordic class leplesents about the
uDDerlimit of size whire all the forms of
fus'elaeelayout detailed in Fig. 3 are still
practiiable, With larger models, the podind-boom and hotchet tYPes tend to
become structurally weak, being patric_
ularlv vulnerable where the lelatively
thin toom ioins the main fuselagenacelle.
One could- summaise the useful apPl!
cation of thesevarious designsunder class
sizes as undellIlb lo 3N sq. hr. wix| arra. Relatively
ui"l"ss for sirious competitionwork, All
tvDes practicable, but the smaller models
(i8o-zbo sq, in. area) should hove slab'

(
I

i
rl

T ABL E I. AERODYNAMIC OA TA
FUSELAGE

TAILPIANE

sr".lC;al e-"
Sdrll

200

,to

3oo

50

392
576
t{4)

72
t20

8 .0

tll

8 .3

t8

8.0

22

9.0

z1

12

t0.0

a5

90

t.l

1,

t5

It
l0

t2l

t2l

t11

tl i

360

t5

l8

,o
4A

5,1

t01
t{l
t9t
.t9t oz.

AsDect ratio fol a lectangula! wing


sided fuselages for minimum structural
be between 8 and 10, as these
shouid
weisht.
pive
the best compromisebetween
fieures
types
300:400 rc. itr. uing arca. All
struclural weight'
oracticable. but prelerence should be IJw dra? and optimum
SLructuial weight is not as itnportant
reamlined
st
mor;
the
to
.lxyouts,
liuen
gliders as-with most other tnodels,
either bv using streamllneclsectlonluse- rvith
but
i;
is alwaYs an advantage to make
area'
lagesorieduci-ng{uselagewetled
light as practicable.,.lleavy
40b-?60ro. /r. Iligh, shoulder'wing,or the wings ss
set up towllne nstaollty on
wings
can
to
rvell
suited
all
;re
tvpes
cabin-pvlon
due to their inertiia when
this ririge, pieferably,"ith the fuselage theii own.
tt
is best practice,in fact. to
displaced.
streamlinedas far as Possible.
nrJduce the whole aiiframe of the model
1.0o0 sq. it. anil otter. Hete, complex
weight con"istenL.wilhrhe
'strensth.
fuselage'corrstructionis generally aban' io LheiighLest
ond then load rrp with
renrrircd
are
types
donel and sirnple, slabsided
to F.A.l' rules, lry
to
coilorm
bailast
seneral with eirher higlr or shoulderin the fircelagc arcurcl lhe
oeight
add.ing
wlng mounung.
"fosition"l his ii where a shoulder
C.G,
trs a qeneral rule, less tailplane area wins desienscoresto a certainextent' for
is neededon a glider than on any other tho-actui.l wing 6xing can be made
tvoe of free flight model,to give adequate extrelnelv toueh and robusl, the extla
l6igitudinal it"bility. The large.r the weielrtaddeda-tthis point beingdcsirable
winig area, the lesJ-the proporlion of ratlier than a handicaP.
taililane erea required. The smaller
The most PoPular tYPe of- frxing, in
moilels.300 sq. in. and under, can well
use * 33 p"r ient. t.ilplatt" area as, on such cases,ii the tongue and box' hut
ir should Le noted thai, for all rvings of
account oi their size, they are more apt
300 sq. in. area or more, the longue
to be displaced and thlown about in
rough weither. They need, therefore should'belocatedin the fuselageand the
the;reatest reserveof stability to recover boxes in the wing halves. Using plywood
theii normal glide path quickly. Above tonguesthis scheie worksextremelywell,
this size.tailpline areacan be ptoportion- evei right uP to the very largestsize of
atelv decleased,until at 1,000sq. in. models.
wing area and over, a l0 per cent. tail_
Straieht dihedral is adcquate for all
olan'eis adequate.There is no particular
o-f glider; "Fancy" dihedral forms
tvoes
iule on the iubject, cnd the ProPortion
sirluld
be"avoided in any case, as adding
is
it
doubt
in
anv
If
critiial.
is far {rom
and structural dimculties and as
weieht
but
generous
side,
better to err on the
po.iibl".our""t
of warps. Poiyhedral,or
there is seldomany needto exceed26-30
usually a straight centre
more
pe! cent,
-seclion
where
*itn dihedr;lled tips, is often used
wood
standard
semi-spanexceidsthe
the
0thr design features
leneth of ihree feet. To avoid splicingall
Unless the model is to be a lully stream- the_mainsparsnecessaryto get a straight
lined design, there is very little rcason fol
wins nanel,each half wing is built in (wo
departing from a rectangularwing plan' secli"ons,These ere joined together at a
foim with elliptic or roundedtips. From dihedral break which comes somewhere
the purely prictical point of view, it is about mid-way orit along the semi-span'
infinjtelv'simpler to cut a large number
The wing section is rather imPortant,
of ribs ;f identical size, than to plot or
particularu
as the size' and thus the
lengths
carve a set of ribs all dilTerent
As a general
for a taoered wing. However, with a ihord. of tt e vring increases.
since,
shimlincr, it is more rule. thin sectionJare noI desirable
shoulder'wing
-better
generallylave-rn excellcnt
they
nlthough
to
aerodynamically,
nnd
nleasing
fast
to-.fly
iravea iaoeredwing.The taperis restricted lift.drag ratio,-theyhave
-quite
Although
lift.
nicessary
the
de,rllop
to
so that tie tip co;d is generally not less
resultant gliding
than two-thir'ds of the root chotd, and the lift/d;s ratio, and
drag arrdli[t are
both
aie
flittering,
angle
one-half'
never less thaIr

l0

DESIGN FoR AERoMoDELLERS

ll

/oru,and therefore,to get lift, the wrng fuselage, crutch construction is probably
has to operaie at a reasonablyhieh air- the ideal method.This appliesto fuselage
speed,There is still insrrflicientev-idence lengthsup to *bout fouiieer (evenit t[e
to point to any one latticulxr spction crutch mernbershavc to be spliccd to
being superior.Someof the larninar llow obrain rhese wood lengths), but aoove
and turbulent flow sections have been t his t h e f i g n r e t e n d s t o b c a l i t t l e o n t h e
tried quite successfully,
but conventional heavy side, owing to the generoussection
sectionslile Gollingen 632, EilTel 400, requrrecl.
RAF 32 and so or,.apperr elually good
The simple sirbsided box construction
rn prac[ce, lhe cholcets exltemely open
holds lhroughout the ranpe. Adequate
offering an interesting field {or practical
dicgonal bracing and/or siicet coviring
IeseaIcn.
must be uSed in lhe latger sizes. but
On theoretical grounds there would
fuselagesof six feet length-or more Lave
appearto be a stronpargument in tatour still proved
srlistacrort wirh only I sq.
of using the largestposiible ving thord, balsa longerons.
The pod and boom and
r.e., teductng the aspecl raiio, to get a hatchet
types need careful boom conhrgher operative Reynolds Number anJ struction,
and preferably, these comthus greeteraerodynamiceliciency. This
Ponenlsshouldbe true monocoque.rolled
is particularly applieablewhere tlie rving from
balsa sheet or even thin ;lv: Metal
area is restricted, as in the ,,Nordic;
booms, incidentally,have seldomproved
class, and models of this type have salisfaclory;
when small enoughto be of
appeared,where the aspect ratio ias been economic
weight they have i tendeucy
rcdrrced to 6, or tllereal)orrts.Sin.e to whip
or twisr, and fail by bucklins or
lowering the aspect ralio increases the bending
in a hard landind. O'c; b'e;i
induceddrag of rhe rving.it is s!ill a matter they
are dimcult to straighte; successfully.
ol doubt as to whether any specific
llany successful streamlined fuselages
adlantage ie gained Ly rhis merhod. On
the basis of past results, the original -have been built by the hau-sheu meth;d,
3<Pectralio figures quored apl,ear -bert. using a vertical keel of sheet balsa on
ln lhe ca seof sh oulder$ir g m odels ,t be which the side elevation of the fuselage
len de ncy ts to go ev en I iqlr nr . about is traced and cut out.
12 : I be ing thi r op v alue] ev c n wir h
Formers and stringers are added to
rectangular whrgs.
each side of this keel to comDlete the
Structurally,a *ide variety of nrethods struct.ure.The best guide irr aitcmpting
are availableto the dpsigner,for there r< unorlhodox consttuctionis to studv
the
no teason for economy of soace ixside plans of a previous successlulmodel
of
the fusel^ge.For the smallerand medium simiiar sizeand type and usesimilar
wood
sized models,therefore, rvith a streanrlined proportrons,

CHAPTER Tv\/O

RUBBERMODELS

D UBBER modelsare, in the long run,


l\
the cheapestforrn of "porver" flying.
lrlany modellers,in factr openly state that
they get far more enjoyment out of a t$ro
to threeminute flieht with a rubber model
than a comoarableduration vith anv other
type, so that it is a pity, indeed, that the
rubber model has bccome relatively
neglectedwith the dse in popularity of the
free flight power machines.
However, let us get right down to the
problems associated with rubber model
design for optimum performance.

Stabiilt is probably the greatest single


factor aflecting design, for it is better to
have a stabl, but relatively inemcieDt
model to work on than r very efiicient
modelfrom th aerodynamic(perforrnance)
slandDoint which is 4nJtdrrr. You iust
cannot obtain consistent results $ith an
unstable model.
Complete automatic stability must be
achieved in three directio s,longil d;ttally
(or "up and down"l; laterolly and directionally (.e., so that the model flies on
a true course,whether straight or circular,

TA S L E I I
(gaic donrn nru16! 3cl.cl.d ro .onven ient timpl. dim.n!iont

TAELE II.
FUSELA6E

s
t00

2a

t50

31

200

10

l(r0

.a

|".

Din

tl

2a+

,ll

|]1

2A

r51

,IL

C l urk Y

60y"

33

60y"

38I

t5

t2

73

t,l

l,rl

:to

t6l

a3

+. ,ostr
NACA 69t2

), ,i

\i

20

tl

k
DESIGN roR AERoMoDELLEI.S

without
_sideslippingor yaq'ing); and
sp.trauy (where the model fiies in circles
without spinningor srelling,o! otherwise
becorningunstable),lt is not enough to
ensure that the model trims out and-flies
snoothly under ideal con,.litions,
i.e,,still
arr, lor lherc must be sumcientreserveof
stabilityro ensurethatif it is displaced,by
a gust of wind for example,it will rc(urn
to its true flight pal h. lt is possibleto have
a modelwhich will be quiri stableuntil it
rs upset by some outside force, when it
becomesunstable.This meansthat it has
not sulficient reserveol stability or, in
technical Janguage, whilst it is itotically
stable, it is dynonically unstable.
Long-itudindl stabiliiy is largely taken
care ot by e tajlplane of adequatearea.
A wing in itselfis unstable(unleisspecially
designedas in the cese of iailless modeli)
and so needscouplingup to anotheraerofoil surfacc-the iailpiane- to give a stable
combrnatron.American terminoloev for
t*ilplane is, in fact. slalilisar.

'!

2.6 to 3.0 C (whereC is the wing chord).


In the caseof tapered wings, ,'Cn may be
taken as the root chord, when the corresponding value for "M,, can be reduced to
2xC as a mitiuun figure (never less).
The grater the value of .,T." the
greaterthe tailplanearea requiredlor an
adequate margin of stability. Thus for
shoulderwing modelsa tailnlanearea of
one-third of the wing aiea is quite
adequate-For high wing modelsthe same
Irgure will apply, alrhoughan increascro
36 per cent. will be beneficial.For narasol
rrrodels(i.e.,greatet,.'l','),36 per ient. is
abou_tthe milimum 6gure for best results
and rt $ not uncommon to boost this area
to 40 or 46 per cent. of the wing area,
That is not to say that models outside
these rules \yill not perfotm satisftctorily
with smallertailplanes;they wilt. In thi
Wakefield class,-for exampie, very long
ruselagemodetshave given exceptionally
good results.They arJ not, howiver, thi
sort of..dc.s;gn to adopt lor ,,generalpurPose ytng.
Tailphne size
Now rhe final balonu lor loneitudinal
A tailplaneareaof about one-quarterof
trimis obtainedby adjuslingthe ;ing and
the wing area is teally the smaliestsatis_ tarrplane Inctdences,together with the
lactory size,and it is generallybetter ro centreof gravily position:lt is possibleto
make it considerablylrrger than this. rrirn a model to fly with ihe'centre of
Much will depcndunon the dimension,.T,, gravit.y at almost sny position from rne
-the height-ofrhe wing aboverhe thrust leading edge
the wing to tbe trailing
"of
nne, end the moment arm, ,,M." ln
edge,or evenfarther
aft. If the C.G.comes
practice there is lessvariation in the larrer. in Iront of the centreof pressure(or
Doint
A6 a generalrule the distancebetwcen of.application of rhe lifr) of the wings
the trailing edgeof the wing and the lead_ (Fig. l) rhen obviously the tailplanewill
ing edge of the railplane-(,,M") should heve to be rigged so as to have a download
never be less than twice the chord. anr] applied during flight. That is, it 1Yillbe
set
preferably greater. There is a logical limit
at some considerable negaliuc incidence.
(o the greater value, lor as ,,M', is in- Similarly (Fig.2), if
rhe e.c. comesaft of
creased,so the weight of the rear fusel:rge the centreofpressureof the wing, the tailis increasedand the tailplane weight ptane ivrtl have to carly an upload to
_movedfarther back. Tbis means eithcr a balance,which_meansrhai it will 6e rigged
longernoseto balance(resuIingin an over- at some potitiae angle of incidence.the
long luselage),or moving the rear rubber farther alt the C.G,, the more lift tbe tailanchorage.forwardto getlhe motor s,eight plane must supply to balaDce.
lorward, I hls la er practiceis adoDtedon
Of course, the centre of pressureof the
most rnodels of
parasol-lighiweight wing itself is not a fixed point, it varies
-the
-wins (i.?..
rayout,Dut shouldnot be overdone.O!er- with the attitude of
the
the
all
is the final deciorng actual flight artitude or angle-oi atiack,
_fuselage.length
tactor, as lhis should norrnallv not ue which must*not.
be confused-with riggrng
greater than the- span. A long fuselrge fncfdenc. .t(rggrfig
twrdcncc is the angle
means more weight, greater area rnd
at. wlrch the rving or tailplane is rigged
consequently more drag.
Ielatrve to some datum line, usuallv the
An average figure foi,,M', is, therefore, ceote line of the fuselage).
There ls no

RUBEERMoDELS
need, howev.r, to complicBtethe issuefor,
when a rubber model is flying at its best
trim, the correspondinsanele of atlack of
the wingr ls around 6 io 0 Jegreesand the
centre of praBsureof molt conventioDal
eerofoils uDd6r these conditions is about
30 pcr cent. of the chord beck from the
leading edgr,
Ardving at the best solution for longitudiuul strbility a\d lon tdindl tlit t fit
a rubber model is far more comDlex than
with any otber type, for rre have to contend with a varying thrust output. It is
comparativelyeasyto wolk out a solurron
for stabilitl alont, soch as genroususe of
dow[thrrst, but to usethepower clficicntly
often requiresa considerabiedegrii oI skiil
rn trrmmlng.
Thus, whilst theoreticallyit is oossible
to rig a model to fly with aioost any C.G.
positioneithin the wing chord, there are
many other factors to consider as $ell.
C.G.Joruad gives the greatest margin of
stability, but is inelficientfrom tbeioint
of view that, whilst the vings are lifting
upwards,the tailplaneis acually "lilting;
(lownwarcls
and counteractiogpart of the
wing lift, virtually equivaleni io a reduction in wing area.
AIso, the fact thrt the tailp)anehes to
be rigged at some appreci;ble n.garrre
anglemakesthrust adjustmentawkward.
With the tail at a negativeangle to lhe
thrust line, a marked-stalling"tende,,ey
will
.be present under power,-calling for
conslclerable
downthrustto cotrnteracl.In
fact, it is a characteristicof rubber models
with a forward C.G. position that a large
amountofdownthrustis usuallynecessary.
This, in itselt is not wasteful ol porer,
contraiy to popular belief, but does not
make for asy rise-ofl"ground flights,
When the model is released, there is
a tende[cy for the downward inclined
thrust to tip the model ght fotward,
before it has picked up sufficient airsoeed
for the tailpline to bicome effective'and
coEect the hosing-over teDdency. In
Bctual practice, thttailplane comei right
up, forcing the wings into a very smalfor
even negative angle of attdck, whence
they have low drag, but very little lift, so
that the model gathers speedquickly, but
trks oll flat, ratlrer thdn leaps ofi the
grouDd irto it! normrl climbiqi .ttitude.

l'

.rC.[{

t^rlpuN.

c^.Fy

t4

Or! the other hand, the danger of a reerward C.G. position is this: to achieve
balance the tailplan must contribute
a good proportion of lift, which meansthrt
it must be at a positive angle. In extreme
cases,this positive dngle may be as much
as the angle of incidence of the wings
themselvs. This may give satisfactory
Jrdlr',balance.but is liable to be dvnamic.
all! unslabb, lot both wing and iailplane
stall at the sam attitude. In other yrords.
the correcting or stabilising feature of th;
tailplane has been destrcyed and tlrere
may be no recovery from a stall, should
this occur, or the tailplane may take charge
and override the wing lift, forcing the nose
of the modeldown and holdingit down in
an ever-sreepenngolve.
To guard against just this, there must
be a certain angular difference betreen
the wing and tailplane rigging incidences.
Strictly speaking, it is only necessaryto
have an angular difference betrveen the
operating angles of attack, This can be
achieved with ideltical gging incidences,
sincethe airflow over the wings is deflected
downwards and altificially introduces a
diflerent angle of attack. The danger here
is, however, that under certain conditions,
downwash over the wings may disappear
so that the combination (wing and tailplane) is left with no angular dillerence
and henceno stability to recover.
Three dgreesis the accepted figure for
angular diflerencebetrveenrvings and tailplaneincidence,which only corresponds
to
a C,G.positionof about 35 to 40 DercenL.
oI the wing chord. This combinati,onis the
best for all shoulder- and high-wing
designs. For parrsol models, however, a
T A B L E II P ROP . BLOCK

DII.IENSIONS

Di..

0) (2) _

t2
t2

ri
rl

r+
rl

t1
t1

rt
rt
rl

({) -

RuBBrt MoDELS

DESIGN roR AERoMoDELLERS

20

rl
rI

C.G. position farther aft is desirable76 per cent of the chord from the leading
edge being an average figure. To still
retain someangular dillerence in wing and
tailplane setting, we can see,at once, how
a larger tailplane area is beneficial.
The propeller will have a very con
siderable effect on the elficiency of the
power flight, and, here agaitr, we have
many problems to face. Obviously, from
any given amount of rubber we can only
get so much energy. That is to say, if we
have a motor weighing 3 ounceswe shall,
broadly speaking,get the same amount of
energy out of that motor if we use a large
number of strands of a short, powerful
thrust, as with a smaller number oistrands
and a longer, moderate thlust.
Actually, ofcourse,this is uot quite true,
otherwisethe obvious sohtion would be to
useany given motorrrJriSrtin the minimum
number of strands so as to set incleased
overall flight duration by inireasing the
power-onduration.The dangerin rvorking
at the lover end of the power output range
(i.e., minimum number of strands), is that
the power available is matginal, The
slightestdifference(tiring rubber,ot poor
weather conditions)mav kill the climb
completely. And thire is;ko the fact that
the fast revving propeller is working at
a different figure of efficiency to its slow
rewmg counterPart,
Broadly speaking, the more rubber we
can use, the better the performance,
although there are practical limits again.
Adding more rubber means adding more
weighl, so the lesult may be better climb
but faste! glide and possible daereasad
overall performance. A figure ol about
60 per cent. of the total weight for
(rubber)motor weight is about the maximum po-ssibleand it is usual to work to
a rowerngute.
Now, with this ploportion of rubber,
expeliencehas shown us that the propeller
diameter should be roughly 1l{)to 46 per
cent. of the wing span, and nothing much
less will give rozsrstez,"durotiol" results
up to moderl contest standard. The
greater the proportion ol rubber, the
greater the required propeller diameter;
so that a 60 per ceDt. moto! reight could
well handle a 60 per cent. span plopellr,
this, surprisingly enough, holds true.

(,
*-'\

z)-t:
I

o
Sulr..tGd D.rlrn L.yout. tor W.k6tl.ld Trpc Hod.l.,
N.BFTot.l .r.. mu.r b. .drurtd ro 2t4.1 .q. 1.., m.rimum

I
j

{
:

i
i

The remaining leading ptopeller factor, critical and doesgive preatereffrciencvul


the pitch, is closely allied to the rest of the the climb, But it is moit necessarv
to itart
design. Large diameter ptopellers are a wirh a relarivelyhigh pirch, for inything
source of considerable drag, once the lesslhxn 1.3 times the diameterwiil have
power has run out, even when made to
a very considerable braking eflect when
freewheel,and so it is common practice on freervheelingand ruin the glide. Average
duration rubber models to use a folding pitch- figures run from l.sxdiametr, up
prop. This, properly done,must bcnefit the to 2.0Xdiameter,with 1.76x diameteras
glide and so there is a natutal tendency to
a good design average.
emphasisethis point. To take advantage
This modifies the type of climb and
of good glide characteristics, maximum
gives most efrcient results with moderate
altitude is aimed at by using a powerful power extended over a much longer time
motor and reiatively fine propellerDitch. than the other system,Properlya;justed,
Selectionof pitch-Ior thii tlpe ot hying althoughthe initial Iare of climb mav be
generally lies between1.2 and 1.6 times the lower, it should be possible to riach
diameter, Also most suceessfulmodels of
a greaterheight,eventually,under powr,
this type ulilise parasolwing mounting. with tle advantage of added power
.
This layout seemsbetter suited to handling ouratton.
the C.G. shift when the propeller doesfold,
Aspect ratio is not a ctitical factor on
so that the model can be trimmed initiallv
rubber models, What may be gained by
for a very good glide and still retain an lrigher aspect ratios is more 'than losi
efficient trim under power. If tdmmed
through the reduced aerodynamicefhci6rst with the prop, unfolded (i.e,, on the ,ency of smallei chords, and the reduced
polyer run) the C.G. will have moved sttengthweightfactor.A high aspectratio
forward, slightly making the model nose wing is either weakerfor the sameweight,
heavy, and it is s noticeablecharacteristic or heavier lor the same streneth, as a
of some modelsof this type thet thcy tend lower aspect retio wing of the simi area,
to nose down sliglrtly towards the end of
A figure of 8 : I is a very satisfactory
the power run until the prop, doesfold and choi&, althoughsomeof thJsmallerliehtrestore proper glide trim,
weight rnodelsgo down to 0: l. A highel
Those modellerswho still Dreferthe ftee- figure of l0 : I is generally associatedwith
wheeling type of propellir can claim shoulder wing models where the fuselage
rdvaDtagesfor this systemin that it is less "artificially" increasesthe span. Tailplane

i
I

\
I

t!gd,ii !
;iiI E:g
=g: -o iE

i:i;5i':
::35F;i
F-i
E e;
':

!i ii;r',
Fi::ii gi

;iff:$1
ii!{rii

ii;;t;'
tt *l

"*:=i
;93;;i

:rii:iiiiSr

3i;iii;;:Ei

:i:iii;;iii
+d

+;
++

iilipEiiiu

lx

l:

gl

g:x
4-4

9v

64

:i

++

t*Eti$fi*+t#a
iii*eiifiii!*i

i
iEeHcea;
sE
B?eEE

s.l

tl

F
o

3t -

=rl

'g

1 ..

" t*

il:
3l

t-

'f

f-

+ '.E
F

:F

:o

it

**d

++

I.-:a

",F I

--

{+;

!i l

L' :

6?.!

s l*i s
is
;+ - l'tr--

"h

,Ht**ffiffi
***ffi

iE
a9

I \s

PowER DUR^rIoN
a$g!!E!p--p-!!!9!
M or t D ooul .r of.l l l Pott
lor I c.c. di"'rt-rt
.l..knt

:-

::$.:tr:',i1-""^?i'^1'.'1i1ii."."

iht"llli"rlll'hif
i:' i:]l'';:
:f
:''I"',[d*fonrtructot
...or..v.tv
P.trormtnc''
ol Dldring
In .ontd't,.-Jrm
6ti'*,

::vi'i.'tf:';"::lil'E:;
ii:i'5
iiLlill;f"'$1i"3fi
.\

t;f*;l-g:'smlrffi

t^PEi

rlJ

oN

21, ON t.!.

! ,t

rrc

cioro

r,'

t6oi

ciorD

POWERDURATION

CHAPTERTHREE

model. proPerly
OWER Duration modelsundoubtedlY sood Dorver duration similar altitude in
havethe highestmortalityrateofany irimmid. can reach a
the ten secondsor less.
On tne
aircraft. un
modelarrcratt'
fligfit model
free flight
of free
tvoe of
'e
As soon as you sPeed uP a-model,
fiie of it they ihould be simpler to make
rnd tiim than a rubber powered
"t"ble
modei: for in the fust casewe have a constant thrust, and the second a varying
thrust, so that poweron conditions are
constant with a power model' but coD'
tinually changing with a rubber job.
The main reason why so rnany Power
models exhibit instability and olten come
to a sticky, and eblupt, end is simply a
matter oi the de1reeol power applied'
Whereas in a rubber driven model even
a leallv fast climb to, say, two or three
hundrJd feet, is seldom accomplished in
anything under thirty or forty seconds'a

stabilitv Droblems becbme mignified and


what misht be a perfectly stable layout at
can become hopelessly unlower spieds
'Even with the best of designs,the
stable.
marginof stability is reduced,so even-the
sliehlest error in trimming ftay lead to
initabilitv in an otherwisestable machine'
Bearing
_ in mind, then, that most-power
o rrpowrrail'
rlnration models
^nd
^te extreme reserve
of
therefore require an
popularity
stabilitv.we ian appreciatethe
of the pvlon desien,for this doesdefinitely
give tiri most siable layout under such
conditions.

TABLE I. AERODYNAHIC DATA


Dih.dr.l

M od.l

12

250

6t

Stlt
800
t200

5-7.5...,
92

t0
t2

t0

t5

t2

l'l

t5

t00

20

6t

t8

It0

2a

17,5

7*

22

2.0t)

30

25

28

300

,to

30

,rco

70

50

350

C .G,from

l2

DESTGN roR AERoMoDELLERS

machiner{ith both win$ and tailplane contributing lift. Generally the tailplane is
lifting strongly, which means that there is
very little differencebetween wing incidence and tailplane incidence when
properly trimmed. The dange! is in getting
this diflerence too small, when the tailplane may take over completelyand force
the model down into an ever-steepening
dive, The farther aft the C.G, ?wbich
virtualiy meansthe lessthe differencein
incidence between wings and tailplanc)
the more critical the leyout becomes to
adjust, although flying with the C.c. on
the trailing edgeof the wing, or even behind
it is still quite practicable,with careful
t r im m i n g - F i g . 2 .
1he tailplane,then, is one of the major
stabilisinglactorsin the pylon layout and,
provided it is not misused,is extremely
eflicient as such. Ilence, it is not difncult
lo appreciatethe moderntendencyto use
Iargerand largertailplaneareason power
duration designs; 40o/o, 45o/o,
even
600/oof the wing area being used^nd
more and
moIe,
Lowering the centre of lesistance with
a shoulder wing design, or raising the
thrust line to neat the wing position does
not necessarily provide a better answer.
In fact, practice has shown to date that
suchmodelsareevenmoretricky to adjust
as they must still balancewith the C.G.
well aft for adequatelongitudinal stability,
and the vhole layout is then more critical
Glidestabilityis relarivelyunimpottant; than the comparable pylon design. A
any model layout with convenlionalDro- shoulder wing design,for example, is very
porlionscan be trimmed for e srablegiide, dimcult to trim for climb without looping,
ald the pylon type is certainly no eicep- or spiralling in if made to turn. Adjustment can be made a little less c ticel by
uon nere.
With poweron, however.the Dvlonset- moving the C.G. forwardand re-adjusting
the tailplane incidence, but then an
op would not appearparticularlfeood at
excessive downthrust angle is gnelally
first sight-Fig.-i. The high
*ing
positionedwell above the line
-ouorid
of tlrrust, necessary-Fig.3.
givesa strongloopingtendency.But rhisis f' Without going into any more detail, we
readily combatedby tail lifr, rigging the would state simply that at the ptesent
tailplaneat some positiveincidence(and state of knowledge and developmeDt the
also ensurinpa positive ansle of attack pylon layout is undoubtedly the most
during flighr),so that this cancelsorrt the satisfartory where sheer duration is the
nose-up moment of the thrust*and the aim.
faster the model flies the more pronounced
Before this, however,let us first consider
is this eflect,
the model's size. Amedcan inlluence has
given British designersa rather unfortu.
With positive tailplane incidence,an aft
C,G. position is also necessaryfor balancer nate lead in that the first British oower
whicb turns the designinto a taDdemwing duration models were almost all basedon

PoIYER DURATToN

r0

cunent Ame can trends. These, at tbe due to the decreasing aerod)rnamrc
time, were all built down to specific wing elficiency. Thus, for rnodels of around
so that in t he Blitish !00 s.t.in. and less,tncximurrrrvingInad'
and power loadirrgs,
field'the relatively heavily loaded power irrg sliould be around 3 ouncesPer 100
sq. in. and cettainly never more than
dulation model became the "standard"
4 ouncesDer tOOsq. in. IJut, before we go
when the rules called only for F'A.L
loading,which is very light indeed.These cny further let us reduce F.A,l loading
first designs,with their subsequentinflrr' ru[esto morc cottvenientfiguresand see
ence on later British competition models, how our limits fit in.
have rathe! tended to produce the overConverting the F.A.I' loading figures of
Doweredmodel-or r^fhet the Lniler-si2ed. 2,i3 oz. pet 100 sq. in. /ordlareailrlo wing
nrodelfor the canacitv of motor usedloading Ior dillerent tailplcne proportions,
with allits exagge;atedstability problems. we have:
The trend now is tolvards larger modelslor
the same size of motor which, while
40yo 15y. 50y"
oossil..,lvlosing out as regards rate oI
-should'be far less-critical (and oz ' ./100.q. i n. w i ns 3 . 6 9
3.96 1 , 1
ilimb,
therefore more consistent), and definitely
score on th glide. Theie is no doubt that
It will be seen, then, that with a tailthe larqer the model the better its aero- plane
of 4696areathe 4 oz. per 100sq. in.
glide
dynamic efliciency as refiected irr
for the smallest
figuresuggested
haximum
performance,
classof model still conforms,In fact, small
Current contest specificationsare based models of this type are capable of really
on F.A.I. wing and power loading rules excellent durations and can be as useful
(7.06 oz. pcr c.c. and 2.?3 oz. per 100 sq. Ior contest work as the largest size.
in total area). F.A.I. lules also permit
As the size of the model goes up, the
a maximum of 30 secondslor the power Dossiblewing loading c:rn increase,with
nin, whilst most British contests ale lun
fact. it is drtitarl,
i'ro
reot iil
with a limit of twenty seconds,fifteen to inirease
"pp"
the"[ect.ln
struclutc weight lo get a
seconds,or even ten seconds.Obviously morc robust aeroPlane and one less
the length of power lun permitted for
"livelv" to trim. 'Ihere is no particular
contest work affects the design of the rule as to how mRximum loading varies
model, and rhould therefore be standard_ with area, but higher loadings tend to
ised for all contests.A model designedfor producea modelwhich hasa sinkingspeed
duration ftom a ten secondpower run, for ioo high to take full advanlageof thermsl
example,would have a very mpid clinrb lift on everv possibleoccasion,and is,
(calling for a smaller Jire of model). If
therefore,noi rially suitable for consistent
flown in a contest wher a 30 second contestwork. IIIodelswith quite high wing
DOl'e! run was Dermitted its rute of climb loadinq lrjilrstill soarin strong thermals,but
roould be unnicessarily high. For the it is th; ability to prolong the glide in weak
thjrlv secondsDowerrltn a larger rnodel thermals which counts where consistent
with-a more moderateclimb;ould be top performanceis the aim.
better, with its gteater consistency, and
ve have to decide is the
The next thine-wh;ch
still be capableof pulting up limit nights
is not quite so easy
total wing area,
on dccount of its better Qlide.
as might lirst appear.Logically,wing area
However. for the m;ent at least, this
should be related to motor capacity-so
ouestion mhst rema)'nunansvered and we many sq, in. per c,c.-but motorc of near
thet
20
must compromise by assuming
or identical c{rpacity frequently have
scondsis about the maximum Powel ruD
likely to be permitted in most contests,
TA B L E I I .
with 16 secondsas * likely minimum, both
justify
large
a relatively
oI which still
Trl l u/c
model.
The smaller the model the more noticet0
t2.5 t7.5
%rohr I 77.5
oble the ellect of a higher \eing loadiDg,

DEsrcN roR AERoMoDELLERS

20

CABIN PowER

21

Jifrerentpower outputs.What might be attack. The marn thing ;s to keep the tail.
right for onemotormay be far too much plane section reasonably thin-celtainly
area for another in the same class, Howver, short of listing every available motor
and calculating at length the best probable
wing area, after finding the power output
of that motor, relating lving area to motor
capacity in a general manner is probably
the only solution, Further practical experience with any particular motor may
indicate that its power output is really
equivalnt to that of an averale motor of
larger capacity, and choicecan be adjusted
accordingly, initial selection being based
on the designsizesspecifiedin Table I.
All the major design layout facto6 are
summarised in tlre headil)g drawing, so
there should be no needto laborateon the
various points. As regards the shapeof the
individual components,this is largely noncritical. Straight-tapered wings with raked
or rouDded tips appear qually as emcient
as elliptic wings, As a general rule te
would sav that the centre Dortion should
be of paiallel chord, or with slight taper,
end tip panels tapered down to loughly
one-half of the root chord, or made of
blunt elliptic plan form.
Tailplane planform should preferably
be tapered,if ooly to reducethe possibility
of warping. A properly designed (stiucturally) elliptic planform is nice, but
straight taper on both leading and trailing
edgeswith squaredtips is equally effective.
Section can then either be thin "lifting"
(i.e., flat undersurface), or symmet cal,
Either are equally effective as regards lift
and drag developed at small angles of

never as thick as the sectionof the wing.


lior the wing, generously cambered
sections of the NACA 6409 type have
Droved about the be6t for medium and
iight loadings, possibly using a slightly
thicker section with similar camber
cheracteristics, such as NACA 6412, on
heavier loadings,The sectiondoesnot need
to be thicker than this (12 per cent.) in any
case. nor should it ever be much thinner
than I per cent. Where a good glide is required, avoid, too, thin sectionswith a flat
undercurface, Sections of this tvDe can
give an extremclyrapid climb, bui gliding
speed is generally high, and consequently
the sinking speed suffers,
Some experts do, however, favour
aerofoil sections eith a flat undetsulface
as giving bettei control, or stability, on
the climb, Dxperience has shown that it
is easierto trim out a fast-climbing model
with a flat undercurface aerofoil than an
undercambered aerofoil. The danger lies
in using too thin a "n;t" section-which
can result in too last a glide.
Probably a better way to approach the
problem of controlling the power run,
when using an exceptionally powerful
engine, is by increasing the 'wing ded.. It
is, in fact, possible to frnd a "best" or
"optimum" wing atea for any palticular
engine-propeller combination, although
this can only be done on the basis of considerable test flying, Here, too, the
individual's style of flying will also
allect the issue. reflected in his skill at
fine trimming,

T AAL E III.

fUSELAGE

W INGS

L .E.

sp.r(r)

+x*

250

350

+xl

500

'q .

l"t

800

I !c.

lxl

t200

'c.

TAIL

UNDERCART

Rlbr

lv r !
lx*

:x +

*x+
I
l+ x l

axI

l xj

CHAPTER FOUR
l/-\N the face of it there may not appear
\-,'
to be a very great deal oI difference
between the design of a porver duratron
model of the pylon layout and one with a
c:lbin. Somecabin models.in fact. maintain the same high wing position, only
instead of a pylon pure and simple the
forebody o[ the fuselageis so shapedas to
incorporatea cabin front and a certain
semi-scdle appearance. These, however,
are not tlue cabin models. They are still
pylon models on account of their wing
positioning
are designedand laid out
on srm ar -and
!oes,
The true cabin modelis not a duralion
type as such, although some may have a
comparableperformance,As ageneral rule,
however, they use lesspowerful motors for
the sxme sjze of model and wing loading
may also be greater.
The type of cabin model chosenis intended for sport flying rather than contest
work, Stability remaios the first and most
important feature, but appearancecan be
:onsidered on an eoual basis with ocrfrrmance. In duration design, app""."ncu
is generally o secondarvconsidcration,

, CABTN POWER
Power loailing
Now jn the dsign article covering
power duration we emphasised the fact
thal slrch models are generally overpoweredand it was this excessivepower
which led to so much difficultv in trrmrning.Somepeoplewill, quite ju;tly, claim
that power duration models are the most
difficult type to trim on this score,
although that is not the true state of
aflairs. It is not trimmins that is so
dimcult as much as the oiiginal dasrgz
being at fault.
We should be able to avoid many of
tbese difficulties with the sports type of
cabin model, fo! there is not the call for
an extremely rapid rate of climb and the
excessivelypowerful moto!. As an example
-a I c.c. motor will fly a 4 ft. span,
350 to 400 sq, in., cabin nrodel quite well,
if only a modetate clirnb is required,
whereas motors of 6 c.c. or rnore have
been used io the same size of model for
duration work. The Zipper, pioneer model
of the pylon type with 488 sq. in wing
area, used a motor of anything betrveen
6 and l0 c,c,

D&stcN FoR AERoMoDELLEBS

There is, of course, the danger of going


to the othcr extretne and producing an
underpowerednrodel.Under cert^in con'
ditioni underoowerinscan Lc as hxrrnlul
'l he'iatter nray introdrrce
as overporveri'ng.
stability troubles,but lhe fortner carl be
almost ss disastrous in being iDsullicient
to lceepthe model under control jn gusts as
might- be experiencedin windy weather.
The true sDorts model must be just as
capableof llying in winds $hen that little
extra porYeris so helpful.
Our choice,then, is {or thc moderately
poweredcabin modelwhich rvillhevequite
a good ctirnb, buL nol afpronching thc
usual duration stnndarJs. I[. the ,Jesign
orovesstableenouPhit could,of course,be
i'hotted up" by usirrg a more powerful
motor, but the bulk of evidenceis agailrst
the true cabin type as a contcst model.
The cabin contest model is usually the
"cabin-ptlon."
Wing ilesign
Proportions of the model can be hid out
witlr leferenceto tlre selectedsize(seetable\
as detailedin tle headilrgdrawing.Wing
spanis a goodcriterionfor the proPottion'
ing and layout of the rest of the com'
po"nents
on almostevery type of modeland
ihe cabindesignis no cxceplion.llowever,
for a given wing area we rnust decidethe
aspecaratio before we c:rn arrive at the
sPan,for
span
Asp ectr at io: _
averagcclloro.
Broadly speaking, increasingthe aspect
its
ratio of a wing of given arer increases
emciency,but sincethe sportsmodelis not
rvith e{liciency,choice
basicrllycorrcerned
of aspectratio should be consideredon the
basisof structural designand appearance.
As regardsthe former, a figrrreof betrveen
six and eight generally gives the most
economic sttucture, i e., the gleatest
strength/weight ratio, whilst the latter rs
largely a matter of taste.
A olain rectaneularwine with en aspect
ratio' ol six, thirefore, is a very good
standard which, with blunl elliptic lips,
has quite a pood appearance.A more
squ*ti,l tip form with very simple shert
consrructionis an alternativewhichis rrolv

I
,1
.' i

finding favour, and again is quite satisfactorv. lI a taper wing is decidedon then
the asoectratio can belncreasedto around
eighL.The taper rctio should be kept low,
tJavoid botir the undesirrble(unstable)
ellect of a small tip chord and keep the
root chord to a reasonablefigure. The tapel
should l,reproportionedequaily on both
leadins and trailiog edge ot one-thitd of
thc te;dins edse and iwo-thirds on the
trailing edge. Aerodynamicallythere is
little to choosebetween thc two.

Tail area
Tailplane size can be directly related to
wing area. It will not be necessaryto use
the large tailplanesizescommon with the
oorver duration model. but tne
-ode.n'
proporlion
requiredfor adequetestability
will-varv with the sizeof the model.Small
modek ;ill need a proportionately larger
tailolane then thc lareer ones. At the
low'erend of the scale,-forexample,it is
consideredunwise to use a tailplane area
of much less than onc-third of the wing
area. When the wing area apptoaches
1,000 sq.in. or more a tailplane of only
20 per cent,can be adequate,althollghfew
designersworl< right down to this lilnit.
There is no point in making the tailplane
too small, A smaller tailplane may result
in a certain reduction in ovetall drag, but
at the expense of decreasinglongitudinal
stabilitv, I.ar better to ert on the side of
having' a tailplane larger than strictly
necessary.
Aeeinst this, of course, is the fact that
a laige tailplanedetractsfrom the semi'
scale-aooeirance of the model and so
'within
the limits suggestedtefigures
piesent a sntisfactorycompromise.Little
harm will result from varying thesee small
amount either way.
The two remaining factors determining
longitudinal stability are, then, centre of
eravity positionand tailplanemomentarm'
-Both'aie imoortant. but we can fix a
-the
latter of about 2.26 times
minimum for
the root chord of the wing when, with the
tiilplane proporlion alteady arrivcd at,
tailolane oower will be quite adequate.
Too' lons a tail rnoment-will spoil the
of the completed model, and
"pp""rai"u
so_a
maximum of three tinles the root
wing chord is suggested,

C,\DIN PorYEB.

C.G. posltlon

enclose the motor to pleserve semi-scale


appearance
an inverted-motor installation
iipraclically essential.If mountedupright
the top of the cylinderwill almostcertainly
come somewhereon a level with the too
of the cabin and orove imoossible to
cowl in properly. Ilire appeaianceagain
must be the deciding factor. If the ready
accessibility and easy operation of an
up ght motor is to be retained, appea!ance is likely to suffer as a conseuence.
Otherwise with an inverted, coivled-in
motor. access to the controls and tank
must be provided either by hinging the
cowling or providing suitable cut,outs.
In any case, with an inverted motor,
ready access must be given to the open
end of the induction tube for chokingeither a hole in the side of the cowlins
or an extension tube on the inductioi
pipe coming to the outside of the fuselage
or cowling Sidewinder mounting is
anolher possibility calling for dummy
cowling on one side.
With wing and tailplene ploportions
decided, together rvith the tail momenr
arm, the centre of gravity position and the
distance of the wing above the thrust
line, other details of the outline design
can be sketched around this skeleton.
The vertical position of the tailplane
does not appear to be critical. The usual
place is on, or somewhetenear, the thrust
line. The length of the nose, which will
depend largely op the motot weight, is a
variable which can be adjusted to achieve
the corlect centre of gravity position of
the completed model. Genetal figures are
givenin the headingdrawing,thesevarying
with the size of the model, A shorter
nose is required to balance on o small
model, mainly becausthe motor weight
in such cases is proportionately latge!
thaD in the bigger models.
If in doubt, it is best to comolete the
wh"le model, less motor assemblt, leaving
Motor rnounting
just the motor bearers ptotruding. These
One result of this latter recommenda- should be longer than necessary. The
tion is that the thrust line should prefer. motor can then be rsted on these and
ably be high, even coming above the the correct mounting position established
centre of gravity of the whole model, for the finsl balance ol the whole model.
if possible. It may in many cases be
Structurally, the cabin tvDe sDorts
necessaryto bring it above the centre of
rnodel ofiers considerable -siooe 1 for
glavity ultimately-with downthrust. To ingenuity. Extreme light rveight G not so
rchieve this thrust line position, and still
necessaryaod a robust, rigid franre should

Selectionof the best centreof gtavity


positionmust take iDto accounta numbe!
;f other factorc, The wing is considerably
lowr, relative to the thrust line, than that
of the pylon model and less power is
being used. There is little point in using
aD aft centre of gravity position and
possibly reintroducing stability troubles.
In other words, the tailplane should be
considered
a stdbiliiing compoilent
whence, by^s so doing, we make its
adjustment less critical,
At the same time, bringing the centre
of gravity right forward so that the tailplane is normally operatingas a stabiliser
pure and simple (i.e., all the lift coming
from the wings) does not necessarily
produce the best set-up offorces. Generally
to coDtrol such an arrangement under
power a fair dovnthrust anfle is required,
since the stalling tendency is aggtavated
the homent the model noses uD. Y'ith a
straight thrust line, Downthrust may
provide a sale way of flying a model so
rigged, but the use of an excessivedownthrust angle again tends to spoil the
aDDealance,
in practice, best results appear to be
obtained when the C.G, is moved back
again to somewhere between 36 and 46
per cent. of the chord, when the tailplane is normally called upon to carry
a small Droportionof the total life. The
need for_any downthrust is then eliminated, or at least reduced to a deqreeor so.
The actual balance will, Jf cou."",
depend also on the height of the wing
above the thrust linc-chosen as the
simplest detelmining factor, The greater
this is, the more desirable it is to use the
aft or 46 per cent. C.G, position. Normally,
however, this figure shoi-rld be kept
vrithin one third and not more than one
half of the root chord.

Low WING Po!YER

DESIGN FoR AERoMoDELLERS

be the aim, At the same time there is no -ere strongly resistant to bending, The
is in compressionunder bending
point in increasingtotal weight uriduly' top spar
'and the bottom one in tension. lT
the more the model weighs the gre^ter loid
the landing shocks and the increased left unsupportedthev would buckle,hence
the space betweenihem is 6lled uith a
possibility of damage.
spar web. Main job of this web is to stop
Ihe undercarriage
t'he upper and lower spar members from
In the smaller modelsemploying motors bending and buckling and each web itself
of up to about 1.5 c.c, a simple tticycle is not highly stressed.
In the smallest sires of models ordinary
gear- is generally excellent and more
trouble-frce than the conventional gear. monosDarconstruction mav be considered
The larger (and heavier) the model, the adeouite. but when it is remembered
more difficult it becomes to produce e thai this two.spar system has been
adopted for Wakefield tailplanes to give
front leg unit which is capable of withrigidity at no increasein weight over a
standing the landirrgloads.
Many people{ail lo understandwhy a normal rnonosparsystem, tne advantage
tricycle undercarl model does not tiP of the built"up spar system is seen.
For the fuselage,box-type construction
ove; immediately the front leg touche!
lhe ground, The answer is quite simple. is still lhe simplest ant lightest. It should
All tte t ime the modelis movingforwards, also be strong enough for any size of
the wingsare still generatingliit end it is sports model if generouslongeron sizes
the wins lift which keepsthe modellevel are selected, Appearance can, of course'
By the iime lhe wing lifr has droppedoll, be improved by adding faiings toP and/or
ali three wheels are rolling along the bottom, ifdesired. Crutch constructionis
ground and the model-stops on a level excellent for rounded fuselaEes,o! a cross
leel. It is surprising just how stable a between ordinary "box" constluction
properly designedtricycle undercarriage with sheet sides and orthoilox crutch
construction lends itself to the production
can De on sports mooers.
of pleasingfuselagelines,
Structurc
Finaliy-a word abont covering,For all
For the wing frame design of all sports but the smallest models we cannot speak
too highly of nylon as a covering material
models we would strongly recommend a
modern spar arrangement which gives for sports models (and other large power
exceDtionalrieidity and freedom from models). Nylol is easy to apply if used
warps at a t""lon"blu light we;ght.This damp, takes dope well and is extremely
toush and durable. Tissue has the one
is a two-spar wing, and thus suited to 'basic
defect, that it is leadily punctuled
almost every size of sports model, where
o! torn and, if too many coats of dope
built-uo beam spars are used. The basis of
' this ariangement is that the two top and are applied, it becomes brittle and splits
strips of shcet on iniDact.
bottom spals-vitually
PESIGN

OATA

TAILSLANE

ch o r d
( in )

Are. l
G q .i n ) |

sp in
( in .)

260

.10

6t

90

3.to

45

7+

tl0

42.

,112

52

8*

144

21

600

60

t0

t8 0

30

no

70

tl

?0s

32

t0{o

a0

l3

215

l
|

( !q.in.)

( inJ

'20

t Glowplut.

(ii

1t

(iD)

(ii,

t5

30

)7
20

31

za

t6

40

26
I

30

60

7.lloc.c.tt

I
I
l

,)

CHAPTER FIVE

t,l

.../.

A DRODYNAMICALLY, thc low wing


fl
machinemav be somewhatinferior
to other layoutsi This is even more
marked in the case of low rving ltodels,where stability requiremnts may em'
ohasise some of the least desirable aero_
iynamic featuresof the layout. St!ucturally
the model designerhas little to appreciate
in the low wing layout, for such a wing
position is more diflicult to arrange than
ihe si,mpleone-piecetie-on high ot parasol
wrng.
Oir these grounds, then, ther.is little
fot building a low wing
ir$tiFcation
'contest
model. To whate-verspecification
a low wins contest model is built it seems
fairly ceriain that a similar high'wing
machine should have a superior per_
formance, although this difference may
not be so marked as many people maY
, imaeine.
'
Llowever, for "sport" flying there is
no reason at all why a low wing proiect
should not give excellent results-no
reason, that is, except for the fact that
there has teen little or no Publishd data
on iow wrnq proportlons.
Logicatly-theproportionsof wing and
. tailolane area and tail mornent lrm suit'
. abla lor satisfactory longitudinal stability
on a high wing model should also apply
to the low wing layout. A moderate
moment arm, with a tailirlane area of
between 30 and 36 per cent. of the wing
area should be quite satisfactory. A
moment aim would appear to
t ti\itnufi
be 2.6 times the root chord of the wing

LOW WING

POWER

(or three times the average wing chord,


whichever is the smaller).

Stability requirements
Satisfactory stability about the other
two axes is. howe{er, more diflicult to
achieve. It is a well-establishedfact, for
example, th^t the greater the height of
the wing above the cntre of gravity the
smaller is the dihedral needed on that
wing for the samedrfl.. of laletal stabilily
(F;g: l). Tbis heighi slould be measured
relative to the meanor averaqe chord of
the wing.
on the type of model,certatn
DeDendine
fis,,r"s h"ri been eitablished lor satisIa;torv stability in terms of minimum
dihedial anglesbn high wing layouts.For
a convenlionalhjgh wing this is about
I0 degrees,and may be more il high power
is being used. For example, a parasol
wing, which normally needsa minimum
of about 6 desrcesdihcJral may rcqrrire
twice that figure to handle high power
satisfactorily.
-basis
we are faced with the
On this
conclusion that we shall need a ninimunt
of about 16 deqreesdihedral on a lorv wing
layout in any case. We can partially
negotiate this problem of excesstve
dihldral requiremint by using polyhedr:rl
with a sharply upswepttin, but sincethe
chief appeai of tire low wing layout is for
slorts design we waDt, as
a semi-sc:rle
far as oossible.to rctain a fair "firll size"
apDear;nce. Full size aircraft frequently
do'ernploy tip dihedral. but often barely

DESIGN TOR AERO}IODELLBRS


F@1

recognisable.The type of tip dihedral


requ-iredon a model, to be efiective,is
oniy too apparent (Fig. 2).

The C. G. ellect
If we examine Fig. I again we can see
that we can imProve the arrangeme[t
somewhat by lowering the centre of
eravity. ff the cenlre of gravity is obottc
il,e mian winq chord, in fact, the model
mry turn out exlrelnelytricky to handle ,
and so it would seem worth while to plot
out a head.on view of the projected
dcsisn to find the limiting height of the
finai centre of eravity, as a check(Fig. 3).
A fair proportionoI the total weightof the
model'wili, irr any case, be coDcentleted
in the wings and so there should be no
especialdifficulty in arranging that t)re
final C.G, does come out low enough.
Designerswith low wing model expetience
sometimesadvise the useof hcdvy wheels
to lower the filal C.G.
lfie can now consider the flight forces
actine in side eleiation (Fig. 4). In all
othei model lavouts the thrust line is
il'ariably below the mean chord of the
wing, rcquiringeither a small downthrust
ans-lc to compensate, or tail "lifr,"
aciomptish"dbt locatingthe C.G. behind
the centreof lift of the wings and balanc'
ing by lift from the tailplane.
lvith the low wing hyout of Fig' 4
we can see that we can quite easily get
the thrust line above both the centre of
lilt of the wingsand the centreof gravity
of the whole model. The high thrust line
would have a stabilising effect under
However, this would depend to a large
extent on the fore and aft location of the
C.G., relative to the centre of lift of the
wings, Broadly speaking, on the low
wina layout it would seembest to use the
taililani purely as a stabiliser,and not
as d meani of lift, so that *t normal ffight
attitudes the tailplane has zero lift and
only develops "l'ft" (.'up" or "down")
when the model is displaced to correct
that displacement,

The thrust line


It is imDortant to note that the C.G.
rvould not necessarilycome exactlv undet
the centrc of lift, Ior the centre of

i
'{

:l
\

Low WING PowER


povcr is with the wings operating ot a
resistxnce of the i,bole m.odel may. be
the
iower angle o[ attack. Conseq'lently,thus
an-d
CiG
the
io.^t"J ai.t"", from
(rlg'
brck
move'l
precsure
has
of
centre
(Fig
6)'
i''uf i,. o"n upsertingmoment
il" rnodel is artually underAs drrwn, this is a small stalling monlenl, Ol. "na
under t his condition' Arldrng
eievated
localrug
by
out
brlanced
bc
worrlJ
which
-b.c.
alo,r the.centre of
component
thrust
a
the
of
front
in
t"ty slightly
irr"
aggravate thc under'
only
will
eravity
centre of lift.
ilevation, which i' somewhald'sturDlng'
The ideal solution, i.e.' to passthe thrust
Eith". ,u" h"uu got to get tlle thrust line
ralher
ho"{ever'
line throug)rthe C.G.,G.
to pass beloiv the centre ol gravlty, or
For
more diffiiulL to put inlo lractice
use'the tail in some way to trim out this
on" tttine, the vcrtical position of the di[Icience.
ilem
guesslimated
tr
much
i.C, i. *i".y
'l hererppcar to be two dislinct tnethods
ina- c""not' nntltv be ie'olved until the
ot
iolvins'ihis problern.Iiithcr thc modcl
It could.be 'alcu,nod"l i.
di{ler('n'e betI!een
"o'npl"l".l,
componcntsweights were is trirnmeLlwiih the
lared. orovided
{light and glide flighl attilude
tedious'
lower-on
is
this
but
.o.t""rty,
..titn'"i"d
as possible(end I low thrust
A simDler so)ution would, it appears' i<eptas sm,tli
tailplane rigged
u."d
ii''"
ootirion
adjustbe to c'ompletethe model with cn
"irh
model is deliberately
or the
line position (in-tbe verlical "non'-lifting");
"oti
siightly nose-heavy and
"Uf"-tftitJr
find, by test flying' which bal"n.e,l
ait".tion)
small downlord on the
with
a
balanced
The
"na
(Fig'.6)'
for.it
i. itr" Ul.t position
tailplaneat a negatrve
the
i,e.,
tailplane,
uslng
oy
same eflect could be achleveq-.
aown rtttust or rtFthrust to "direct" the anele of attack.
it rvould seem advisable on all low
,ttiui, lin" as required relative to lhe
that
desienslo mount lhe trilplane on
disadvantsge
wins
lhe
i.C,. tut rtti. has
i e well
the;lipstream is now inclinedat an angle tl,eioo de"ckline of the fusclage. 'small
."ing root. Riggell at a
io tl,i a^tu- line of the model Tlte
"Uou"'ttt"
n e e r r i u e a n g l e 'o l a tl a ck; cn d co u p l e d
i"irii"n" U"ing rigged "non-lifring' in
up
ln
*ine-U"t'n."d out $ith the CG'
expeYlence
*iitr
now
normal trim nlay
"
\r_ouldaPpear
oi io"n Io"a dui to slipstieameffectand at some30-percent. chord,
io Le rt o.t.et"ton outlineof the successful
cause a considerabledillerence- ln trlm
po*". on and glide (Fig' ?)' low wing model (Fig. I0)'
i"i*"."
o.t mauy
Soiral stability problems are acute in
This, in fact, is a cheracterrstrc
lo* *ine tnod"l. trimmed by adjusting moiel desjsn. Tireie is no reason why a
lirl trttGt Ine in this manner-a good low wing ho,lel should be any more
nieht may be fo)lowedby a stalling u n sta b l e l n i u r n i n g tl r e n a n y o l i e r p r o "o*.,
nerlv nroportioneddesignand satislactory
ir (moriusuallY) diving glide'
to have bcon achieved
Normalfy, any po*er mo<lel flies faster l".ui'i
"pp"".
oow'eithin'on the glide' Dxpressed *1,11 6r, lnountedon top of the fusel^ge
"
base width
'nd"r
iri ierms of tle/trgtrr artit'dt of the model rvith a height not lessthan its
this means that under power the t'tlngs (' r i P. 1 l ) .
,i frunu"nt cnuse oI instability with
*i" o*t"ti.e at a lowe; angle of attack
the-re low rving modclsi' rip slalling,dxe eillrer
thnn ir" tt'e?t;a". Correspondingly'
t*o "."n[.u o[ lift" positions,.forthe io. b"lly proportioncdv'ing plan'form'
"1.
wing wcighrs'- or both'
centre of pressureof the wings will vary oi
"*."tiiuithat llte wing halves are
AssuminP
with the tngle of attack'
separateieach tralf wirrg shoulLlbalance
ro'uehlyone lhird from the root (Fig 12)
Trim rquirements
ro r-cdircetip ueight anJ possibleinertia
Trimming first for glide, then, for Iorces building uP in turns.
.
to a
relatively slow flight, corresponding
TaPered wings rre, unfortunrtelY,
fairtv high angle o[ attrck on the wlngs' pronJ to stall frIsl at the tips
.and to
forward
its
in
be
will
ot'lift
t"nti"
iiu
chxraclcrisliclo a mlnrmum
this
ieduce
m
out
t
to
Iocated
the
C.C.
oositionand
onlv a moderatedegreeof taper shorrldbe
ihe model at this Rttitude([ig' 8)'
u."it. ttt" rip chorl sh',rrl'lnevcr lre lcss
uniler
iire trimming attitude rcquired

r
i

I
i

il
.1

il

il
:

DEstcN roR AERoMoDELLERS

29

than 66 per cent. loot chord. Another


valuable feature would b to incorporate
some three degrees or so of washout in
each wine, as a further safeguardagainst
tip stalling.

i!

6". o

.D rHnlt leE*r<qr

PAA-LoAD

Structurally, of course, there are


additional problems. -Either the wings
have to be built in halves plugged into
the fuselagesides,or in one piecestrapped
iDto a cut-out in the fuselage underside.
The latter is simpler, but untidy. For
small and nredium size models, at least,
plug-in wings with tongueand box fitting
rvould appear to be the best soluti.D
(Fig, l3). A sarisfactoryfairing may be
difficult to achievewirh tongue-and.box
fitting without resorting to a fixed stub
centre scction. as in Fig. 14, the wing
box itsclf being built into the lower part
of the ciutch, in the case illustrated. An
alternative solution is to extend the stub
centre section outwards slightly, and then
add the dihedralledouter panels(Fig. 16).

CHAPTER SIX
rr.HD frrst major point to decide in
r roughing out a new PAA-load design
is the size of the model. Without doubt
models of this type come into the heavily
loaded class and a good "duration" climb
comes only from using the motot wide
open and with the rest of the model
proportioned correctly with reg:rrd to the
Dovfer available. First we can consider
ihe effect of overall weight.
With all duration models, minimum
weight is accepted as a most desirable
feature, Where loading rules exist, de.
signen like to work right down to the
lower limits permitted, which is only
logical. For a given size. of model, less
weight means greater height under po*er
and a slower sinking speed on the glide,
all other things beingequal. In the PAAload specification rve are not rest cted to
size of model, but only to minimum
weight and meximum size of motor. In
ellect this latter factor does introduce
its own limits as to model size.
Let us iake weight first. The rules call
for a minimum weight of 6 ounces per
c.c. motor size, plus the 8-ounce payload.
The minimun weight oI a PAA-load
model must, therefore, be:6 X motor c.c. glus 8 ounces,
If, now, we can estabiish a similar simple
(desirable) weight,
formula for lrc*alro

PAA- LOAD
we shall have two useful limits which will
be of considerableuse in design,
To find a figure lor maxiium weight
'fle continued to load up a successful
PAA"load model until a definite falline
off in perlormance was noliced. lt i;
interesting to find that moderate weight
increasesover the minimwn (as given by
the rules) had little appreciable efiect,
but once the overall weight exceeded
l0 ounces per c.c, climb most definitely
began to taper ofi and the glide was
appreciably faster.
II these two limits are plotted in the
form of a gtaph, as in Fig. l, a very
interesting fact emerges.The two lines
cross and on the left-hand side of where
they cross the nixinum weigli xegtired
is grealu tha,n whet is taken as the
absolute fraxi,,lr/r4 for good duration
Delformance.
'
In other words, the PAAload model
vith a motor of under 2 c,c. is not likelv
to be as successfulas one DroDortionea
for a larger motor. In fact, within the
limit of 3.6 c.c. maximum motor size, the
larger tlte motor the greater the tolerance
between the minimum weight called for
by the rulesand the rrpperlimit governing
performance. It will be an advantage
therefore, to use as large a motor as
possible, although above 2 c.c. capacity

,{
30

DESIGN FoR AERoMoDELLEaS

PAA-LoAD

i.

t4

orthodox constluction this


centre of gravity position
should be lealised by locat"
ing the centre of gravity of
the motor approximately
one-fifth of the wing chord
in front of the leading edge

design can be analysed.


Probably the most emcient
way of determini$g the
model size is by referenceto
wing loading,

lYing loadingellect

The lower the ving loading, the better the glide. At


the same time, if we go on
pushing up \ling orcd to
reduce wing load.ing we
increese the ovrall structural weight (with the larger
*ing) and the drag. Both
rill
detract trom climb
Performance.
all models built down to the minimum
For simple analysis we can sdopt a
weight should have a similar performance figure of 100 square inches wing area per
(ignoring scale effect, which will show an 6.6 ounces total weight as the minimum
advantage to the larger Jtz, of model, limit which will give a good climb without
called for by a larger ffiotol sil.\.
excessive wing area to spoil the climb;
Obviously the motor used is going to be and 100 square inches per ?.6 ounces as
governed by availability cnd contest the maximum wing loading above which
sDeci6cations.Standard "Brirish" srzes glide begins to suffer. Our model size,
eie 1,6. 2 c.c.. 2.6 c.c. and a more limited
proportioned according to estimated
range in the 3.6 c.c. size. The 2 c.c. moto!
overall weight (in turn related to motor
would appear to be on the marginalsize, size) can then be determined between the
as determined by the loading graph, and limits on Fig. 2.
the other sizeswould appear to be preferable. The 2.6 c.c. motor will orobablv be
preferable. The 2.6 c.c, motor will probably The C.G. position
be the popular ch-ice for "up to 3.6 c,c."
For stability reasonsa semi-pylon wing
PAAJoad, although the 3.6 c.c. motors
are probably the more powerful,size for position is desirable, with the wing
size, and would probably produce the inounted approximately 40 per cent. o-f
best duration performance. 'Ihe models, the chord above the thlust lin (horizontel
in such cases,would be larger.
component). There is no point in havrng
Motor size, determined by availability
a shallow fuselage,anyway, for interior
or perconal preference,will govern the heisht must be at least {our inches to
totel weight and this in turn will sovern acc;mmodate the payload. Used with an
he overall size of the model. Once tLese incidenceof 2-21 degreeson the wing
wo factors have been lixed the overall
(employing a duration type section lik
NACA 6409 or 6412) and
a zero or slightly positive
thin lifting section tail plare
one-third of the wing area,
and tail moment arm 2 X
wing chord, the balance
point nill come at approximately 76 per cent, of the
chord. Slight dow[th.ust
may be necessary to trim
out the power flight. With

3l

of the wing, The eight-ounce


payload can tben
be
located epploximately under the C.G.
position, making provision fot slight lore
end aft movement for fine trimming.
Once the required position has been
found fot the payload it is imperative
that it be located strongly.
An important featule of the fuserase
design is tbe size of the payload itseli
Fig. 2. Overall width ol the dummy pilot
is three inches, vhich means that the
minimum iuside fuselage
width is also thtee incheswider than current dulatioD
practice. This calls for a
rather more box-like fuselage than usual, fot it would
be diIficult to accommodate
thepilot in a rounded or thin
rcctangular fuselagewitbout
an exaggerated fuselage
crosg section, at least at
that point.

I
I

With the disposition of


Fig. 3 satisfectotily
for
stability we can efiect a
small saving in overall size
by increasing the aspect
latio, Fig. 3 applies to wing
aspect ratios of from 6 to 8.
Structurally
the
higher
aspect ntio is not to be
recommended and so an
aspect ratio figure of 7
appears to suggest itself as
a good compromise, when
the whole wing can be
proportioned
around
a
rectangular plan-form for
convenience-Fig. 6.

Wing design
Despite the fact that modern practice
ls to use very blunt wing tip shapes,
aerodynamically and aesthetically rre
still preler rounded or blunt ellipric tips,
although these are undoubtedly harder
to make. A simple sheet tip butted onto
the end db suffices lor the ,,modern"
tip and does Dot appear to introduce
much extra drag, whereas theory would

DESIGN FoR IERoMoDDLLERS

indicate that such blunt tips requrre


washout over the outer wing pancl to
reducetip drrg to a comparrblelevel.
As regards dihedral, there does not
appcar any rerson why straight dihedral
should not be adequ&te.The PAA.load
model is not grossly overpowered and
straight dihedral is generally quite adcquate i:r such cases.Polyhedral is urdoubtedly rnore effective for duration
flying but will, ol course, detract from
semi-scale appearance-Fig. 6.
Other cletailsshould then fnll naturally
iuto IiDe, PossiblervingaDd tail construction methods are sunrrnarised
in Figs.7
and 8. Fuselage construction is rnore
diffi.ult to fit into gFn"rrlisst;onsowing
to the variety of side elevation shapcs.

Normal slabsider construction would appear the easiest


approach rvith any refinerrents added in the form of
rounded top and bottom,
giveD by
formers and
stringers.lloundcd decking
$ou)d, it appeats, best be
confined to the top of the
fuselagesincethe bulk of the
rectangular closs section
rvill, in any case, bc lilled
by the "pilot." Winclscreerr
area rvill be governed by the position of
the "pilot" who has to have the degree
of visibility outlinedin Fig.9.

Th
rubber
driveh
Canard is not nece ts.rilt
i.ferior
to itr.onven.
tlonal .osnterpart,
This
.rrmple
l.
',Pga3ur',
br Georre
Harrison
is
onlt a l4 in. nrodel, yt
itr averase iight
it oyet

..

Uslns an engin. facins forwardr


in thc normat
war, P. Snodin"
powered Canard ha3 a dl.tin(tly
uniqu. ipparan...
For ftim, th. pow.r
est..uld
be mov.d
alona the fur.l.e..
Thir hod.l
h,t.n
E.D,
Be di.i.l,
firr quit.
rimDl.
rrru.rur..
and ir w.ll
wlthin
thc .aDabillti.r
ol any ambitlour
mod.ll.r.

An interestr'ng
class
PAAJoad promises to be a very
interesting specification. 13eingforced to
carry a dead weight of eight ouDces,
which may be as much as one-third of
the total weight of the whole model,
I'AAload moclels do not behave in the
s&me milnner:!s the much lighter, overpowered duration models. The original
weight specification appears to have been
selectedrvith e-{pert care and just that
bit of luck to ensure that the edge
is knocked off the pure
drrration element,
Vet
the PlAload
model is
still definitely a duration
nrachine .nd must be designedlvith that end in view.
A finxl point as regards
trirnming. With the layout
suggested
a turn to the right
should be safe under power,
n turn to the left possibly
dangerous. It is recommended,therefore,that right
sidc-thrust be rrsed for a
right-hand clirnbing turn,
togetherwith a smallamount
of downthrust. Slight left
nrdder ollset should be tsed
to hold the nose up in the
cJimb and give a left-hand
glide circle.

vert littl
6.4r.
driv.h
Heli.optr
The rubbr
seen In
nr..hin..As
to the lull-si:e
r.3enblance
(rabove)
(Left)
r,n
Dow3ttt
.nd
vi.
Kinr'r
than tontrn_rot.tina
models. thev !re no mor.
by the lohe stick ttrterae..
air3.rwr.eDarated
Asrent to ovar 3O0ft. ir Fot3ible with tni. tvpe or
d"3r"nd
ind in rtill ai.. th.v lf'qu'htlv
nlod"l
rf iin"
nfr'
to tl,. Fnint

I
/
I
I

'

I
E :l ra l a rs. ta l l l e !3 3r il'
D l .n . b Y Mr' A l l e n ot
H.i ShttS t. Ge ;tS .r
.tu b k n o l l .r .h o r t ol
.o n tr .tle
lt
l u tl -ri z.t
w i th th . " F l ti rs P l ank"
typ . o l p o w.re d ta ill.t.
b .l o w. b Y T . H .rg r tvGt
a n d J. T o o d .. (B i l l Din

CHAPTER SEVEN

J ohnGotham fl w hi 3 195{W ak c fi l d on noats at R adl ett,.nd


.5 ..en abov.r take olf run w.-t
no m or th.n a nI!m p,r of. r .w
i n.h.t. At l eft,G. Per k i ns s how !
hi s .i nr l e fl oat ar r ans em e.t'
l l oat'
tupPor t
tw o
.m al l c t
beins litted to th6 tailPl.ne.

T h . i .d o o r mo d .l ir the
l l a h t rt ttp . o J m odel
.6 n srru cte d a n .l i .utuatr v
.ovr.d with ml.rolllm'
Thii or by Ted !luxlow
ir fr.e-fl i8h! and cven ha.
a b u i l t !P D roptr ci'
rl 3 o mi (;o 'fi l m.o tr ed.
of su.r!
{eisht
Tot.l
h o d .k
se l d o m ex.e.d5
rn
of
i h rce -q u .rt r3
.u n G.,a n d d u r.ti ons tr .
bY. .th
l i mi t.d
only
l n d o o r tp i <. a vr r r aDr e.

JETEX

chargesin the same motor, Thrust outPut


maialso be modified by such physical
conditiotts.s the cleanliness of the jet
hole in the motor, the state of the interio!
gauze, and so on. All things considered,
[owever, it is reasonableto assume that
. the Do$,eroutDut of the motor l,lill remeitr
substantially ihu same, fiight by flight,
without adiustment.
The number of the Jetex motor is
actually a designationof the thrust outPut
it is intended to sive. Thus the Jetex
"60" gives a thrust of aPproximately
0.6 ou-nce;a Ietex "100" l0 ounce,
feures are a uselul guide
and so on, Tbes,-e
in the oroportioning of suitable models
for maximum Derfo;mance.The leading
ohvsical charaiteristics of the various
;iz;s of letex units ete summalised in
the table.The Tetex'Doweredmodel desigrredfor
duratio-n wori< is in a similar category to
the power duration model. Power run is
limitld. in this casebv the time of burning
of the charse, and so the main object o[
Thrustoutput
desisn is to- produce a model which *ill
When a Ietex unit is fireil, the thrust
(total duration!
builds up siowly at 6rst, reaching e peak havi a good'flight ratio
duration of Dower run) whlch means' ln
value in a rCasonably short time. It
efiect. a fasi climb to a good height'
remains roughly at this peak value until
followed by the best Possible glide at
the end of-the burning time, when it
taDers off. Although all the charges are minimum sinking sPeed.
In this respect the Jetex motor is vely
prepared to the sime close sPecificstron
work, for the
iheie i.. in pactice, some variation in the wcll suited io duratlon
is less than
actuel thrust oulput from individunl weight of tlre complcte lrotor
c

TETEX is a most interestingform oI


I poo,er unit, available as it is in seven
ti'stinct "motor" sizessuitable for power_
ing models of between -10 end 46 rns.
soin.'The -o[
letex motot has the singllar
being a completely self'
r'du"ntago
containe-doower unil which is located by
e simole ilip. A single motor, in other
words. can bi usedin i number of different
models.Servicingis reducedto a minimum
since about the only attention the Jetex
needsis a regular cleaning and occasional
replacement-of the sealiog washers and
gauzes. There are no moving Partsr and
frence there is no wear. The power unit,
too. is virtuallY indestructible.
Thrust is otoduced directlY bY the
expanrling gaies of the trurning charge
anh is alrios-t a pure sltd,Sil thrust, as well
as being appreciably constaDt ovet the
bulk of the power run' There is no totque
as there would be with thrust developed
by a propeller.

g
F

f:

DEstcN FoR AERoIIoDELLERS

the sustained thrust it is capable of


developing. It is not in the same category
as some internal combustion engines,
however, where th thrust developed is
so high, for the size and weight of the
motor, that it is possible to produce a
complete model with a total weight less
then the thrust developed by the motor.
Such a model, of course, could climb
vertically under propelle! thrust alone,
although this would not necessarily be
achieving the fastest rate of climb
possible with that particular model,
quite apart from the problemof stablising
such.a climb.
The Jetex may be regarded as a more
"moderate" power unit where the resulting model climbs largely by rving lift,
This is an important factor in determining the best srze of model for a particular Jetex unit.

Moilel sizes
Experience has dictated a range of
wing area sizes which appear best suited
to the various Jetex units. These are
summa sed in the table. The inference rs
that sizc is likely to be less critical using
the larger Jetex motors than the smallest
o[es in the present range. The wing area
sizesindicated appear to be the optimum
for a good rate of climb, whilst still
enabling low wing loading figures to be
achieved for a satisfactory glide performance. The maio disadvantages of
using a model smaller than that indicated

palticuldr
for
a
unit is first that it
may be rather difficult to trim under
power, and secondly
that the smaller area
may result in too
high a wing loading
for optimum glide
performance, parin
the
ticularly
smaller sizes.
A suggested
maximum all - up
veight for a "200"
is 2l ounces (with
unit empty), and for
a "360" is 4 ounces
(unit empty). No arnount of streamlining
will compensatefor the performancelosses
which rvill be sullered if the model is
overweight.
It. s usurl to work to empty weights
for design purposes since we are mainly
concerned leith weight as aflecting glide
periormance, and on dre glide the charge
has been consumed.

Thrust-line anil trim


As to the layout of the design,here the
Jetex powr nit opens up a range of
possibilities. Being such a compact power
unit it will fit almost anyrhere into a
conventional or unorthodox outline. It
would appear an almost ideal layout for
flying wings, for example. If we are
prima ly concerned with duration, however, y/e are more concernedri.ith finding
the most efficient, or vhat is appalently
the best layout,
Both high and low tlrrust-line positions
have been used successfully, and as a
matter of fact the I.C.I. ChallengeTrophy
has been won by each,
}[any designersprefer the high lhrustline layout since such a model has less
tendency to loop under high po*er, and
does not waste po*er in down-thrust, A
typical high tllrust-line layout may h
fact be rigged (taking the tailplane as the
datum line) with wings at +3' and thnrst
at +3' also, so making the most of its
available power.

JETEX
ward of the designC.C. oI the comple[ed
Ilowever, both layouts have thei!
supporters and neither can be con- model to add a slight stabilising nose.
demned. A compromisedesign solution, down or uader-elevated effect when
rvitlr a centrallyJocated tlrrust line ls loaded, i.e., under power. This will
now also filding favour-liig, I. All these assist irr promoting the acceleration
from considerations into fast climbing flight as the thrust
poirrtsarc inseJrarable
of rving mounting, and lightness and builds up, for in this flight attitude
simplicity may again prove the decisrve the wing angle of attack will have to
dccrease.
factors.
After this, the remainder of the design
Ilecommended practice is normally
to fly Jetex models straight or nearly layout is lairly non-critical. The one
really importaDt factor is the size and
straight under polver.
A tight spircl climb is a good thing; disposition of the fin or vertical tail
but th ideal is a straight climb and a surface(s), but this is just the one point
circling glide, which can be achieved on which no empirical rules can be given!
with caieful trimming.
A fin area of around ?.6 per cent, of the
'rving area shor.rldbe more than adequate
First mount the iet unit vith built-in
side-thrust. This is most ellective, if the (up to l0 per cent. total fin area on a
unit is mourted a/read of the model's twin-Iin design) and would appear best
.C.G. Ilorvever,since this distanceis not vith at least two-thirds of this area placed
great, one o! two degrees of sidethrust above the tailplane, assuming that the
would have little effect, As much as tailplaneis roughly in line with the rvings.
l0' sidethrust must bc used, Iludder is
In the rnainit is bestto designthe wing
o{Isct against side-thrust.
and tailplane basically on structural
When the glide is a satisfactory circle, considcrations. Small wir:g chords should
begin powered flights with smail amourrts be avoided, as these will introduce
of fuel, i.e., one charge halved. Increase inefficiency, icceptirrg a figure of 3 ins,
to one full charge and so arrive gradually as the minimum rving chord to be used,
at full power, making small adjustments this immediately fixes the maximurn
to side-thrust, as necessary, flight by
aspect ratio of a Jetex "60" wing as 0.
night.
Lorver aspect ratios are not desirable in
lternative to rudder ollset, wing any case,and so 6:1 leill serveas a good
warping may be used to produce a turn.
t liftiktuln flgve for all the other model
One rving is given rvash-in and the other sizes. Above an aspect ratio of about 8 i I
wash-out.On the glirle, where the wlng the normal parallel rving chord ceasesto
is operating rt a high angle of attack, the be a good proposition, and if higher
wing witlr greater incidence drags more aslect rctios are to be used,taperedwings
and turns the model in that direction, are called for.
Speed the model up, as under power, and
The balance of the design data required
this wing with greater incidencenorv tends can be drawn from the heading illustrato lift more and roll the model into a tion. Constluction is normal lightweight
turn in the opposite direction.
. plactice, as exemplified by current rubber
We can complete
our summary of the
basic layout requirements by reference
to Fig. 2, which suntma ses the main
requirementsof what
should be a good
duration design, 'fhe
Jetex motor itself
should be located
with its centre of
gravity slightly for-

,l
DESIGNToR A&RouoDELLERs

it

C0NTRoL LINE STUNT

(using a 60 augmenter), the 60, thc


Scotpiott. Witb the J.tmdtlcr
J ttmdsler
^nd a very definite gain in
in particular,
thrust is exoeriencedwith tbe use of an
augmenter tube. With the others there is
still a gain, although rather less marked.
The principle use of an augmenter
tube is to eneble a Jclax unit to be
"buried" in the luselage of a scale or
near-scale single-jet model, exhalsting
ContestdeEigns
the jet efflux IrJm a tailpipe af tbe
Tbe figures for model weiglt given in extreme rear of the fuselage,The fuselage
the table represent larhnurfl $eights for must be ducted to allow a flow of air to
the respective sizes ol Jelee motors. For
the mouth of the augmeDter.
durdtion contest work, obviously, a
With duration designs the Jcler unit
light overall weight should be aimed at. is invariably mounted on an external
For example, expe opinion is that the fixing, or virtual)y so. The addition of an
ideal airframe weight fot a cootest model augmente! tube, therefore, poses certain
powered with a Jelex 350 is about ll
problemsas regardsfixing. Another major
point to consider in such cases is that
ounces.
Actually it is difficult to give set although an apprcciable thrust increase
rreighls for a contest design. Whilst the may be realisedwhilst the /elar is giving
lightest possible airframe weight is the power, on the glide the augmenter tube
obvious ideal, the model must still be may be very likely to produce a quite
strong enough to resist warping or dis- high drag, nullifyirg the beneficial effect
tortion during fljght and be capable of o[ the extra height gained by the inwithstanding normal landirrg shocks, creasedthrust on the power run.
handling, etc. The model Jizr, at the same
Care of.Jetex charges
time, remains srrbstantiallythe sameA certain causeof loss of thrust, or even
so ultralightweight construction of adequate strength becomeslargely a matter
failure to file, is an excessively damp
oI individual skill in construction and the charge. Charges should never be left
selection of suitable grades of wood, around to get damp. Warm with gentle
allied to an overall strength factor which heat, such as on a radiator, just before
use, if possible.If not, keep in a closed tin
the particular individual is prepared to
box carried in your pocket when on the
accept as reasonable.
flying field. Never lay charges down on.
Augmenlertubes
damp grass or exposeto a damp atmos-,
Augmenter tubes are available for use phere for any length of.time, when they
vrith certain J?t?r units-notably the 36 might absorb moisture. .
model and glidcr practice. It is an advan.
tagc as far as possibleto rcduce the nose
length as thi! will have a beneficial
efiect on stability duriDg tuming flight.
This calls for light rear fuselage and tail
unit construction, when it should be
possible to reduce the nose length to one
ihord and still require little or no ballast
to tnm.

HODEL SPECIFICATION
r.r'.i8ht

Ch.rs6

(l nJ

(rn)

25-30

7t

50

0,5

50

t8

t00

1 ,0

t@-t70

,|

30

t20-t50

,11

32-3.t

200

2.0

l.O-160

1t

3+36

350

3.5

0.,t

5.0
' Sln8l. Chts..

rl

t80-2,lo

rl

t80"260

I lidudln!

l+

40-.11

sl

l.t6x t,|olor

\ry.ish.tt

32",18

a-l
t!-2
rF5

t,r

15'-

- -B r? H ro i b

c.6.

rr2flrrcK srtrt|!.trrc {L

ua.Fur

sM^r.r MooELS-

_\

OAOP OUt

On

IAFCEA MOD:LS.
FI'ED UI{DNC'i1

CHAPTER EIGHT
A STUNT model nowadays must be
flcapable
of performing'"everything
in the book" in the hands of a caDable
pilot. Otherwise it simply is not e itunt
design. The original Millsbomb, for
example, rvhich Mike Booth flevr at the
1948 Nationals at NorthamptoD, rvas
then an outstanding stunt model. It was
one of the first aerobatic models utilising
such lov power as e 1.3 c.c. capacity diesel
rnotor. Yet this model could onlv oerform
single loops, It would stall or'niush at
the end ol the first loop if consecutive
loops were attempted. Yet the diflereDce
between this model and the Millsbomb II
which will perform consecutive loops is
relatively shall,
' Pete Cock first convincingly demon.
strated tllat the smaller capacity diesel
motors could be used for a comDlete
aerobatic mnge with a small size mbdel.
As most enthusiasts will remember, he
won the stunt event at the same Nationals
with dn E.D. II oowered Kan-Doo
proile-type model, quite contrary to
the popular belief that one of the West
Essex l0 c.c. powered lightweight "boxcars" iyas the "cert" rvinner.

, CONTROL LINE STUNT


Den Allen's original "Boxcar" was
typical of the early trend of fully aerobatic
stunt models in this countly, with fairly
low wing area (336 sq. ins,), but extremely
light weight (27 ounces) for the size of
motor employed-I0 c.c. Wing loading
was only 8 ounces per 100 sq. ins.
wing area and, equally significant, power
loadingwasas )ow as 2.? orrncesper c.c.
Light wing and power loadings subsequently formed the basis of almost all
the successfulstunt modelslater produced
in the smaller sizes,and these,as everyone
knows, have beenoutstandingly successful
With this development, too, designs
have tended to become nruch more
refned. The purely functional layout of
many of the ea.rlier successful stunt
modelshasgiven way to a moreattrective
appearance. Quite a number of modern
stunt designs, in fact, truly fall into the
category of semi-scalemachines,provided
some allowance is made for the fact thrt
certain features, such as large wing area,
are a necessity. The functional design,
of course, still remaias, but it has been
proved'that reasonably good lines are
no handicap as tcgards performnncc.

CoNrRoLLINE STUNT

DESIGN FoR AERoMoDELLERS

Manoeuvrability

nnr

ri
it

!oY. otto

r to .rv'ro^

C.G, position, in other words, tetrd! to act


the controls.
a.gaidst
-Thus
provided the loading figuresfor the
design are reasonable,i.e., sumcient wing
area per c.c, motor capacity, with ]ow
wing and power loadings, designs with
a reasonable momeDt arm can be made
very manoeuvrable,toithpopet lo.alion oJ
the conhol blate and C.G. hosilion. Fvrthermore, suci models will ihen require less
elevalor power for manoeuvrabilityand
there wil[ conseouentlvbe much lessrisk
of stalling or mushing'on sharp pull-outs.
can go. lhese
As far as generalisations
dcsirableconditionsare tealisedwith the
pivot point at about 60 per cent. of the
wing chord with the C.G. then as far aft as
possible without running into the trouble
of lines slackeninc ofl. With the C.G. too
far aft the model will tend to come in on
the lines all the time. If too far forward,
will be reduced.Similarly,
manoer-rvrability
line stability will be lost if the piyot point
is Dlacedtoo fdr aft.
besigns of this-type generally ,employa mornent arm of about one and a half
wing chords, or slightly less, and can be
made particularly smooth in responseto
co[trol bandle movement, since no mole
than about 30 degreeselevator movemenl
Stability and design
should be necessiry and, consequently,a
At the same time, stable design layouts large control plete and long elevator
have often provbd equally as ineffective control horn can be used.
as overcontrolleddesjgns,although forjust
the oppositereason!A number of flying Fuel feed trou5les
rving designs,for example, were based on
'Ihe same remarks tegarding C.O.
a stable, swept-backpianform when it was position applv also to the short-coup)ed
found that with the forward C.G. position d e si g n s,'a l th o u g h u n d o u b te d l y th i s
considered safe for maintaining line a angement,genenlly using a 60 per cent.
tension, they were just tog stable for small elevator atea and penerous movement
radius manoeuvres.In other words, they (46 degrees up and lorvn), is easier to
resisted displacement and automatically disolaceand conseouentlvlnakesit easier
tended to open up any loop induced by
for'the less experiinced'pilot to fly out
elevatorsor equivalent controlling 51rfaces. a fairly advanced flight pAttern. The less
About the only satisfactoty way to make experienced
in stunt work the pilot is, lhe
such models perlorm as stunt designswas more he would be advised tb tackle a
to reduce their margin of longitudinal short-coupled stunter if he is after quick
stability ,Jr'mouing the C.G. aJt.
results. Iie will probably have to pat for
This has proved a particularly significant manoeuvrability either in a cettain ten'
dency to mush at the bottom of sharP
point. As ve know now, line stability
obtained by using a forward C.G. position radius manoeuvres,which is still present
opPorrr menoeuvrability and "playing to a certain degree on many of the best
safe" in this respectautomalicallyoPens short-couDled stunters, ol fuel feed
up the looping radius of the rnodel, troubles induced by the violence of the
however powerful the controls, A forward manoeuvres.

often so lapid thet thy were xtremely


difficult, or even impossible,to keep under
control at all. Mushing or stalling on a pull
out from almost any manoeuvte was
cornmon and few models now attempt to
get rapid control responseby exaggerated
elevator atea and angular movement,
Llowever, a very effective way of com'
bating "mushing" has beenfound-the use
of small wing flaps coupled to the control
system and working with the opposite
angularmovementas that of the elevators.
In-otherwords,whenelevalorsmove "up"
the flaps move "down." Combined flap
and levator control of this natute ltas
p.rovedparticularly effective aod allhough
lheir aerodynamic action is not fully
understood, they can vastly improve the
performance of an otherwise "tricky"
stunt model.
Details of a typicol method of linking up
the controlsare shown in Fig.3. A flap
area of about two-thilds of t)7e cleador
arer appearsto give lhe best tesults,the
flaps lhemselvesbeing of narmw chord.
Full span (narrow chord) flaps have been
tried on some designswith positive results.

Probably one of the most marked


trends in the design layout of stunt
models has bpen the shorteningoI the
r no r l e L a | | n . I h e m o m e n t n r m i s ,
s t r i c t l y s t , e a k i u g ,t h o d i r l : r n c e b e l \ ^ c c n
lhe c e n t r eo f g r o v i l y o f t h e m o J e la n d t h e
cenlrc of Dressureol tlte t:rilplllne,bul
f or : r l l p r a c t i c r l p u r p o s e sl l r e s t e n d n r d
of rneasurernent adopted is to measute
rnomentarrn ts the distlnce betlvecnthe
trnilirrgedgeot the wing and the lc.r,ling
e, lg co f t l r e t n i l p h r r . T l r i s ,i n n r e n yo f t ) r e
early models, lyas frequently twice the
wing chortl, but it was soon lound that
decreasing this nloment gave a model
with a much srraller looping radius. 'lhis
slxrl.d a desigl trend, through wltich tlrc
lras virtually disapp.z1s6
lnom.nt
^rrn
starts some very small
and the tailplane
distance behind the wing-l.ig. l
Parallel rvith this development, too,
rving areas increascd proportionately, so
lhat the short-coupleJ stunl nrodel.
which has become so popular today
virtuclly compromi"edbetrvecna flying
wing :rnd a more orthodox layout.
trlost of the original designdeveloPment
rvork was directed towards m.rking th
rnodel nrore rnanoeuvrable, and, in parli.ular, rcdu(ing lhc looping radius.
Shortening the moment arm and usilrg
large elevator areas and large movement
c er t r i n l y d i d t h i s , b u t a t t h e s a m ^ t i m e
did not produce an entirely satisfactory
state of affairs, Although models might
now loop in a very small radius, there was
zr delinite tendency for them to stall or
mush at the bottom of a loop, or even on
a sharp pull out froln a dive, and consecu_
tive manoerrvresoften recluircd considerable skill in/f,irry the model round all the
time. In other words, it was rcadily
possibleto a,)crcohlrolthe model and get lt
into a stallcd condition where, with both
wingsand propellersttlled, the modeljust
hung in the air and there was a very
deFnite danger of losing control altogether,
This was well illustrated by some of the
with ail the horidesignswhich a1'pe.rred
zontal tail surfacearca movable, i.e,, a I0O
per cent. elevator area.There wasno doubt
that such models responded rapidly to
control mo\.'ernert, but the responsewas

30

i.

:I

40

DE6IGN FoR AERolroDaLLrRs

0oNTRoLLINE SruNr

Thr latter has bscome psrticularry


nanoeuvrability lvith r-be corrcct porer
Doticcsblewith thc iocreasinguse of giow ev'lleDte.
plug motors for stunt work, especially in
Correctsizeof modelis ratherimDortant.
the larger sizes.Violent manoeuvtesoften It is generallybctter to err on thi eideof
moftentarily upset the fuel feed, causing making the model too large(in wing area)
the motor to starve or run rich. It is rBther than too small, lt is then generally
dilficult to generalise on this particular
possible to get good manoeuvrability
subject, siDce the iodividual character- without thmst porver becoming critical,
istics of difierent glow motors can vary so i.e., the model will generally be stuntable
considerably,and even moto6 of the same on a range of propellerc instead of on one
Flake behave differently in difierent particular diameter and pitch matched to
modelswith, to all intents and purposes, the motor. The smaller the size of the
similar tank systems.But for best iesults motor, the larger the wing area required,
rith glow motors it pays to give particula!
rn proPoruon.
ettertion to tank desjgn and layout.
For the sm*ller sizes about I00 to
A taDk with a swivelling fced pipe, such 126sq. incles of wing nreais requiredper
as the De Bolt or EmDce t)?e-Fig, 4c.c. of motor capacitv, Thus a Millshas provcd satisfactory in many cases,but
powered stunt m<idelwould have an area
troubles do Dot appear to be so much a.case of about 126 to 160 sq. in. Use of fairly
of the fuel being thrown away from the generouswing areashouldenablethe wing
feed pipe as of the fuel being eerated loading to be kept to a low figure, about
within the tank, Tanks with baflles have 6. ounces per J00 sq. in. wing area being
becn used in America for some con- the ngure to alm at,
siderable time with glow motors, but the
Roughlythe samewing areaand loading
modern tendency is to rse press rc tanhs, figures
can be maintainedup to 3,6c.s.
either of the form where Dressure rs motor capacity.DxceptionallyIargewings
induccd via two forward facing vents or a
piesent increasinglydilfrcuit structural
collapsible tank sandrMichedbetween two
problems to preserve the sarne degree of
plates,The simplestfotm of pressuretank robustness,and for a 5 c.c. motor a wing
is, of course,the balloontRnk. introduced area of 400 sq, in. can be consideredqurre
in the early days of control line flying, and adequate. Smaller areas can be usadstill rcgarded as very efficient. Orher 60 sq. in. perc.c. being about the minimum
Eystems $hich have been tried are the for motors of from 6 to l0c.c. 80 sq. rn.
fitting of a compensatorbetween the tank
per c.c. represents
about the lop limii for
'6 c.c.,decteasing
and the motor.
to 60 sq. in. for l0 c.c.
, As far as possible,power loeding should
Design layout
remain roughly the samethroughout.'l'he
Regarding the design layout of the best figure appears to be betwein 4.6 and
stunt model itself, the heading drawmg 6 ouncesperc,c. Six ouncesper c.c.is about
again summarisesthe salient feaiures. Thi
the top limit, but it js easierto get away
type illustrated is based on a moderate with this higher loading in thJ smaller
moment arm which should give ample sizesof modelthan in the largersizes.

From there gcocm,lGations,then, it is


possible to draw up a rough specificarion
for a design to suit any size of motor.
Designinglor a 6 c,c. motor, foi example,
total weight of the model should noi be
more than 22,6 to 26 ounces.Subtracting
the weight of motor from this gives thi
amount of weight available for the airIrame unit complete. Wing area should be
at least6 x60:260 sq. in., up to 6 < 80:
400 sq. in.
Corresponding calculated
weights for Lbeset\ro limits of areasbased
on a loading of 6 ouncesDer l0oso.in.
are: l2l oun_cesand 20 ounces,
It will be dimcult, or eveDimpossible,ro
build down to the lower limit 6f area snd
weight end so the upper figute would
appear to 6t the bill well-400 sq. in. area
dt a required weight of 20 ounces.

constructed of cheet. Sincc the model will


normally be operating et quite low angles
oI attack a blunt tip shape will not bc
ineflicient, nor wilf appiarance suller
greatly.
'fhe fuselageis a purely functionalunit
in that it holds and locatesthe winss and
tail unit i[ their dorrect Dositions.f,ouses
the control link-up and carriesthe power
unit, A low or mid-winglayout is generally
accepledas best practice,wilh the tailplane then mounted on the top line of the
fuselage,slightly above the \,fing positron.
Tailplene posit.ion does not alpear to be
at all critical.
Side-mounting of the motor is used in
rno6tcommercialdesigns.
Stunt llying calls
for inverted flying, and if the m;to; cuts
in the inverted position the only solutron
is to land the model in the inverted
Shapesanil sizcr
position, a side-mountedmotor rvill be far
Shapes and othe! sizes ore not par- less liable to damage than an upright or
ticularly crttical. Crtoin generelisations rnverted motor.
hold true, such as the use oI B symmetrical
Most designers, however, prefer to
aerofoil section lor the wings and a thin,
mount their motors vrith the cvlinder
flat-plate aerofoil for the lailplane and pointing outwards, i.e., away fro'm the
elevat.ors,Since the drag of an aerofoil centre of the llight circle, irrespective of
increases only slightly with increasing Ehether the motor itself originally runs
aerofoil(thic kness qp to a thickness o-f best in the upright or inverted position.
16 per cent. of the chord,and the thicker A moto! recommended for invctted
symmetrical section has definite aero- running should point outwards when side,
dynamic and structural advantages,thin
mounted. Cenhifugal forr-e then teolaces
wing sectjonsshouldbe avoided,A l6 pcr gravity under fligh1 condirions.
cent. lh;ck svmmetricalsection,in f;ct,
Some form of stunt tank is absolutely
is generally acceptedas about the best for
essential. For most models the normal
stunt work, and sometimes an even wedge-type tank is adequate, but glow
thicker sectionsuch as NACA 0Ol8 (18 per motors may need special attention, as
ceDt. thick) is used.
noted previouslv, The whole success-and
For the wing planform a Durely rect- tife-oi a stunf model mav depend uoon
angularshapeiiquite adequat;with blunt, having an eficient tank}ook up,so it pays
raked or rounded tips. T'he latter are bes[ to exDerlmentheretor best results.
TAALE II. STRUCTUiAL

TABLE I.

AERODYNAHIC

stzE
(rq. in.)

!.s

t80

30

300

,(,

360

al

5
t0

600

7*

WINGS

fUSELAGE
TAILPLANE

T .l l

Chord

25
t.5

DESIGN

D ESIGN

L.E.

t0

30

t5

,|,

t25

ea

,a

21

t80

6l

t6

80

.lO

300

t8

to

15

!60

z1

111

15

57

t0l

t0

90
70

Sid..

l x+

l.c.

a@

I tq.

6{0

'c.

l xt
txl
l r l &l xl
i x* &a x1

r r lxl

lx*

I jc.

- r* sh..r I

lx l

*,,
l"t
l xl

1, ,
t,,

42

DBSIGN roR AEIIoUoDELLERS

CHAPTER NINE
regard to designlayout, most
\l/ITH
Yv
models now conform to the
conventional layout of slim, conical fuselage rvith hood-type cowling, straight
tapered wings and tailplane r*ith squared
tips, mid- or shoulder-wingpositioning
and dolly or drop.out undercarriagc.
Generalised DioDortions are summarised
in the headine lllustration. Considerable
variation in 6ilplane proportion is pcrmissible without running into trouble,
although it is better to err on the large
size rathe! than cut down this area to a
minimum. Thc saving in drag resulting
from reduced tail area is very small and
if the resultant are:Lis ,r, small, the model
will have marginal longitudinal stability.
In other words, it will tend to "hunt" or
wander up and down on the line and may
prove difficult, or even impossible, to
keep under control,
dserall sizeof the model is determined
by the motor to be used, It is usual to
match model size to a specific motor,
rather than to a specific Ji, of motor,
although, again, this does not appear at
all critical.
Choice of motor resolves itself simply
into chooling the most powerful motol

CONTROL LINE SPEED


available in any particular class. The
chief criterion in this respect is motor
size for, given two motors of similar
elficiency, the one with greater capacity
will have the greater power. In other
rvords. for speed work, select a racing
motor with the maximum possiblecapacity
within the permitted class range,
I ne racrtrg molol
Now what dccides rvhich is a racing
motor? Broadly, speaking, it is a motor
which is capable of developing very high
r.p.m., and this is about the most useful
practical guidc to selecLion.In the larger
capacities,6 c.c. and up,almost all motors
o[ this type are characterisedby ring-type
pistons, short stroke and large port areas,
with crankcase (rotary valve) inductron
a "must." This Iast generalisation holds
true in all sizes, The motor lvith rotary
valve induction (as opposed to sideport
induction) is invariably Iaster than its
sideport counteipart,
With these larger ncing motors,
methanol fuels are standatd and spark and
glow ignition give comparable results,
llaximum !.p.m. is usually obtained rvith

43

C oN TR oL LIN E S P E E D

glow ignition, but speik igDition tends to


this is 3@r. The solution for semispan
be more reliable. Against spark ignition, of
course, is the additional weight of the
(rving only) is thus :ignition equipmelt. A point ag.rinst
: 2\/ wing y:g
glow iguition is lhat if the model strikes @: V? x-;lng area
3
the ground rv;th the rnotor running,
Since wing area is not all that critical,
shearingof[ the propeller blades,the motor
rvill usually continuc to run, unbalanced calculated figures can be rounded olT to
and at very high specd, with the con- a convenient number for easeof working.
Now in order to determine the best
sequent risk of serious damage.
rving area for any particular classof model,
The modern tendency, hoNever, is to
use glorv ignition almost exclusively and we must first appreciate horv wing area
concentrate on finding the best possible affects performance. Ilriefly, the problem
fuel for the motor. Fuel requiremeDtscao, is this; the greaterthe weightof the model,
and do, vary with atmospheric conditions the greater the lift required to support it.
and so considerable attentioD must be This lift can be achieved either with a
given to this point if ,Msrsleri high speeds small rving (higl' wing loading)operating
are the aim.
at a relatively high angle of *ttack, or a
large wing (low wing loading) operating at
Model sizes
a small angle of attack. Lorv wing loading
In the lower range of motor sizes, conditions are desirable, since wing drag
ignitioD weight (and space requirements) is lower under these conditions. But
generally rule out spark ignition, and so achieving t[is with a large wing leads to
glow ignition is used right down to the a vicious circle. The larger the rving, the
smallest sizes, At the lower end of the greaterits weight, and so on,
range (2.6 c.c. and under) the dieselproves
The solution is to work within a range
a comparable, and better, power plant.
of permissiblewing area sizFsand keep
Once having decided the classof model
the'total weight ol the model down as
size must be proportioned accordingly. much as possible, consistent with the
The generalised diagram shows trvo necessarystrength. The lighter you think
simplified alternatives, one with a normal you can make lhe model,the more nearly
straight tapered wing, and the other a can you appronch the lower wing arer
parallel chord wing of the same area but
limit. Over-optimism in this respect will
higher aspe* ratio. Although lhere is mean that your model will ultimately have
very little theoreLical justilication for
to Ily nose-up at higher drag, to achieve
using high aspect ratio wings for speed the necessary lift. Suggested rving area
work such types have proved popular limits are listed in Table I.
and given excellent results, with aspect
To finalise the design layout, there ate
ratios even higher than that shorvn.
a number of details to be taken into
Cross wing area of t his layout is consideration. First, the aerofoil sections.
quite
Gl 3-O\rut,"r"
is Ihe actual The tdlolane can be dismissed
rs/
"G)"
:
:\2
simply; riith its very srnall area a simple
4I
semi-spanof the wing itself,but it is usual flat plate section rvill sul6ce, rvhen this
to rvork to ell ot
l wing area when rrr,it can be made out of thin Ply to Sive
^ctt
TA S L E I .

B R I TI S H C / L S P E E D C L A S S E S

lll

?0-30

t,5t2.50c.t.

7,5t3.50....

25-40

30-45

F. A . l . S p e e dC l . $ . t :

3.51-

5.0t8.50c...

8.5115.00c...

50-0

80- 0

| 0 -2 . 5 0 c . c . ; l l 0 ' 5 . 0 0 . . c . i l l l 0 -1 0 0 0 . c

90-t30

I
i,

.-i
DESIGN F o R AER0 oD E LLE R S

,.ffiF-*-^;i--=_
--r--

;i:";::'
-l={

adequatestaength.The wing section, however, demands more careful treatment.


Two drag-producing factots in aerofoil
section desiqn are camber and thickness
Drag increa-sesas these increase, As far
as thicknessis concerned,drag increase
with anything greaterthnn a 16 per cent,
thickness factor is prohibitive and,
preferably, the section thicknessshould
be somewhat less. A section thickness of
about l0 per cent. of the chord is about
the usual minimum, Thinning the section
right down below this figure will not
produce correspondinglybetter performance,for lifL will taper olI rapidly, leading
to the same bad ellects at high wing
loading. In fact, it is plobably better to
err on the side of a slightly thicker sectton
than an uDduly thin one,
To get a reasonableamount of lift at a
lorv operative angle of attack, some moderate degree of camber is desirablesomewhere in the region of 2 per cent.
Thus, a good speed section will have a
thickness of about 10 per cent. of the
chord and a camber of about 2 per cent.
Position of maximum camber is uot likely
to have a great effect.
A section firlfilling these requirements
would be NACA 2310, although almost
any convenlional aerofoil form proportioned on simil:rrlines could be expected
to give similar results-Fig. l. Such
sections, it will be noted, are of the
bi-convex tvDe.
Chord sizei on control line model winss
are so small that eficienciesare probleriatical, so a more practical section with
a flat undersurfaceis likely to give almost
identical performance,Such a section,of
course, has the great advantage that tbe
wing can be built flat ovcr the olan. For
ord;eles. a normal CIark Y' section
thinned to l0 per cent. will be as good as
any. It is, in fact, probably more important
to brild the wings true and free from any
twist than attempt some slight refinement
oI secnon.
Regarding the very thin section sometimes uscd, these, as we have seen,will
probably have to operate at a rather high
:rngle of attack and in such cases high
aspect rario rvill be etrectivein reducing
induced drag. But this does not dppear
to be the b.st solution to tlre problem,

CoNTRoLLrNE SPEED
although it has the practical advantage
that a Iight weight, thin section, high
aspect iatio wirg catl be made direct
from solid balsa.
Spintler shaDeis another mis-understood
det;il, The prisent trend is towards long,
pointed spinners of the super-sonictype,
presumably on the basis that high-speed
modelsneed"high-speed"spinnershapcs.
However,from lhe aerodynamicpoini of
view, the top speedon control line models
is in the lower speed range of full size
Berodynamics, where best streamline
shapes are somewhat bluntish in appearance. A properly shaped blunt spinner on
4 speed model may, in fact, have lower
drag than that given by the more pointed
enrry.

To be properly eflective, a hood cowling


must have conectly proportioned entry
and exit openings.Also, the inside of the
cowling should be srnooth and propetly
shaped, so that the airstream-is- not
lorced to change direction, but llows
smoothly past the cylinder and out
through the exit slot. lhe normal turbulence behind the cylinder is thn smoothed
out.

Cowlings are sometimesmade asymmetric to impart a sidethruston the nose


of the model, to preveot the nose ya\ ing,
in, or out, as the case may be. Normally
the designeravoids the problems of ofiset
rigging, using straight tluust and fin
settings. However, for maximum performance,reducingline tensionby rigging thc
model to fly in a "natural" circle is c(r Cowlings
But the most abused subject of all is monly adopted. Fig. 3. The usual method
cowling design. At model speeds-say is to ollset the thrust line inwards. lf
above about ?6 m.p.h.-the drag oI a overdone, and about 2 degressidethrusr
bare cylinder projectingfrorn the fusehge is the lirnit, the model will not maintarn
outline is appreciable-Fig. 2-and some line tension, control will be lost and the
form of fairing is necessary.The object of model will roll inwards into the ground.
Even if riggedto trim out with aJequare
such a fairing or cowling should be to
smooth out and control the airstream control at top speed, at lower sp;eds,
ro
immediately in the wake of the cylinder, i.e., after take oll and accelerating'uD
top speed,the modelmay still roll inwards.
which can be done by the fairing form
Striking the righr compromiseii dimcutt,
shown in the second illusttation. Enclosing the cylinder in a hood-type cowling and best lelt to the experts.
does not automatically guarantee a drag
Straight rigging generally gives good
saving over the 6rst condition, and may resultswith comp3rativesafetv.No offset
have a very much higher drag than the rudder should be needed, in fact. r',-'
simple fairing, unless properly ducted. vertical tail surfaces are really necessary
The common elror is to cut only a very at all. It is now common to diioense witit
small entry slot in the hood cowling so the 6n and give the tailplane; dihedral
that turbuienceis virt uallv built uo around angle which, although the aerodynamic
this area. Without the lrood, turbulence e{Iectsmay be negligible,does keep this
would start ferther alt at the cylinder unit clear of.lhe ground.during landing
itself.
eno ulus mlnrmlsethe nsk ol damage.

to I N.,
ll
l

t3

aI

t4

2l

tI

LOA
T.il
T.il l-E

2a

t).

30

t3

38

t5

I6

t7l

2 r l 4r

20

50

t9

92

20

4*

II

5l

a
to

2t

to

2'

sl

8*

t8

40

DEsrcN rioR AERoMoDELLERS

TEAM RAcERs

sizes,with or without a hardwood strength.


The undercarriage
ening piece inset acrossthe centre sectron.
A drop"ofi undercarriage of some form
is essential for rise off ground flights. A similar, but lighter, fornr of constructron
The drag of a fixed unit is much too hjgh. is to use large solid leading and trailirrg
edgesand sheet ribs, then 1i sheet balsa
Opinion appears to be equally divided
between the merits of the three-or-four covedng top and bottom.
Built-up wings are generally employed
wheeled dolly aud the trvo-or three wheel
drop out unit. Both have their respechve on the larger models, these being almost
advantagesand disadvautages,The drop- invariably of the monospar type, The spar
out type is probably sirnpler to operate. can lre made oI hardwood.Sheelcovering
is used tlrroughout, a skin of at least
otherwise
$ in. thicknessbeingnecessary,
Conf,truction
The fuselagesof most speed models are it will not be possible to sand down
carved from solid block; balsa in the case smooth Nithout workiDg the skin doNn
unduly thin over the rib positions.
of the smaller models, and turned from
llletal construction has been applied to
pine or similar hardwood and hollowed
out in the largei sizes.Motor mounts are speed control line models vith considerof hardwood or sometimes metal (du!al). able success.Iletal fuselagesare beyond
the scope of the average model buiider,
Sometimes the mounts are extended aft
for the length of the fuselage to form a but metal wings are not so difficult.
crutch carrying the upper and lower shells. Iletal wings and a wooden fuselagemake
Fig. 4 shows the three main methods an eflective combination.
Basis of the wing structure is then a
of construction of the complete model.
'lhe most popular method is to split the hardwood spar. .015 sheet aluminium or
Alclad is then used for the metal wing
model into two major components, held
skins, bDt round and folded back over
together by suitoble locating screws (e.g.
cut down bicycle spokes).The upper shell itself to form a conventional aerofoil
then simply becomesa fairing, or, more section and then riveted along the trailing
usually, the motor unit is housed in the edge, The wiug panels are then mounted
lower shell, and the wirrgs, tail unit and on the hardwood spar and secured with
contrcl system complete in the upPer countersunk wood screws. 'I'ips c.n be of
comionent. Both these rnethods are balsa or hardwood plugged in place and
sanded down to a suitable section,
particularly suited to the largcr sizes of
Ircating stub spars will be necessaryto
model.
make a stablc wing'fuselage joint; one
'Ihe smaller models are generally built
as one integrxlunil, wirh lhe hoodporlion at the leading edge, at least, and possibly
detachable. or cut away, for accessto the another at, or near, the trailing edge.
Such rvings comp:Lrevery well, weight
motor contfols. The very small size of
fuselageinvolved does not readily permit Ior weight, with built up wood rvings and
can be finished to a very smooth durable,
of splitting it into two halves.
Solid wings are popular in the smaller surface.
TABLE II I.

WINGS

I sotiao.
tl

FUSELAGE

TAII UNIT

l'1-,-'

Il

l,*.-,'o,

lAlshbry

CHAPTER TEN
rfEAlI
RACERS-latest addilion (o
I
the competition classes and, incidentally, just about the best type of
sports control-liner-oller
considerable
scope for ingenuity in design. The field
is still very open.No one hasyet established
the best compromise between speed and
range. The actual competition course
itself may be anything from five to ten
miles, Five miles is usually chosenfor the
eliminating rounds; ten miles for the
finals.The basicproblem isoneofmatching
speed against fuel consumption. Whether
to go fast by using the most poweFful
motor available-and in gaining speed,
sacrifice range, which means one, two,
three or more stops lor re-fuelling in the
course of a ten mile run. Or whether to
aim for maximum range by using a smaller
motor aod cruising at a lower flying speed
CLASS A
M i ni m !6 w i nr r r .r :7 0 i q . i n .
Enrin. ca9acity : 0-2.5c..
l4.ximom trnk.rpa.ity I l5 c..
l i n6l enl th ( c /L h.nd l e ro C / l - mo d l ): a 2 f t .
F ui el ar edeD th .r c oc k D i ! : J i n .
Pi l ot he'd: * i n. dec p ,
W he.l di r d.r e.:
ll ln.

47

TEAM RACERS
and possibly cove! the rvhole course
without re-fuelling. There is no simple
answer to this.
The two ofiicial Team Racer specifications are surnmarised below.
In addition models must be scale or
semiscale in appeannce, with a cockpit
or cabin, the foremost point of which
must not be lorver than the top of the
engine cowling. The cockpit must contatn
a dummy pilot with the required depth
between chin and crown. It must have a
completely cowled engine, xcept for
accessto spark plug, glow plug and compression adjustment. Wbecls must be of
the correct minimum diameter and the
undercalliage must be 6xed or retractable
-if the lattir, it must be lowered for
each landing.
Good design means a high aerodynamrc
CLASS I
l ' l i n i mu m w i n rr. . . : 1 2 5 . q . I n .
E n E l n . . . D r. i t r : 2 . 5 1 -5 . 0 . c ,
l4.ximum trnk ..p.city : 30 cc.
l -i o e l e n l t t (c / L h rn . l l e ! o C / l mo d . l ): 5 2 f ! . 6 l n Fu t . l i l e d e p t h . r. o c k p l ! : { i n .
Fi l o t h . t d : I l r. d . 6 r.
Wh..ldhh.t..:21i.

iI

i
i

j
I

;
I

I
'i
I

I.

l,
L

DEsIcN F o R AERo IT oD E LLE R S

48

mciency.'Ihe higher this efficiency,the


faster the model can be llown on the sanre
porver; or the farther it can be flown at the
T
same speed. lre porrer plant is a separate,
although closcly reiateri, problem. Selection of Drotor and best propeller combination rnustobviouslyclepcndto a very
considerableextent on the designof the
urodel.But there are additionalproblems
associatedlridl the power plant, such as
the provision of a foolproof fuel feed
system rvhich runs out the lull 30c.c.
(or l5 c.c.) crpacity of tbe taDk as far as
possible, and also keeps the fuel fced
reason:rbly constant, so that the moto!
is running properly all the timc.
Operation of thc Inodel under flying
conditions involves both the piloting of
the machine and the "ground crew"
elliciency.Obviously,if a number of rcfuelling stops have to be tnrde, thc
quicker the model can be refuelled,
started and taken off again thc better. It
is surprisirrgjust horv much any stop caD
reduce a high averageflying speedto a
quite n)ediocreowralL at'erogespeed. 'Ilre
model has to be designedfor quick ground
'Ihe groun,JcrcwhaveI o practice
harrtlling.
and attain thc quickest "turn around"
possible.

power and thus Ily thc ?0 sq. in. (minimunr


area) model more slo$ly. Against this
they lvill gain in drration or distance
covered without refuellilg,
Some comparative figures are availablc
for speed and distance pcrforrnance of
typiccl motors in Class A,-Table
I.
Of theseit will be secnthat the Mills II
and E.D. Bee are about the only moton
which coukl be expectcdto cover a five
rnile course on onc filling of a 16c.c.tank,
and this at a moderate flying speedof some
40--45 m.p.h. 'Ihe effect of pit stops on
the ovemll average speed for the course
can best be srmmaised in the fonn of
Table II. It should be possibleto land,
collect, refuel the model aDd restart the
rnotor and get:Lway again in well under
one mirute but this lattcr 6gure is often
quotcd as typical.

i:,

Th6 J.5 r... .larr PAA-Load


hodet har to carry an A oz.
o.c{pant 1..
cabin with
t o rw . rd
v i i l b i l i t r.
J l mmy
J o h n ' r d e ri s n rh o w r A m. ri .
c.r in{uence at lft. l.low:
A 7 f t . 6 i r. l o w -w i n s mo d e l
w l t h l 0 c . r. a n d b u i l t . o o p . ra t l v e l t b y D mb . . . o f
t h e L o ! s h t o n S k y r. n g e r. .
B . l o w , l . f t : a a ' . rd
e r. mp l .
of ah. low-wing ..ale mod.l
k
John
Fo z a rd ' .
Mi l . r
H a rk
aor the E.D. 2,46

Long range or high sped?

Givcn the choice of flying rathe! more


slorvly, but with less re'Iuelling stops as
rgainst short, fast rurrs,human fa]libility
would appear to give pre{erence to the
former.'lhe Iessthe number of times the
model has to be re'fuelled and the moror
re-startedin the heat of thc competition,
the less chance is there of the "human
element" going wrong and adding to the
The power unit
overall ilight time. AgaiDst this, of course,
the fact that if the ground crew really
Let us exxnrine the trvo team racer is
tl\e i\otor and have had plenty of
hnoD
Ifirst,
the
smaller
classes separately.
at pit stops, there should be no
praclice
class: I]ere lnolor capacity is lirniled to
Ihe f ilot himseifwill have
2.6 c.c. nra xir r um . Sinr c linc lengt h is runduedelays.
part of the responsibility here,
reslI jo crl I o 42 fr. and s ire r rra 70 s,1.in. to bear
for it is up to him to land the model as
lninirnrrn,almostany motor of frorn I c.c.
as possible to the ground crew. Our
upvatds can be expectedto give satis- near
personol choice would be for thc model
factory {light performance !,r'ilh this srze
towards the upper end of the
of model.'l'he srnallernrotors rvill have ress operating
possible speed range.
TAELE I
TABL E

l '1 i l l 3 l l ...
A l l b o n A .ro w ...
A l l b o n i 've l i . ...
E l l i n 1 .4 9
E l fi n l -8
E .D. U Co mp . .- .
Elnn 2.49
1 4 i l L 2 ,,1...

i1

..,
...

l( m .e .h )

l5 cc.

| 1s-

140

L 50-55
t5 5
.- . l5 0
t6 0

II R EAU IR EO

OVER ALL

lEstim a te d

F LYIN C

SPEEO F OR

SPEED S OF 50 H .P.H . ( C LASS A)

3ot

30 60 30 60 30 60 30 60
4

3-,r
2-2.5
t.l5-2

5,1,! 60

52

6o 75

67

t00

a low-win!
rDort model
"Conrul,"
lor l.l..r.
by B. l-. J. Neal- ha.
tnurual
ribles
wins
rftuature
and curved .heet ruseli[e.
Thir l.
drother
A,P,S, d!isn which 13 very
ruitabre
tor
bepiDners,
Left:
A
1.5 c.<. cla3s PAA-Load
cona.t
modl
which
hrkes
inr.reetin!
.ompnriron
with th lsrser ho.tel
at top,}luch
rarserlin
itmployed
on the rlorter
tait moment.

t50

60 57 67 60 75

49

TE A M R A C E R S

In the ClasgB sizes,


there are fervermotors
to choosefrom. Data
corresponding to the
figures for Class A
motols ale as ln
Tables III and IV.
'l'he same generalisation as regards fuel
and
consumption
speedapply, but it is
interesting here to
compare the performance of a sparkignition motor in this
class. Operating on
petrol/oil mixture a
good 6 c.c. spark ignition motor may be

Jetex 200 ir mo{.td


atop
o l fu i e l a r.
o n Twizzle.
(above), w-hirst Kit carson'3
pod and boom
s.mi-...1e
d ri g n h a s i l o w thr u!tl i n e . B cl o w, ri sh t, it the
happr
me d i l h
in
Bill
" 150
He .d e rro n r
J.t.t
w i th
" Y i n .l scre n vi p e r"
<.n tra l th r0 3 tl in..

expecled^togive

bWWffi|

^n
average ilylng speeo
m.p.h,
m.D.h,
vith
of around
66-?0
66-70
around
Hish spec d .l i hb w i th py ton m ount.d J .tex <on. .
kolr ina l oopi na ( .ndenc i er on thi r ut$ani r nr .
wisht der i gn br D i c k T w om ey ar tei t. H od;t It
kn.wn r j the .S.i l l tto" and w ei .hs . <om oteto
with unloadd J etc x 200, onty 2.1 ;unc e'. i ti hb
is .tralght ard ifter rhe ttyte of . ro.kett

a possible

Iange of 6-7 miles on a 30 cc. tank.


On balance the glow plug motor still
aDDearsto be the best choice for Class B
w;k. Most glow plug molors in these
sizesare exlremelyeasystorting,especi3lly
ringed motors, and reliable enough irr
running, althougb rather more influenced
by tank positionand fuel leed than spatk
motors.
Tanks
It is very important to get the tank
position correct-or bcst suited lo the
;arlicular motor-so that the rnotor ls
iunning at its best throrhout the power
nln,
For most purposes the sirnple rec_
tangular tank will sumce,proportionedso
that it is relalively long 3nd narrorY,but
not so deep that the change from static
head under starting conditions to actual
flight conditions is such as to alte! the

mixture setting.
Some designers prefer the wedge type
of tank as comnronly used on stunt
nrodels,and there is sornejustification for
this in that team racers often have to be
pulled up sharply into tight manoeuvres
to avoid collisions. Some typical proportio_nsAre givrn in Fig. l.
,
venL poslltons are anotner reature
which should receive careful attentioD.
The vents should be at the forward end
of the tank end the overflow vent ght
at the top of the tank so that the full
30 c.c, (or 16 c.c.) intemal capacity can be
lilled with fuel.

Cowlings
Finally on the qucstion of porver
plants there is tire point to consider of
whether to mount the motor upright, sidewinder or inverted, rememberiBgthat the
motor has to be fully cowled and at the
sametime readily accessibleto adjustment,

t,

TA B LE III

\
l ol
E .D ,l 4k.l Y
A m.o 3.5
Y ul ons ...
E ta2t ...
Froi 50O

...

68
65
70
85
75

+5
7-4,
7-7t
7.
2

2or

3ot

4oa

DEsrcN roR AaRoMoDELLaRs


atrd, possibly, quick fsult-finding.
From the point of view of oDerational
simplicity, pirticularly with rotlary valve
motors, upright mounting is to be preierred, with the cowlinp flared back into
the cockpit or cabin linei, for realism.
Sidewaysmountingsis the next choice,
whicb calls for "apple-cheek" cowlings as
used on many modern full sizeliehtDlane
racing machines.This can give atefinire,
and attractive,6emi-scale
appearance.
but
calls for a dummy cowling on the side
opposite the cylinder, with resultant
extra weight and extta drag. Upright
mounting is still 6rst chojce, -while
inverted mounting would apDear to have
little to recommind it, other than the
fact that it enables a good ,,scalish"
rppearance to be maintained-and a
blief that the inverted two stroke can
run on a leaner mixture.
It is impoltant, however, that whatever
type of cowling is employed it should De
properly ducted. Motorc may be called
upon to run anything up to ten minutes
at a time and need a Droper flow of air for
cooling. Sorne of thi smaller diesel and
glo*' plug rrotors run very hot and if
completely co-wledin rvith no circuleturg
ai!, may overheat and even seizeup.

therefote greeter speed frorn the same


thrust. Wing drag increasesrapidly with
increasingangle of attack and wing drag
contributesa very considerable
prop--ortioi
of the total dras of the model.
.At the same tlme it is no good obtaining
a low total weight and ihis enhanced
performance-,at_ th expense of making
the model fragile. Team racers must bi
essentiallyrobust machines.They have
to be-"put down" oflen quite riughly,
may have ro i{ithstand ;uite vi;le;[
manoeuvrcs,a-ndbe capableol standing
up to quite a lot of punishment.Not th;
least point of which, is that thev will
tcke quite a poundingfrom motor vioration during the courseof a number of ren
mile runs-and be liberalty spraved with
ruet ano o .
Sheet covered wings can withstand
handlingtetter than tiisue coveredwings,
and can be more effectively ,,proofed."
Similarly with the Iuselage.Sheetsides
and bottom with a sheei or olanked
turtle back offers the most atirectivc
solution, hollow log construction would be
good, but is rather on the heaw side. and
costly. The compromise-hollow loq under.
body v/ith built up sheetcoveredsidesand
top is generally excellent.
What emcient design layouts and com.
Design
ponent shapes fit in best with these
eerodynamic and structural design practicalrequirements?
Providedadeouare
of-The
the modelis the next thing to consida!, tail area.is used, 26 per cent. of the wing
and thise should be develoied toeethcr. area being adequate, the pivot point
The lighter the airframe the bettir, for located on or forward of the centre of
this means that, with a 6xed wing area, pressure of the vdngs and the centre ol
the modelcan fly with the wing at i lower gravity of the whole model on or in
angle of attack to generatethe required front of the {roDt line-no stabilitv
lift, This means, in tutn, less dreg and troubles are likely to be experienced.
If there is any aeroTABLE V: DESICN DATA.
dynamic prelerenceit
would be lor the midWINGS
TAIL
wing, which then has
PIANE
the edditional ad.
tNs.
vantege that the lead
l!
out wires cao be
te
.iX a
taken through the
jif
E
E
f,9
l^,ing to emerge at
the tips and save a
G15
7xa 2 tl 4t 3l
t9 t5 r+
toy" 20
possible soutce of
drag. The same can,
clr$ B
2.5tlC 27+
I
l0 21 30
of course, be done on
5.0 'lx
ci;'k'Y
low and high wing
layouts, but in such

| | r.j

RAcEr.s

casesit is more usual to run the lead out


wires above and below the wing surface,
respectively,ernergingdirectly from the
fuseJage
side and passingthrough a wing
gurcle.
It will, whicheverhyout is adoptcd,be
advisableto makc the sing in one piece
from tip to rip. This will give rhe greatest
strength for the minimurn weieht. It is
easier to accommodate such J wing rn
the high or lorv position rather than ;idwlng.
Wing planforrnis of some importance.
For high-speedflying, indrrcedeilecrsate
relstively lnimportxnt. This means in
practice, that tip shapeis not critical, nor
is it necessaryto use a reasonablyhigh
espect ratio for efficiency, From the
structural point ol view a low aspect
ratio is very ntuch betler, giving a more
rigid, stronger rving for less weight. This
is reallythe decidingfigure:rvithmaximum
aspectratio not exceding6.Corresponding
llp shape can be blunt or raked. with
slightly rcunded edges,
The tapered rving iooks better and is
possibly slightly more emcient, but any
possroregarn $ not su lctent enough to
justify rn elliptic planform on this icore,
except solely on appearance.
A moment arrn equal to the wing root
chqrd or sljghtly greater-and a tail
surface arra of 26 per cent. of the wing
area should then give ample longitudinal
slebility. At the same time, usinq an
elevarorof one third of the total tailtlane
area with range of movement of ;bout
26 degreesup and 20 degteesdown should
give snappy tsponse to control when
neccssary.withotrt dangerof mushingor
statung.

6l

Some designerspreler to seve a cfaiD


amount of weight and drag by using a
dihedralledor "V" tailplane dispensing
with the fin entirely. Tiiis is quiti sarisi
factory on speedrnodels,but wheregood
stability may be required at the loweiend
of the speedrange, such as in landing and
taking ofl, we feel that a fin is most helpful.
This fin may come in lor a fair ambunt
of abuse. In the early days of control-hne
flying when lixeJ undercarriages
rverethe
lule, nose-ove!lanotngsrverecommonmost of the landing shock, in fact, often
being taken by the fin !
The- landing gear itself must be strong
enough to withstand the rouqhest oT
landings without deformation. T[e rnodel
may have to land and take off again a
numbet of times during the course-of one
comptition flight and if time has to be
wasled straighteningout tvire legs before
the wheelswiJl track properly for take off
again the unit is obviousiytoo weak.
For Class A models, at least, simple
wire cantilever undercarrirses \yili be
sumcient-or the American Wpe of bent
dural bracket with stub axle; bolted on.
Such legs must be of dural-not aluminium. Alunrinium is too soft and vill simolv
bendand "spread" under load.
The layoul, for a lorv-wing model, is
essentially very simple. 'I lie winq rs
located on or around the boftom linl of
the fuselage. Above this is located the
thrust line, as near to it as possible, Mid
wing posiLionwould be locited approximately on the thrust line.'l'he coivlne
line, proportionedaround the motor thei
fixes the basic height of the fuselage.The
full height of the cowling can bt marntained back to the cockpit position,

TASLE Vl r STIUCYURAL DATA

__irl^*__

WINGS

t.

; liElsElEtljt

F\

TEA

lr.^

. . , l: 193 "?lE?l ll
r* | ls.E #3lEgl
EI i
-E
l l t6 ?l3z tl37 tl t6 l x*

tl t6

tl t6 l xl

na i t
tl!6

s!9.

ta
3l t6

:
t?

3i

i .9

62

DEStcN roR AERoUoDELLaRs


&r ^ - lozsdc

' YP. ^,

CHAPTER ELEVEN
qUCCESSITUL radio control flying can
v
be qulle easy*and nol all that
expensive*providcd you go about it the
tight way. The rnain thing to aim at is to
keep everything as simple and straightforward as possil..,le,
so that the chancesof
anylhing going wrong are mininrised.
Nobody in this counlry has, as yer,
achrevcd,rrrsill./l success
with anv multicontlol system and we are firrnly of tne
opinion lhat .u.t! rcilio rontrcl llir should
start, o.fJ nilh a
,n'odcl e,nployirtg sitnplc
fuaaef aorlt ot ontvNow your Ettitude towards modelling
will largelydeterrninerlrc type and sizeoT
model to build. lf you are building the
model to do some radio controlled /yirry,
then the model part of it wants t6 6e as
simple and straightforward as possible,
At the sametime, the model itselfneed nor
becometoo functional. It can, for instance,
incorporatea cabin to imp rove appearance,
but it should not be elaborate.-'ihe mure
refined design, with semiscale features,
should follow later-after you have gained
sumcient experiencein radio controfwork.

?!x

'Ye.

Type o[ notor
RADTO CONTROL
a certain amount of dead weieht in the
form of radio gear, batteries Jnd so on.
Thus it is to be expected that it is both
heqvier and nrore heavily loaded than a
comparablefree flight porvermodel.It has
also to ny differently. The motor on the
radio control model is allowed to run ior
some three or four minutes at a time, or
even longer, and hencea "duration,' climb
is both unnecessaryand undesirable.
By duration or normal free fliqht standards, in fact, the radio model is heavily
loaded and underpowered.
The former is
a disadvantageonly as tegards take.ofl
and landing, psrticularly londing. The
undercarriageunit has to be robustly
constructed to stand up to abuse and the
single vdre cantilever- leg is no longer
satrstactory.

Wing loading is one of the most im.


portant design factors. With increasing
wing loadings,the risk of damageto the
mode) in landings is increased.Thus,
$hilst a model might/1 quite successfirlly
with a wing loadingof perhapsas rnuchas
2 lb. per sq. ft. wing area, it is not conThe radio as paylosal
sideredadvisableto work beyonda maxlmum figure of l0 ouncesper sq. ft. wing
A radio controiled model is, in a sense, area or roughly ll ounces per 100 sq. in.
a payload model. It has to carry around wlng area.

Dia

RADro CoNTRoL
Unfortunately,this does not hold true
for all modelsizes.Wing loadingbecomes
lessrmportantas the modelsizeincrcases,
and conversely.Working down to the
smaller sizes of models,-a t0 oz. wing
lodding is too high for comfort. For a
400 sq. in. wing a l2 ounceloadingis teally
quite enough*Fig. .t. The small radib
model,therfore,startset a disadvantaBe.
It is obvious thet the size of the model
must be determined by the weight oI
equlpment\{htchhasto be carried,and the
weight of the motor used.Broadly speaking, we can divide rcceiverunits into two
classes*the standard type employrng
.
orornary mrnrature
valvesand reasonably
sized batteries,weighingabout I0 ounces
complelc,and the thyratron receiverswith
smaller battriesweighingsomewhatless
rnitn one.natt thls amount*say g ounlet.

Since rveight is critical in the smaller


sizesof model,the Iightestpowerunits are
required.This immediarely-rules
out spark
ignition under about 6 c.c. motor capacity,
which is a pity. For reasonswhich are not
clearly defrned, most modellers no\"
appearto have a definitepreiudiceagainst
spark-ignition motors. -Yet from- the
standpointof easeof-startingand runnirg,
consistent and ,flcr#f. performance, an?
economy, they have much to recommend
them. Radio control models do not need
a lot of power. They need steady, consistentnower,wllich is the essentialfeature
of *ny good spark ignirion motor wirh
a reli?rbleignition circuit. Such a set-up
lends itself particularly well to two-soeed
motor hook-up for later development.'
In general, diesel and glow motors are
rough running by comparison and trouble has been
experiencedon some smaller
designson this count. Motor
vibration has, at times,
reached prohibitive orooortions, causing the receiver il
relay or actuator itself to
6Ljp and get out of sequence.
Some motors are wo6e then
others in tbis respect, par.
icularly those which -are
nitialiy unbalanced due to
he employment of a rela-

OJ

tively heavy piston. Experiment8tion


mth
dtt,erent propellers_and even
lockrng tbe same propeller in different
posltroDs--can olten reduce vibration
to an acceptablelevel.
The net resultof lhe discussion
so far is
that, broadly speaking, there are Lwo
drstinct "sizes', for radio controlled
models,one relativelysmall for rhe light_
wergnr raclto equtpment and the other
considetablylarger and suited to a 6 c.c.
spark tgnrtton motor or its equivalent.
'I'hereis, of course,really no uppir lirnirexcept on the scoE of econonrics_Ior if
we can get the "standard" radio qe.r rnto
a 6 fr. span model it wi go equ"allvwell
into a I or l0 ft. model. -

)l4odcl A. Lightweight radio equinmenr.


Wing
,loading..l2_ouncesper iq. ft.
utowptug or dlesel motor I to 2 c.c.
capaclty,
Modcl B. "Statdard" radio equipmenr.
Wing loading 14/16 ouncesper'sq. ft.
2,6-6 c,c, glowplug or diesel-motoi;or
6 c.c, spark-ignition motor.
Modcl C, "Snndari" receiver. \Ving load.
ing
.16-lS.ounces per sq. It. I0 c.c.
spaik-rgruuon motor.
Type A models present the grearesL
scope
ingenuity in design aid con-for saving \veigllt
struclion,
to reducemodel
size.andproducea-proportionatelysmallcr
modet.lney are alsolhe most inexpensrvc
both as regards time and materiaii.
Type B models are about t}le best ro
start with. Weight corrtrolis lesscrirical.
Conslructioncan berelativelymorerobust,
without becoming complicated. Crutcn
construction can be used for fuselagesor normal box construction with shieted

DEsrcN ror AERoMoDELLEts

II

I
:;

]i

l.:

I
.

sidesin highiy stressedregions.They wilt,


however,cost more than Type A models
and take some four times as Iong to
construct, But to offset that, is the-fact
that theywill be lesscriticalonadjustmenr.
The largeType C modelslend themselves
readily to experimental work-rhe fittine
of additionelequinment,etc., and can bi
most impressive in flight. They will,
however, demand far moie time than the
avenge llier is likely to be able to afford,
unlesshe wishessolely to concntrateon
radio control flying.
The samegeneraliseddesignoutline can
apply throughout this rsnge of sizes,about
the only noticeable difference being that
the smaller models demand a larye; tailplane area for adequare longitudinal
slability. Design proportions are nor
critical, fo! all we need is a reasonably
stable free llight model which is to be
underpowered*by duration standardsThe only special feature is that we are
going to control tbis model by means of
rudder movementand so we needa design
Iayout which is reasonablystcblein lur;s.
Moving the rudder over some 15 degrees
on most orthodox free flight models would
immediately put them into a spiral dive.

t cky to produce and less suited to a


"generelised" layout. About the only
differencesin outline design between this
model and dn orthodox free flight cabil
model are the reduced tailplane atea and
increased fin area. The latter is still
a debatable point-whether good stability
in turns will come from smaller or larger
verlical surfaces. But since we hive
pitnessed delinite spiral instability
troubles directly traceable to too small
a fin on a ladio model, we prefer to err otr
the laygc size.
illore theoreticol-mindedrcadersrvho are
familiar with C. lI. Grant's articles on his
C,L.A. theory and placement of side areas,
may care to adopt his designsuggestions
for ensuring a level or nose-up reaction
wlren the modcl is rolled into a turn.
We are suggestirlga similar but purely
practical rule lor detennination of fin area
distribution-Fig, 3. Very good resultsare
achieved if the fin area is balanced about
a lrorizontal line through the adudl C-G.
of the model, when the model is inclined at
its ddual Jlight d/lii .le. The lr er is
dimcult to determine, and so here \se musr
work on a "guess-timation." The figure
adopted is a wing angle of attack of
bet we e n 4 a n d 6 d e g r e e s .
Performance requirements
Many presentradio control modelssuller
Another diference beteeen a normal
from the lact of having too much rudder
free llight model and the radio model is
arear or too much rudder movement. or
that we want a fast forward speed under
power with only a shallow climbing angle, bolh. Yet at the srme time, unfortunaiely,
conditions demand different
A radio model is no good if it cannot meke different po\ter.
ruddcr
l\Iore rudder poryer is
headway against a-moderate wind drift.
desirablein windy weatler, for exampJe;
If trimmed to have a steep climb,
and the responseto rndder under power ls
although flying fast, iLs glo ndspeed.will
different
to lhat on the glide. Regarding
be low. We needa reasonably
high groundthe latter, there is something to be said fo!
speed. lVe also need a fairly high gliding
using endplate fins end rudders, where the
speed, with as flct a gliding drf1, as
possil-rlefor tLe best hnding sppronch. ruddeG are clear of the slipstream and
should have a nrorc nearly equal efiect
So, ideally, the radio moclelis trimmed for
under power and on the glide.
on under-elevatedpower flight (either rvith
A total vertical tail surface alea of
excessive downth!ust ot under-elevated
l0 per cent. of the wing area should be
rigging condition), and a glide llight
adeouate for directional stability, Of this
corresponding to flattest glide-Fig. 2
The outline design suggested is an are;certainly no more than a quarter, and
prelerably a fifth, should be rudder area.
crthodox cabin-type high wing layout,
this giving greater latitude in proportions, Five degreesrudder movement in eithor
direction should then be adequate to
adjustment and contiol in turning flight.
There is no rcason why a shoulder-wing produce turns, although for various
or low-wing machine should not prove reasonsit would generally be advisable tc
but it Rould be more double tlris travel. It ir desirableto be able
equelly successful,

RADto CoNTB.oL
to lose height by holding on a tum, but if
rye.ry-tum results in excessivespeedbeing
picked up, thet neutralising tire controj
and letting the model levei out again wil
generallytend to noseit up into;stall.
If there is too little ludder Dower. the
modelwill be slow to respond.iontroi will
have to be held on for lome time before
any appreciable effect is seen and there
will
.be, the danger of over.controlling,
$,ntcn ooes not make it easy to fly out aour?!Er{r ro.f^no
a pre-determinedflisht pattirn.
c(.ieE
Correctrudder power ij very important
and well worth a considerabliam'ountof
time spent on its adiustment under
flight tesls. The exact imount of move.
ment required will vary with diferent
models, e-ven
the same desen
-to rigging differencis) (on
account of slight
and
it may be found advisable to have alter.
native high and low power oatge and small
movement) Ior dillerent conditionsFig. 4.
Although rigging and balanceare seldom
clitical, a radio model needsiust as much
trimming out and careful aAiustmentas
any duration machine- if besl results are
to be obtained. Rudder neutral must
coiocidewirh straightflighr,and ir is quire
a gooo plan to lncorporate a trimming teb
on the rudder itself, or the fin, to triri out
any asymmerricrigging, Glide path wirh
neutra-|.
ruddershouldbe straight,although
some fliers prefer a wide circle on the eliie
in "neutral" as a safeguard should the
model fly out of transmitter ranee,
Similarly,underpowerthe mod-el
should
fly st raight in neutral.r llavins first
established the trim for straight g'iide in
Deutral, any adjustments to powet-on
trim.can be made.by_giving the motor
Soethrust, as reouued.
To combat sideslipping in turns, a
dihedral angle of a6out- 7-t0 desiees
shouldbe usedon the wings.Anvthiniless Fr c 5
is likely to lead to trouble,particulariyon
the .smaller models. Theri is, actually,
considerableevidence to suDport the use
of a.polyhedral wing as giving smoother
rurnrng nEnt.
Structurally the model c6tr follow con_fllght rhoutd bc obratncd
'.StraIght
pod oni ot txe a.tuator, It ts
lolE
qDr,ro g.t_r@o duirat put o!! du.
to
en act,'ator ard $dd.r
ltrrcag!
:I)
In|. @b tmva irt.nnoyingtn
fltEhi.

froE Do.t
a coEBo!
.ot s.t Dg
Kdmt.ty.

roaMno

rs

F.rcttc^.!t

o[rA{c!

B tP LA N E S
D8 sr cN F o R AERo M o D E LLE S S

are not uncomrnon end quite practical.


ventional free flight Practice, but
From the point of view of structural
the
up all tound. Particularly
slrengthened
component essembly ls
wing cenlreseclionand lhe lusclagelore' eliciency, a four
'fhe v,inqs are ,n one Plece'
bod;. The undercarriige especiallydc- best.
and I;ghtertltan
careful treatmenl On theoretical whichis generallystronger dowcls.'-[he
with
wing
a
two-nienc
ioined
undertricycle
or
-"rids
grounds,
lhe noservheel
completeand detachable,so
ierriase is undoubtedlylhe best ProPor- motor unit is
damage to the bearerc,etc, in
anv
that
less
has
far
This
in.Fig.5.
as
shown
tioned
restrictedto this comtendencyto bouncelhxn the co-nvention:rl a crash-landiniis line adjustmentsare
thrust
also
Donenti
hT
s
lt
tlvo-,rvhceltype. Unfortunately'
fin and rudder are bnilt as
revcralnroctiial disadvantagcslllc nose' simolified.The
part of lhe fuselage,which Ls
.rheel rirust inevitablv be long to grve 6n inlcqrrl
elc'
comoleiewiih all radioRear'bl'rtteties,
ldequate propellcr clexrancc.
unit
^t
the
fourth
is
-which
The'tailplanc
the
if
Even
.,rrcJmokeiit inorevulncrable
Practicct lirnitRtions, e.q., transport'
qear is proPortioncd so thllt all tluee
modifications, e.g, a
;heels touch down at about lhe same mav dictate celtain
largcrsizes;or it m^y
the
wing
in
two-piece
on
approach,
landing
normal
instant on a
to mount the motor
tdvisable
tliought
be
nosewhecl
the
any poor IandingxPlrocch
uniL intieral rvith thc fuselage,especial)y
takei the whole landirrgload initially ln
other words'in Any bad-landing,the mose- with soaik ignition. gear,bitteries and
Accesstolhe radio
wheeltales a reallyhard knock.Ilven wil h
is very important.'It should be
actultor
boDt
be
lcg
will
wire
the
the toueheststecl
rcach all thesecomponents for
to
oossible
it
wrap
back in" use. A bad landing will
chcckingor rephcement\vith
around the bottom of its fixing former and ;diusl rrrr',,
In other
assembled.
completely
model
thi
an
openrng
leave
to
advisable
alwavs
it is
not be necessaryto take
should
words.
it
wlrich
into
fuselage
of
the
in the boitom
adjust the
the Nheel can be knocked without the wings off, for excmple,-to
generallymeanslhat
This
receiver-reley.
structural damage.
haLcheshave to be cut in
Provided vou-are villing to accePt the accessdoors or
it is very necessaryto do
and
fuselage
the
the
bend
rortl
landing
fact that s-bad
shouldbe made as
Cut-outs
sansililv.
this
tricycle
a
nosewheelleg in this manncr,
without making.adjustundercarriagJ can bc used quite satis_ smell as possible,
awkwardr and msln
factorily orimo,Jclsup to 0 ft' span and rnent or access
should never be cut
mcmbers
fuselaee
should
tnodelshiger
but
ri,eighr,
0lb.
pojnts.
The doors o(
these
at
throu;h
of
form
w-ith
some
employ a"rigid leg
fitled should fLt li|hlly so
hatch;s
vhen
springing.
that thev will then restor the fuselage
strenqth under cornpressive loads'
Itactlcal roquhemente
weak points in the slructurecan
Obvious
lo
be
aPPear
Orthodox undercarriages
up.l.oc.all,f'one of the
be
strengthened
nYrre favoured for the smaller modelsbeing an abrupt
one particularadvanlage.being thaI lhey main thinec to avoid
l6adingwhetea relalivelystrong
in
change
rigid
more
to
be
need
but
again
tiglrter;
are
continuesas a simple
than-that of a free 0ight model counlcr- part of the fuseiage
frame.
part, and "V" rvire legs with a spreader box
!.j

AEBODYNAHIC DATA
/VEIGHTS

TAILPLANE
L.O,A.

1.5
B

to

t2 0

20

396

50

850

t4

t1

2 t5

79

t00

t3

300

35

I t00

.6

el

36

30

t6

l0

50

80

l8

'lO

60

t60

21

r2o

BIPLAN ES

CHAPTER TWELVE

DIPLANDS appeatalwaysto have had


aero-f,| a more iimited appeal to
modellers. Befor the war there was an
annual S.M.A.D. competition for mbber
model biolanes and a number of contest
modelsoi this lype were produced Some
of the best oerformances,however, were
Dut uD bv oithodox monoplaneduration
the addition of
modcls "'converted" by
'wirh
no further
olten
another *ing,
'ihan
this. In other words,
modification
tail and 6n area was uDchanged,the
slungbeneaththe ftrselage
additionelwins
-have
but little.effect on
appearing to
.iJbility.-In th" po.t'war years the biplane
rubber model is a raritY-.
For various reasonsihe Performanceof
a biplane does not compaie with-that of
an orthodox monoplane as regsrds du!a'
ilo" *otL. Basicallvthe biplanelayout is
adopted to obtain more wing area at
reducedstructural cost.In Iull sizePractice
ii *as. utttil recenlly' easier to obtsin
wing area at light 6verall -weight with
a biplane wing than a cantllevermonowine. The same does not hold true
'lani*odeli If anything, the weight comior
oarison would be in fevour of the mono'
ilerre anrl so on this scorethereis liltle or
no iustilication for the bip)anelayout'
In the power duration field only a very
few tuccessfulbiplanes have appeared'

None have been as good.as their.monoplane contemporaries'loslng especlauyIn


alimb, ln other words, -the DIPtene
atrangement, area for area of equivalent
lifting surface,has greater drag' Inrs.rs
narttv due to the fact thRt biPlane wings
interiere with one another' reducing the
efficiencyof each.The ,ordl area of biplane
o,ings,f6r e*"-ple, needsto be more thtn
that of a monoplanewrng ol tne seme
lifting power.
Certainlayoutscan be usedto mrnlm'se
biDlaneintelfere0ceand thus increasethe
efficiency of the individual vings A large
between the wings, for
eao or spacing
'miniirises interference and this
Example.
i. usriallv adopted, but we shall consider
someof thesepointsin moredetaillater on'
A particular appeal of the biplane ts
that it is attractive' both in aPpeerrncc
too' to aPproach
and in flight. It ispossible,
ctoselv to a semi-scalelayout on a btplane'
less dihedral is needed, for
ilish;lv
eximpie, which, coupled with the shortet
snan._sivesa certain "full size' illusion'
As a siorts model the biplane becomesan
attraciive Dropositionand sometbing "out

o'ill

isno
ract,
i'iii'".0"',. model,.in

more diffi'cult to designthnn ils.monopltne


Of thelwo the biplane with
"o,rnt"matt.
its lriehir drag vrlues is likely to be sefcr'

68

Gap and Stagger


First there are a number of dcfinitrons
spplicable to the biplano which it is a-swell
to undeGtand. Most of these relate to the
rigging of the two wings. The gap, as we
havc previously mentioned, is the distance
between the two wings. All biplanes must,
obviously, have a certain gap and, rn
general, this should be as large as possible.
tror satisfactory efficiency a minimum
figure is usually quoted of gap:wing
chord (or chord of the largest wing if these
are of unequal size).I'ltere is no theoretical
upperlimit. Above a g1p of about one and
a half times the chord each \dins acts as
a.single m-onoplaDeving with io inter.
wtng rnterlerence.

Nore: xrrH No
f|.-ZZZ,L>"

l-t",*^-

I'
-l i ,yzz;;',*['^".""
'it\ (*'""""
il

wI27)*

*"!ir1:tJ"**"

is

Fill

This brings up a point that it should be


possible vith a large enough gap to produce a bipllne where the total area is
equally as eflective as that of a moDoplane
wing of the same area. Unfortunately,
however, this ignores "scale effect" or the
fact that, as lar as models are concerned,
larger wings (and larger wing chords
especially)are more ellicient than smaller
wings. The monoplalre and biplane com.
pared in Fig. l, for example, have the
samespan and total wing area.Assuming
that the biplane gap is such that the two
wings are each operating as monoplane
wings, in effect, but the chord of each
wing is only one-half the chord of the
monoplanerving.Each biplane wing, therefore, is lessthan one-half as efficient as the
rnonoplane wing owing to the leduced
chord. Preserving the same chord, lor
similar aerodymanic efficiencies, the Uplane span is reduced to a ridiculous
figure with each biplane wing having ao
aspect ratio of only 3 : l-Fig, 2. This low
aspectratio will result in increasedinduced
drag and the reduced span will also
probably be insufficient for stability,
especially in controlling torque, A large
gap, therefole, in spite of being desirable,
is still no complete cure fot biola.ne
inefficiency problims.
Somevrhatthe same efiect as gap can be
produced by locating one wing of a biplane
backwards or forwards relative to the
other. This is known as stagger-backwatds or forwards, depending on the
reletive position of the upper wing-

69

BTPLANSS

DEslcN roB. AaRo[oDELLERS

Fig,3. Theoretically, forward stagger is


best end the use of staggerenablesthe gap
to be reduced for the same overall
efficiency. If both wings are rigged to lift
degrees
the upper wing tyith
to cQmperable
forward staggerectualJyhas lessdrag than
the lo$rerone. In othe! words, the centre of
drag of tlle biplane arrangement is
lowered, which can also have a stabilising
efiect, under power.
Horvever, some designersprefer to rxe
stagger for another stabilising purpose by
htroducing ilctalage. Decalageis a diflerencein rigging incidencesbetween the two
wings*Fig,4. If the top wing is set at
a greater angle of incidence the combination is said to have positive decalage; if
the lower wing has the greatr incidence,
negative decalage,Positive decalegers
more usual with forward stagger.
With posilive decalagethe upper $,ing
will reach its stalling angle before the
lower one. Used with positive or forward
stagger, therefore, the lover wing will act
like a short-coupled tailplane to improve
longitudinal stability. When the upper
wing has stalled.lhe lower wing, farther
helpingto
aft, will still be lifting sr
'onglyhowever,is
correct the stall, The effect,
small compared with tailplane power for
similar correction, arld positive decalage
does not seem worthwhile including on
this score alone,

drag values, but require a reasonable


amount of lift for slorv flight, It would,
therefore, ieem logicRl to arrange the
wings at a similar incidence and so space
them that they are operating virtually as
separate monoplane wings. Some of the
rubber models entered in the biplane
contests, for example, used an added
lorver wing rigged ro that it was operating
at a very lolv algle of attack in flight. The
object was to reduce the drag of this
second wing as far as possible and not
bothering about getting much useful lift
Irom it. 'fhe upper wing was relied upon to
provide nearly all the lift required.
Similarly, rigging one wing of the biplane
to act Dartlv as a stabiliser-which it can
only do by"reducingthe emciencyof the
biplanearrangementas a sourceof liftdoes not seem worthwhile when we can
produce the same, or better, ellect with
a tailplane of suitable proportions.
The size and proportions of the two
Design for Efliciency
winqs are the next factols to considea.As
Reviewing the biplane alrangement, as far is overall emciency goes it seemsthat
far as we have gone, we have established the larger one rving of the combinationis
that we wani a large gap, whilst stagger in proportion to the other, the better, until
can also be used to produce a similar slight monoDlaneelliciency is achieved when the
increasein effrciency.At the same time our largerrvingis 100per cent. fhere is a limit,
biplane arrangement is still inferior as horvever.to what constitutesa biDlaneand
when it becomes a monoplane with an
compared rvith a monoplane wing.
It is important, therefore, to make sure additional strrb wing or winglet.
The usual limit is lvhere the lower wing
that both wings of the biplane opeete as
emciently as pos\ibie.In a sports design is not less than one-half the area of the
upper wing, II the lower wing is smaller
we are not concerned so much with low
EFFECT OF CAP ON DESIGN LAYOUT

.s
LOWE RS P A N T
TOTAL AREA ...

...

STAGGERANGIE

...

. cHoRos

t,a

t.0

t.l

t.2

1.3

75

00

85

90

t@

tzoyo I t6yo l l ay . tosy. toly6 t0oy" 9dy" 16y" i1y"

92y" nlo

50

55

.7

.8

60

65

70

,t0.

50.
t

% U ?FE RS P A N

35"

30'

20"

t0"

ing utilises a stagger of one-half o! the


wing chord, which is about the maximum
which should be used. Less, of course,can
be employed when the ceotre of gravity
oosition indicated will move forwards
iccordingly. Less stagger, however, may
well reduce efnciency with a gap of one
chord length, This gap already is quite
high and dernandsa very deep fuselageor
the upper (or lower) wing mounting away
from the fuselage, either on a pylon or
struts, It is advisable to raise the upper
'iring rather than loerer the lower wing,
for the same reasonsthat high or parasol
wing monoplanesare more desirable,Irom
the.stability point of view, than low wing
qesrgns.

than this then the layout is called a


sesqui-plane. Some Nieuport biplanes of
World War I were sesqui-planes, for
example. The question is now whether to
propoition the iwo wings in the ratio 2 : I
for "minimum" biolane layout.
If for any reasor the gaphas to be kepr
small-say, unde! the chold length of an
equal-area biplane-then there are good
reasonsfor adopting this layout-Fig.6.
lf, however,there is no particularresLriction on the gap, then for general ease oI
*orking, identical wings may be ernployed.
These two should be of the sdme section,
ir fact there is very little justification for
using diflerent sections on uppe! and
lower wings, unless for longitudinal
stability reasons, and as we have previously noted, such a move is unnecessary.
Six-to-one is about the oDtimum asDect
ratio for constant chord'power model
wings. The danger in increasingit to 8 : I
is the possibility of a weaker wing structure, or greater weight of wing for the
same area, and the possibility of reduced
efficiencyfrom the smaller chord resulting,
The rest of the model we can then base
around the biplane wing arrangement, as
shown in the heading diagram. All the
other proportions can be related to wing
area or wing span. The nose length is the
only unknown factor, Ior this will be
dependent on motor weight. A heavy
motor will need a shorter length of nose to
balance out at the required C.G., a light
rdotor, a long nose. Theorelically this
should have an efiect on the fin area
required, but this does not appear to be
critical in pra.tice.
The layout shown in the heading draw-

It is possible,theoretically, to calculate
the equivalent monoplane rving of any
biplane arrangement and this method can
be adopted, iI desired, for rigging and
balance, as well as overall ploportioning.
A simple geometric construction for
determining the position of "equivalent"
monoplane wing is thcn shorvnin Fig. 6.

c.G.

(i n r.)

(i n '.)

30

(ii')

{*

32

( im )

at

2'

7
50
al

.aL{.'r

r r_-6
t:

.l

36

t0

a2

Jl

1B

()

l0

( r q.In.)

Sprn

3+

:2

FLOAT DESIGN
FOR
SEAPLAN ES
IIE first and most
essential function of the flotation
gear is to support the
weight of the model
so that it will rest on
the surface of the
total
water. The
volume of float(s)
which would do this
would be any system
where the weiglrt of
water displaced is
equal to the weight
of the model, If this
wre exactly so the
whole of the float(s)
This, obviously
would be just submerged.
is not a practical solution, The floats,
must be hrger than this minimum size
and, in fact,lt is a fairly well established
rule that the float volume should be
lhree linri Lhe
capable of supportirrg
-model
lt is therelore
*eieht of the
readily possibleto calculatethe required
total float volume, (in cubic inches).

to

t5

80

20

t1

l6

t00

30

tl

t6

90

t,l

ta

t6

?l

t20

E
32
,12

t8

2.4

200

50

71

!a

300

80

tt,
r)o
/ /
';." : -;- : b'L
ld

Five possible lloat


a r r a n g e m e n ts
are shown in Fig. l
The most used types
are B and C, l'ype C is
populat
in
very
America on contest
power models, although type B is also
e m p l o ye d .
widely
These two, beitg the

iitr
qenerally adopled layouts, will be deicribed in more detail later. First we will
discussthe failings of types A, D, and E.
Tivin floats of type A are, of course,the
most rcalistic. Unless the main object is
to preservea certain semi-scaleappearance,
however, it hrs little elseto recommendit.
Water drag is high since the floats ale
long and thin. They have to be long to

TAALE I. FLOAT
MO D E L

w h e r e W: w e i gh to f
model
(ounces)

TAILPLANE

( ins.)

F"

CI.IAPTER
TH I RTEEN

Float
volume : 6 W
(approx.)

CENERAL LAYOUT DATA


UPPERIA/ING

6l

FLoAT DEsroN roR SEA PLANES

DEsrcN roR AERo 0DELLERS

TOTAL
FI-OAT

PROPORTIONS-TYPE

20

sl

30

6*

|l

l+
rl

.t0
50

7I

2+

t00

9l

3l

30

t50

tl

3l

rt

,to

200

t2

7,

50

2s0

l3

t8
20

61

|l

rt

tl

rl

II

8l

r+
r+

t0l

t:
g
q

n
'i:
h

f.

rl

5
2'

It

B.

REAR fLOAT

FRONTTLOATS

ff
s

rl
rl

I
i,

r
{

02

DEslcN FoR AERoIToDELLERS

give sufhcient longitudinal stability or


resistance to tipping. A float vhich
"drags" fore o! aft will give unsatisfactory
take-off characte stics.
Wherc plenty of power is available,
twin-floats of adequate length may be
satisfactory lor sport flying, but in the
caseofa rubber model, take-off is generally
prolonged. The run required to unstick
may be longer than the water space
available, particularly if a tank is being
used.
Type D is a system bosically similar to
type B, but with twin rear floats for
increased stability. Such extra stability,
however, is only gained at the expenseof
increased weight and vater drng and so
has little to recornmend it. Similarly
type E has seldom worked out satisfactorily in practice. In the four-lloat
system of type D, the two central fioats
are the main flotation system, the outer
wing tip floats are added to improve lateral
stability. Theoretically this is a very good

arrangeinent
but should one of the
tip floats be depressed
during take'off - as
is most likely under
the torque reaction of
the motor-this
tip
float will simply slew
the model roundFjg. 2.
This failing-a float
digging in and slewing
the model round-is a
fault common to all
twin - float systems.
The increased water
drag of the depressed
lloat turns the model olT course and may
even causeit to tip over completely. It is
aggravated by wide spacing of the floats.
Thus the wider the main floats are spaced
apart, in either A or B, the greater the
danger of this happening. At the same
time it is necessaryto securesomemeasure
oI lalelal strbiliiy on the waler, otherwise
ght over at the
the model may tip
moment it is released. As soon as it
gatherc speed the lift of the wings will
tend to keep the model level. I{ence rapid
initial acceleration is a definite asset for
!a" hl.

n.

r.La-nlTc

Best i\{odel Layouts


The two systems v.e shall concentrate
on as being most suitable for contest
work are B and C. Some details of A will
also be given for the sport fliers who are
seeking semi-scaleappeararlce.The points
to be discussedare the relative sizesol the
floats, their location relative to each other
and to the model itself and their attitude
relotive to the model.
The actual shapeand
design of the floats
themselves will also
be of considetable
importance,
As regards the
relative sizes of the
floats the solution
for the trdn - Iloat
system is obvious.
Tbe required total
Iloat volume can be
calculatedverysimply

FLoAT DEsrcN FoR SEA PLANES


and thi!
volume is
proportioned equally
betwen the lloats.
Some systems have
been produced with
one lloat of a twinIloat system slightly
larger than the other
to countemct torque,
but this does not
appear necessary,or
even desirable.
The solution for
the three-float systems-B and C- is also simple, Fig,3.
Front float(s):l total float volume.
Rear float(s):l total float volume.
If there are two floats at the front,
therefore, each fioat must account for * of
the total float volume. Twin rear floats
will be I of the total volume each, These
figures have beenfound togive satisfactory
perlormance both on power models and
rubber driven models. In the latter case
the rear float volume is sometimesboosted
above this lecommended design figure,
but this does not seem necessary,
The simplest type of scow lloat is just
li}e a low aspect ratio thick section
symmetrical arofoil. It is necessary to
have the nose of the float upturned to
prevent it digging into the water as it
moves forward, In the oarallel-sidedscow
lloat this is.achieved by sweeping up the
bottom line at the bows. In the air this
type of float will have a higher drag than
the somewhat thicket symmetrical section.
Under flight conditions the floats will be
at quite a considerable angle of attack,
Some designershave used this featule to
designfloats which will
contribute lift in flight
-Fig. 4-but all normal floats will generate some lift et such
an attitude. Of the
three illustrated the
streamlined float still
has the least drag, and
possibly nearly as
much "lift"
as the
oerofoil fioat.
Typical proportions
for floets of this

03

type for sahemes B and C are then


summarisedin Fig.6. The sameproportions
apply to front and rear floats. Width is
generally about one third of the float
length, and depth about one half ol this
figure. These proportions may be varied
tomewhat. if desired. but width should
never be less than one quarter or more
than one half of the length,
The question of whether or not to use a
step in the float is an open one. Theoretically there are good reasonslor so doing,
but in practice none of the three float
systems really seem to require stepped
floats provided adequate take-off power rs
available. It is more important to get the
model to accelerate rapidly and unstick
in a few feet than to bother about correct
planing angles for the floats and a proloDgedtake-off.
Some modellers do use steDs. but
similar layouts have performed just as
well without. A compromise is to depart
from the purely symmetrical shape and
sweep the top line down to a stmight aft
underbody. This has a certain benefcial

64

Da SIGN F o R AERo M o DE LLE R S

Unlike
the
scow
Boat, too, it is not
uncoinmon to 6nd
such fioats tapered in
planform, although it
is always advisable to
retain a broad borv.Fig.7.
'I a k e - o f
f performance
of
lovpowered twin - float
models can be im'-

W{t|
ellect on take-off as it increasesthe angle
of attack of the float-or ratber maintarnE
the same angle of attack as the float
slorts to comeout of tle rvcter-Fig.6,

'fhe Hookd Float


Sometimesthis is carried a stagefurthet
and the rear of the floats sweDt downwards or hooked. This aooears io have a
similar action to a step in ielping the float
to unstick and is definitely effective.
The air drag of such a float, hovever, is
higher than that of the other types,
With a twin-floatlayout the problemis
somewhat different. In the first place,
being used on a sport model, the model
itself has a less powerful motor. The
added weight of the floats may bring it
near to an uhder-powered condition.
Also the floats themselves have a rather
bigh wdter drag and, not the least factor,
a semi-scale model should have a semlscale take-off rrith a rather long run.
llence in such casesstepped floats should
be used, either of the scow type or curved
section, possibly with a "boat" entry.

1
i

r-

i'

G , J . hr e of M .l v e rn . n d
hi...oloutlul cla33 a tam
r ac er , k now n as th 6 R i v . t t . r. Fn s i n . i 3 a g l o w p ru s
ET Ai 9. ( Bi tl D an P h o t o ). B e l o w , Th r c t p e e d mo d e l .
bv Peter W r l r ht.er ( h i n i t rt u rn a re < o rd h o l d e r, i D d
ai l w l th m et;l ;l h rr : n d t a i l s . L . rt , . H c c o t 4 9 :
C en!r e, a D ool i ni 2 i , a . d ri s h t , t h e f a mo u s " G o o k "
with alow-pluased E.D, 2,46 Ra.er.
.

g,'""r:ill.
::X'"'lt':;

fitting an air scoop to the top ofthe float


which traps air and forces it out thlough
the bottom of the float just aft of the step.
We now come to the disposition of the
lloats, Iirst, the three-float systemFigs.3 and 0. The diagramssummarises
the basic requirements.
Practice has indicated that the angle
of incidence of all the floats, relative to
the centre line of the model, should be
about ten degrees, ertainly no less,
although sometimes the {lolts are gged
relative to the ,l/rrl ,irr, \yhen the couespondingminimurn figure is 6 degrees.
The front float(s) should be as far
forward as practicable to prevent tipping.
Ideally, the leading edge of the float(s)
should come in front of the propeller
disc. For properly balanced proportions,
the rear float should then come so that
its moment about the centre of gravity
balances out the moment of the front
lloat. In other words, with the propoltions
already given, the distance from the rear
float to the centie of gravity of the whole
model should be three
times the distance of
the front float(s) Irom
the centre oI gnvity.
Propeller clearance
will determine the
vertical location of the
front float(s).
The
height of the rear float
should then be chosen
so that the thrust
line is at least l0 de.
greesinclined upwards
Irom the waterline.
Unless the thrust line

Donavour.Hickic
P.t.r
. n d h i s D y n a ; . t p o w . rG d
jct rpeed hodcl. Nota
thG ftetal
fairlnA b.tween the i.t and f$chg., .nd th. upp.r llp
llvcn to thc iet Intak..
Pertormanc.
ir in th
re s i o n o f l l 0
m. p . h .

Bol ow : R . D .v enpo rt ' 3 a l l Atl ti r h m odel w i thC a rt e 4


Oavenpo.t
l0 <.c. ra.lrr
nsi.., th fir.t In Brit.in
to .r .c ed 150 m ,p. h . w i t h
?esularltt, Top rpe.d at
the '51 Biltish Nationrlt
wa! ls8.t m,p.h.

Fl,oaa DEsrcN FoR SEA PLANES

I
.i

Y4toTALFLoar voLuvt
tota! Floar voLuMe

PO$EN DUAA'IOII

is directedupwardsa short. snaDDvtakeofl in impossibleand none of the ihree.floau


systems is particularly stable for prolongedplaning.A study of plansof suciess.
ful model floatplanesshows that rhis
-angle
thrust/waterline
is often considerably more then l0 degrees,twice rhis
figure not being uncommon on rubber
models,
Float spacing for adequate lateral
stability-wir hout running into yawing
troubles-is rather more of a sucis. Thi
quickerthe modelis expectedto take ofr,
the less troublesome
the problem, Most designers try to use as
wide a track as pos.
sible without running
illto trouble, and some
typical figures from
successfulptactice are
given in Fig, 8,
Layout of the twin.
ffoat seaplane differs
Bomewhat, for in this
c{se we have not got
the sho take.off run

A6ov e. l el t: H i ner v . l . an
old A,P.S. favo! rit. Dlan .rd
r em ai n. a..on. of th. ac w
D opql ar bl pl anet. At l el t:
i r the k ey not of
uti l i ty
Mr. Rhod.i
radio modcl
aF r o! 5OO ) :but des pi r l t.
thi r m odEt h.r
;u3t;i .l l ;er ,
Per l or m '
s r .at nl l - * e.tl .r

t
i

amounts almost to a "jump


-what
start" in the case of three-float contest
models, Ilence there is not the same
need for a coane float iDcidence, the
object being to get the floats to ride
up onto the step and plane in this attitude, allo$,ing the model to pick up
speed until the wings generate enough
lift to "unstick." Planing, the water
resistance ol the float 'will be reduced,
since less volume is immersedand also
suction will be reduced since the wetted
area of the lloat is less. Until the float
is planing, however, water drag is high,
A common fault wilh such types is poor
float design, so that the flo^ii neuei do
reach their planing attitude and all the
pover is used up io dragging the floats
through the water.
It is still desirable, but not strictly
necessary,to maintain a certain positive
angle between the thrust line and the
waterlioe, but this now need onlv be a
degreeor so. An excessivefloat iniidence,
in fact, is undesirable,When the model is

lj1
!:r
f..

i"'
t
\'.'

i\

DESTGN FoR AERoMoDELLERS

is prolonged with the


planing attitude controllcd by the pilot.
'l'he successful rnodcl
(loatphne usrally hops
clear of the water with
the minimurn of forw^rd run. Dxcessive
fonvard run is, in any
case, olten disastrous,
particularly for contest
wolk where the takeoff area may be restricted in size to that
of a relatively small
wrter tank, l win-float
running on the forebody of the floats, and flying boat designs are, however,
i.e,, planing, the wings must have a capable of planing take-olls when space
positive angle of attack, othrwise how- is available.
ever much speedis built up, the wings
To conclude, typical construction de.
will not generateenough lift to unstick. tails o[ flototion gear are summarisedin
If, for example, the model planed nose- Fig. 10, whilst the tables list suitable
down with the wingsat a fldddtiu,angleof float sizes aDd proportions for a range
attack, increasingspeed would build up of tubber and power models,together with
morc negalioelift, holding the model on material specifications. It goes without
the water more firmly. For this reason, saying tlut all floatplanes should be
therefore, there should be a certain given a more waterproof finish than
positive incidence between wings and otdinary models-this is not only confloat line, even iI this means that the fined to the floats themsclves. Banana
thrust line has a negative value relative oil is a good waterproofing mediunr,
to the watrline,
especiallyif appliedafrer a coat of ordinThe cocked-up angle of the fioats on ary dope. On power models, ignition
model floatplaneshas often been a matter circuits (where applicable) should be
of comment as (apparently) contnry
protected by coating with warm paraffin
to full scale practice. The truth of the wax, The motors themselves, if ever
matter is that lnodel designrequirements "dunked," should be washed out with
and full scalerequiremenlsare so dilTer- alcohol (e.g. methanol) and thoroughly
ent, 'fhe take-off iun oI a full sizeseaplane dried off, It should be remembered,too,
that model engines
.l.t"a ,,a "
T A B L E | | , F L OAT
are made trom light
"^ O"O*ttO"t.
alloys
particularly
I,IODEL
FRONT FIOAT
ftoATs
susceptible to attack
by salt wrter. If
operatedfrom the sea
70
2l
tt
rl
or salt water, therefore,
a
complete
30
8+
2l
rl
1t
|l
I
clean dorvn and d!y10 l e
r*
5
rl
ing of the engine
t0
50
9l
rl
5l
rl
should follow each
day's flying-without
75
tl
5*
2
fail, otherrvise cor20
t00
t2
I
2
6l
rosion may soon set
30
t50
1t
7'
2t
rf
in on vital parts,
ruining the engine{or
t0
200
tsl
1+
8l
2T
rl
further qse.
5o
250
| t7
5l
2l

CANARDS

CHAPTER FOURTEEN
rl'lIE
Canard or tail-first layout is a
I neglecteddesign and yet one which
holds considerableDrouriseof excellenl
results-theoretical ii not alwaysachieved.
Like ell the other relatively ieglected
types, however, successfulcanards are ln
the minority, mainly because they are
under-developcd. Ferv designers have
ventured into this realm and so there rs
very little data availableon proportions,
shapes and sizes lor olher would-be
designers.The last of the ArnericanCO,
reco;ds was held by a ccnard layout (the
CO, classifications have now been aban_
doned;nrotorsof this type now comeinto
Class |A) and there have been successful
canard rubber power models, gliders and
free flight power desig s
say nothing of
-to
control line canards.
The silnple theoretical
advantage of the canard
layout is that by placing
the tailplane in front oI
the wiDg and arranging
it at a greater incidence,
it will always stall before
the wings; and thus such
a l:ryout should be virtually stall-proof, or at
least have very satisfactory
longitudinal
.tability*tr'ig. l.

a7

CANARDS
A second theoretical advantage is that
logically, the canard anangement goes
hand-inhand r*ith a pusher propelle. on
a poweredmodeland a pusherpropelleris,
or should be, slightly more ellicient than
a sinril.lr tractor propeller,
Ilowever, it is an unfortunate fact that
the ultimate Derformanceof a model aeroplane is nol always as theory would
predict. Almost all the major problems
have to be worked out the practical wayby trial and error.
A skeleton canard layout is sketched in
Fig. 2. A positive difference in incidence
betweenthe lerding planeand the rvingsis
essentialfor longitudinal stability, for the
leading plane must always stall before the

DESIGN FoR AERoMoDELLERS

CANARDs

o.minimumof? degrees
dihedral on the rnainplane or wing and at
least trvice this 6surc
on the lerding Dlcne.
Roughly speaking,the
leading plane shouid
always have twice the
dihedrnl of thc mainplane.
'I hc
con3id ertble
sideareRin f(ont of the
centre of gravity then
presentssomething of
a p r o b l e r n - F i g .4 for this will have to
be over-balancei by
aft fin area for weather
cock stability, The aft moment arrn is
invariably the shorter of the two and it
may evenbe foundnecessary
to extendthe
fuselage aft of the wings io eet a fin of
moderate &rea far enoirgh b-"ack. Tlris
applies particularly to i rubber nrodcl
design which needs more fin area, proportionately,than a glideror powermodel.
This fact we can use
to advantage on a
tubber model to bftl.
aDceout correctly, for
if rve proportion the
rubber motor cqually
about thc C.G. <iesigir
posrtron ive can use a
tractor propeller forwards. 1he rveight of
the propellcr*ssirnbly
will then balanccout
the rving weight-Fig,
6, A pusher layout is
not so sfltisfllctory
from this point of vierv
since grouping t\eo of
the lDajor component
sveightsaft of rhe C,C.
(wings and propeller
nssembly)may
demand
extended fuselage
^n
forebody
for increased
motor length to compensate,particularlyif
thep!sherpiopellerltns
been located well aft
of the wings to work irr

Balance in Design

{
l

l
I

The relativeposition
ofthe centreofernvity
rvitl be a criticalfactor
in determinins the
stdbility of the-model
and something more
thrn a cut-and-try
method is desirabl;.
Accordinglywe reconrwings, 'Ihe centre of gravity of the whole mend the solition sugeesicd bv thc
modei is located somervherebetween the rlmericandesigner
of unor-ihodox
rno'dels
tlvo planes so thxt, when trimmed out,
Henry Cole. This consists first of finding
lcading plane lift til es moment arm, the aerodynimic centre and locatinethc
equals wing lift tiures rving nlolnent arm.
final C.G. posirion 26 per cent, oi'the
If this were not so then the model wor.rld average(wing) chord forward of this oornt,
be out of trim and either loop or dive, In
This recommendeddesign layout tor
actual fact this sirnpleequation may not canardsis shorvnin Fis. J a;d
it is on tl s
be exactly true for there are various drag that the method of fndins the
eeroforces to consider rvhich might demand dynamic centre will be
described. The
slightly more "leading-plane porver," or
relativepositionsof the leadingplaneand
"wing power" to cancel out.
wing are fixed relative to th; ouarterCanard Snags
chord lines of these two aerofoilsii.e., a
Now with the set-up shown, wltat is line at 26 per cent. of the chord from the
leaLlingedge.In the ceseof taperedaerolikely to be the best trim for maximum
foils, the quarter-chordpoints referredto
performance?Obviously rvehave one limit.
We cannotfly the lcadingplaneat a higher would be those of the au;rogr chord.
angleof attack than its stallingonglc and Strictly speaking this should beihe meau
this in itself is significant. The wings are aeroilynamic chord, although for ell
rigged at a smaller angle of attack than the practical purposes Lhe |me;n E?om.k;c
leading plane and hence, rvith the model chord is suflicienrlyaccurate,e;d eisrer
to colnpute.
trimmed with the leading plaue just about
to stall the wings will still be several
The position of the aerodynamic cenrre
degreesbelow their stalling point,
of the combination of Fig. d is then given
This doesnot fit in well with duration Dy:
requiremeuts for it is an establishcd Iact
leading plaae areaxmoment arm
thit for maximum glide duration the
model is trimmed so that the wines are
wrng area
operating at near their maximum aigle of
This
gives_the
positionof the aerodyrattack (just below th stall). A canard of
similar proportions, therefore, would amic centre (orward of the querter-chord
always be operating at a lower wing line of thc moin wing. A graphicalcorrccangle of attack and will have a higher rate tron lor-aspect ratio cen be applied, if
oesrred,lor more accuretcresults.
of descent.
'fhis method of approach should lcad to
To minirnise this dilTelenceit apoears
a canrrd layout which is besicallysatisthat the logical thing to do is to insure
that the ving is lifting as strongly as fBctory as rcgards stabiliry :rnd pcrpossible,i.2., design for the most forward Iolmance,and lt rs only necessary
now to
C.G. position possible.This means a small considerthe variousoiher detail'requiredifferencein ineidenceberween leadins menlsbeforecompletingthe designlayour.
plane and wings and/or a small leadin! For example it has beenfound tfiat Interal
plan:, The latter approach is not satis- stability demands a generous dihcdral
factory. It seems that a leading plane angleon the Ieadingplanewhilst the mainof lessthen abort 30 per cent. of the rving plane needs only a moderate dihedral
angle. ver1i good general rulc is to use
is inadequate,

I
l

i//
''
maxirnum fin moment arm. On the otlcr
hand, the long fuselageresulting (and the
long motor). coupled with the slight i'rcreasein efficiencyof the pusher propeller,
may rnake the layout of Fig.0 one to
consider rvith some seriousnessfor duration work: A pusher propeller of this type

:;
i'

'..'

tt

r'

Ii,

HELIcoPT&Rs

iI

DEstcN FoR AERoMoDELLERS

oroviding
iit"i..."it
i."ii
-'ii'rr
i.*'ouli"

weathercockstability due to
momentarm llovcver'.models
slabilil y will.of t en
*""ttt**ck
t*l.l".torily' and there is the

emplovali,i'iJ o"*iuiti'v"t d;libcralelv


a modcl
;;""'. aft 1o,Produce
i;;;;liii;
oncc
wfiich "tuanders"in lree -llrght'.such
r"f""."af.l-it ",o*line' I{odelsvith rne
a trim citclelirst one way and llren
tendto t;ke uf a sleady
itr".'"J
"i*"yt a lherlnal' lhe- oangcr
circle on entering

lhis un(lercontrolto the


is of ovcrdoing
-'J"t"
ihe rnodel flies for long
"oi]',
periodsstraight downwind'
'
Po*", *oJ"l."n.ds prescntsomething
weight
.or"" oi p,oUt"tn witfr regard to"
The complete'l model split
.ii'irirr"t;"i.
Fig' 7
io'in,o'"o,npon.nt rv;ightsas in,
*^lti """.
.rL*. itt"' ii may be dilficulLto-b^lance
Fl6. 7
trt" C.6. far enough forwards
"',i
.iapt" Pusherarrar)gement'unless
t"iit "lirt
^
on ;i';';;i;.
l. actr.rnllv mourrterlabove the
could be fcathered for drag reduction
arrangemcnt\vrll be cvcn
crrangement
t
ractor
tractor
A
the
*inzs.
whereas
ihe elide
lo brlanceout the
terthcrlng
**"g-e
,.
either
ruith
in
well
of co'ursefits
motor.wrlhotlt'
the
of
weight
-"rTaim.Ji
forward
or folding ProPeller.
rear fuselagt' The
i"r..irru,
this
on.
critical
Gliders will be far less
"tT-,""atd
to be thF hcst
'"iih"t'.rt"nse."nt
"ppelrs
to rhe
ooini io, th*t" ere no major..weights
close
as
."i?t."".ied
iiirril'"
'p ahove
distant lrorn the C.G' and -ballRqt^'an
oreven
(''
(
nossible'
ln t"inet;ifitg
alwavs be cddcrl to get (he hn:rl
"ag"..
*iti"ndouLtedlvresultin
potirlon. Tiie lin are:r required,
ir'iliehi
but thecnnerd
"t t"
"?rJ"il,l'ft,i.
n" porver,
J"
," .' i i * .r
to
too, w-illbi smaller,buL shoLrldngxrn.Prc'
enough
st'ble
generallY
is
;;;;;;;i'i
wtng'
fcrebly be locatedaft r-rfthe vtngs
this;
rn absor6
tip fini will not be pxrticularlyelleclrve
THIS
' __-GRA?H

GIVES CORRECTION

ion to^tort

F AC T Otr APPLIED T O 'X"

asPEcr RATto coHBtNATloNS

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

H ELICOPTERS
When scaled up slightly for ouldoor
rvork.nnd fitted with a fuselageenctostng
lo
the motor, stability troubles begin,
r.roeer. A true vertical ascent is-.ollen
to
aift.utt to achieve,the model tending
ll-lllay
o-r
olher,
tllc
ol
side
t iD o!er to one
ai"" i". Somemodelsol this
l'-ir"
in fact, \'villtip over on to.therrsloe
tvDe,"""i..a
haPPilY in a horizonral
;,"'J'i;'q;i,"
direction'

i
of years. Small models,
suiiable for itdoor work
need onlv a simPle stick
for the fuselnge, with a
tlrnrst betring bound to
each end. llotors top and
bottom connectedto the
same rubber motor com_
Dlete tbe rnodel. As the
unwinds, thc
motor
rotors rotate in opposite
ilirection and must there'
fore have oPPositeJrand
oitch, SirnPle constntc'
iion and lieht v'eight
produce a model stable
enoueh in still air cs long
as th;re is Polver .left to
keep the rotors sPlnnlng'

:'---.
HELIcoPTBRS
DESIGN EoR AERouoDELLEBS

ImproYing StabilitY

The simple doublc'


rotor layout eliminotes
or
one Droblem-that
rs
torou;. Equal torqueqno
aopiieil to each rotor
s; the reaction Produceo
bv driving the toP rotor
is absorbed in drlvlng
the bottom one uener'
however' tnls
allv,
ariangement does ,not
Enir.'-d
iiuu-I P*tticul"tlY long
out at
r,rn sincetf,e turnj art.spun
tnev
-.-.r
Y^::-l':'";;i;;
the speedwith \a'hich
rotor
single
a
driving
H"-ld U';;"';;

tli
\1

Some modellerswho
hrve Penisted . atong
thk line, more wlth tne
a
idea of Producing.
ratner
model
semi'scale
than a durationmacn'
ine. have achlevect
limited success wrtn
some of the layouts
o'
outlined in I lg'
None has Proveo Par'
ticularlY satistaclory'

ffiffi ffi$$ffi
1

i,

n,l;*t***,;
ffiil$$t"q$:i,r'"".]

rtr4f*.u
'n**t*tt*rw
1l#,i::"".iili*,*i#".r,iliirfi
fi.I+ifl4",,gffii
ii""tv 'nouu'ua
llf'-:"'ifi: ;i:il"-; 'n-n'

,,*i#itd**dt*ff*i
*ilt;fflllliri*,'ffi
t;'",3"i"iii,'ii'lli#,'n"
'^^:?::
ii:'i* 'ffi;f
andit h
li.ggish'

nIi:*lgEt
*fr*',iril'"
"f.'"*'JH':ti'J;";'"',""
l":,
[1i::
Ji"

ttte
oow"r to ttr" tiP,s-of
;otors, as in l'lg o'
One xcellent examPle
of the lotter was prouhv an Amerrcan
-.o,1
-m'JJellir,FrankEhling'
the resultiog deslgn
aDDroximating to-two
sioarate models lrxeo

Il"'Hii;i"";"f

be founil'

uced some Yearsagothe semi'scale laYout


of liie. 2. BasicallY' rn
fact.it is nothing more
th{rn a twin_rotor
duration+YPe assem'
blY mountedin a seml'
sc;le fuselage' , lne
. fitting of such a large
fuselage could -onlY
detract from Pertorm'
ance and the tYPe or
totol system h4s been
been found only sutt'
able to relatively smau
models l

n":*!'T^T'lii?'l:
#

I'ni:tbii"i"#l
:'tf;
Somegood times-were
i

\t

accomplishedwith thls
model, but few Peopte
aDoeartohave had RnY
su;cess in attemltrng
duPlicate ^ tne
to
schemervith anY torm

of "tiP" Poreer'
StabilitY in the ./rli
rrrrrt totor systlm. $
r.chicved by hingmg
the blades-a sotu'
tion which has ueen
hintd at for many

I
t.

HELICoPTERS

DEsrcN FoR AERoMoDELLERS

fi"
u
*.*

V
r.Nrr& Mo6c

(tLAr,sx)lldrA'.l

made rvith the modcl'lying or its side,


but the airflow still largely uP$ards
relative to the lotors.

Rotor Design
The rotors' therefore, once they have
unwound cannot continue to rotate in the
L@
same direction and v.ind the motor backwards, uDtil they are stopped, In other
This seems to hold true both for the rvords, a normal freewheel on the shaft
ascent and the descenl.It is interesting rvill not disengage.Nor can the rotots be
to examirrewhat happensrvhen the power nrrangedto Pive any salislactoryform or
lift fo-rceto-slow the descent,even iI a
drive finishes on a model helicopter. In
a simple rubber driven model,Fig. 7, the
rotor stops rotating and lift is lost completely. The model simply falls out of
the sky. This desccnt will probably be
Iree to continue rota_
tio!, it will then either
stop and reverse its
direction of motion or
"windmill", when the
only upivard forcc or
"lift" it can genente
is pure drag. If, on the
other hand, the rotors
continue to freewheel
in the same direction
as when powered,they
will continue to 1ift.
'lhis is called arrolrra-

II
j

i
,J
:,1

If now rve consider


the actual angle of
attack of the rotor
b l a c e s *F i g . 9 - w e
shcll see thet to get
it
is
autorotation
necessary for
the
blades to assume a
negative axgle oJ inthe
ciden.c d\ti'l.g
descent,If they were

rnaintainedat the same inciden"eas on


ih" uptr*ra power flight, th aclual angle
of attack wo'uldbe eitremely high on the
blades marised in the table. From these figures
consequentlf
a"..lnt,
-the
"na
In
other ir would appear thrt the wcight lifting
stalled'
complerelt
would be
capacityof ihe rotors is roughly equal 1o
autorotate,
words, theY could not
bi.. ir". of 400 sq. in. per ounce tol al
"weight to be lifted- Corresponding rotor
Jelicopfcls
soliditv is roughly 2.0 to 2.25 J,er cent.
On the Jeticopter arrangemnts,
.the Solidiw is thiratio of lhe actual rotor
by
achieved
is
recuited iniidenci change
area to the total srvept area of the
hirieine the blades nt 60 degrees.wilh an blade
iniidence(blade rotor disc.-Fig' ll.
inii'i"liettins ot 7 deqrees
Unfortunatel-v,what would have been
horizonlal):Fig. 10. This setting appears
the
sirnDlestan_dmost efiicientmethod of
lre
could
and
to be most sitisfactory
the jet units, on the liPs-of the
mountiig
adaptedto mosl layoutsof this type' AIso
has not proved sallslaclory
theie is no reason at all Nhy the same rotor blades,
solution adopted ha! been
The
in
Dractice.
be
not
should
btades
hinged
svstem of
units on a separatebeam
the
to;ount
iet
to
layout,
a'dopted for thi rubber model
right
angleslo the rotor hub,
at
attached
and
power
;i;both greaterstability under
needsto be aslong
descentwith the bladesauto' as in Fis. 12.flris beim
t controlled
consistentwith weiglrt and
ooss_ible.
ttFil"*""r*",
".
in order that the
inci<lence of the blades strensth requirements,
airspeedthemsrrlficicnt
h;ve
u-nits
iet
than
would bave to be somewhat higher
forward-speed or, strictly
that adoDtedfor the Jetex rnodelssince seltes. Low
lorv airspeedmeansa reducllon
the rubber morlel will climb, {aster' soeaking,
in
thruii
and thereforelower efliciency'
angle
blade
initially, at least.An optimurn
'Ihe
motor would be operating most
Tetex
worrld
(horizo'nial)of about'20 degrees
angle cffici"entlvat the rotor tips, but as this
iooear to be indicatedwilh the ske'.9
upsetstability,the seParalebeom
ni ih" blud" itt"t"u."d accordingly to give seemslo
is the best compronrise. The
mounting
to
pitch
change
Produce
the necessary
ihis
beam approachesonc'half of
snan
of
a small aneli of attack for autorotative
tire main rotor dicmi[er. Structurally,the
most suitable material for tltis beam is
thin Dlv,
A;ingle rotor systemis shown in Fig' l3'

Sin!lG ro.ort.
5q-b1.d.r...
J.i.t
Jer.t 100- ,,
200l!t.:
,.r.x 35O..- -,.

Solldit, 5 P.r..nt.

30 ,q. In.
l0O

'q.

In,

t
i

Ir:

TAILI,ESS

18

DEslcN roR AERoUoDELLERS

the \{ing nose uP


even more steeply'
Conversclv, if thc
wing noscl down the
Iift lorce would shift
back aod make the
wing nose down even
more.
On o conventional

^ "o0""
l'i,Etri"l1"".tT'fl
''lT?'.f"L';ff.:

l\-

it.
I

ir
alEvorlsrlr-r%
or wrNG
^REr-l

CHAPTERSIXTEEN
ERY few tailless models can be
considered to be comPleted satis'
fectorv. Even fewer have a petfotmance
comparable with that of 6n orthodox
machine. Part of the reAson for lhls ls
that th" typ", as such, is- relativelY
undeveloped'The nunlber ol modeuers
who co;centtate on teilless designs
ate virtudlly negligible.The other teason
is that tailless models are not easy io
Jesien and fly. Thy introduce speci:rlised
Drodlemsof thcir own which are nnt
itadily overcomcand with very little data
a guide, design is very muclr
". t al and erior.
"u"ii;'tr"
a matter of
Consideting the teilless aeroplane oD
the bAsicprinciple of being a flying wingto $hich later the Powcr unit and other
aooendages fouod necessarY can be
us exarnine the virious
^iied-let
problcms itrvolved' Stability, not periormance.will be the major problenr,for
once we have found R Jla,i, layout rve

model will be equally successfulin a larger


out
iize, Seldom, howe"ir, does this w-ork
in Drdctice, for these small mod-elsdte
working in a region wherethe aerolousale
oivins
llat Dlete charactetisticsano tnere'
stable on it3 o$n.
t"..tion is unduly favoutable'
ioii'.i"uititv
-''go..iltv
nearest approach to the
itt"
Airfoil Selection
is the symfltncal one'
In model sizes about the only section nat Dlate aerofoills still straight but now
line
The
iamber
stable-characterwhich can be said to have
ft.. git".aePth to aicommodetc
istics, (i.e.' reverse c_entre ol Pressure tftiiJio.
strngtn ln
with an orthodox snars and obtain adequate
movemini as cotnpated
-plate-Fig, 2' The flat
ttt+i'":lT;,""'ot",ift
section) is a flat
from.model
values
olate eerofoil does tend to correct any
found thdt
ben
it
hes
tto","u"t,
,oinn.l
hisolacement, but is a very inefficient
tlle more
essential'
ate
aerofoils
cam-beted
form of aerofoil. The lift it can genelate
betler. Adequate.camber
tf"
by
comparison'
sm-all,
area
is
given
fot a
"..U"i
is fat more imPort{nt than .thlckness'
and f_urthermore,it has en early stall'
it is iust this camber which
iio""""i
Someof theseProprties-ofthe flat.Plate
section uDsteble'
atofoil
an
aerofoil. however, have led [o conluslng m{rkes
the centre ol .pt$sule
Fortunately
tesults.
oi a c*mbered aerofoil can be
Small solid model tailless gliders-say
moditying the cambet hncbv
-;";;;;;
reduced
really
uD to 12 in. span or so, can perforln
cambcr line is swcPt !p
the
li
3,
Fie.
w'ell.Vatious people have used them from
edgecenlre ol pressure
trailing
the
time to time to investigate iving planforms toirards
or eve.nheld
ta
i'"inimised,
designs.
tailless
projected
and layouts for
""" result is an eerofoil$'ith
-"t"."ti
;l;;ii"";;.'rhe
of
generally
constructed
The wines are
a reJlcx kailing cdgt'
t"..
*ft"i-'*,J
sheet an-d virtually true flat plate' or
stability (or mote.truly,
this
However,
account
on
whenr
on,
is
sanded
cambcr
has only been achieved
i"*'i.tt'juiiiO
of their small size, aerodynamically at
least they are still fiat
plate aerofoils.
'
Now these models
fly very- well,, TheY
are stable anq heve
quite a leasonable
gliding .angle' This
has mls_ledmany oe_
sisners into thinking
th;t a particular laYout which they have
"proved" on e small

>

TAILLESS
can set about m*king it as .lJici'ttt ss
oossible.
'
Now an ordinarys ing of thc tyPeshown
in !'is. I is not st^ble. This is just t}|e whg
nfi a_co,ruentionalaeroplaneand it needs
to stabilise'it. The teason for
"-ioitpt^n"
follows.
is
as
this
'--i]
tit" *ine is balancedso that the
cenire of litt ioincideswith the centte of
gi;"itv, tlre Ning can be--momenlerily
3i^ti"'in t parttrrlar gliding attitudc'
'l he resultcntaerodynamicforc b[lances
out the wc;ght. If, holcver' the wlng rs
dijtributed lor any reason-nosesup nr
.lo$,n-it cbangesits attitude reletive to
the airflow and irnmeditrely the cntre
oi tiit .t'itts. Thc actual centre-o[ lift
dependson the attitr,de of-a wrng'-or
attack. lt is a chancterisric
lri'"ii"t.
"i
lvings tlat the centre of
oi rnoli not."t

our simple examPle'


if the wing noses
up slightly from its
oriqinol momentartlY
balancedposition, the
lift forci rYill shift
making
forwards

l.

L
:i

':

4
:!
i

;i
t

TATLLESS

DEstcN FoR AERoU0DELIERS

rlines from root to tip


bY sweePing uP .the
tiailing edgc. An atternativ n]elhodls to usc
controlling surlaccs at
the tiP set - at
-sonle
negative angle-!lg- +'
Tlicsegive a somewtr:rt
similar efiect to wasn_
out and at the same
time act as very sllorrcouDled tail srlrfaces'
3uf in both cases-tne
reserve of ttabrlltY
whiclr can bc obtalned
is small and schieved
of
bv retlucing titi ou"olt efficiency

that these stall alter


the centre of the wlng
the tips will elways De

iti"l'li*",,X'.*i
to
^'ilii
thd model is cause<t
centre

PoF
nose uP the
tion o{ the rvtng wttt
stall6tst, Nith the trps
still litting. The tiPs'
beinglocatedaft ol the
centie of gravity., wlu
correct the model'
'lhe same is true or
a la.Yout vith s{ePt'
for\4,;rd vJings, .only
this time lre can leave

if,

i'
,:

requircd
^nlv
iill'"iri'it'"'iE**" of rvcslrout

".i
;;;y"#:;;;r';a
":'Tlllt['"':']'Jli:

ffiffi ffi*fiffi

f*Hfr*rfln

l:*i'iiiiXu"*1"i'":'.';Yi'u"""?il'""'

*ffi*:ln***
rfi**51t*ffi
'*iriii,-', g'ing into technical

#$n*',tmm
lffi

detci l s-Il g.

o'

stalled tending to nose


the model uP even
more rapidly If' ho$'
ever, we incorPorate
washout in thc tlPs so

SweePbackEllectr
Ilorvever, the use
of s\^,eepback has
other flects not so
desitable' The aerofoil section, for one
thins, is reduced rn
thickness
effetihe
Good for high sPe.ec
flieht, but not tor
du"rntion). Also e

lf*l;ti*''';fltilii:',

::$i'*'fl
','*i':iiti
tliffi'*t*l
l*ift{*'.",',ffi

F-

INDooR
DEsIGN roR AERoItoDELLERS

maxilnum

Ii""
;

ellect'

X"o"t'o.l:".iH""xj
althougn
solution,

i
.

their adjustment can


be critical, unless tne
-to
ultimete design $
lengthY
fairly
have a
fuselage, such ds
might be used on a
,u-bber ' Powereo

7.4t,

'-'t4i

1."^*"sa

"'-#$ffiffi$ffi

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

\\
i..l;

Ilti

;li1
li:-.r

?il

IL
ir:'

":l::I::"$
Ir::l*;,j':5..':11i$
"'1,"-l; fr
-ln

*lW**g=m*u
tr$n$*u:lffi
iu{elfitftttir*,rh*
#',g$df
!*H,ffiiH*#hi"ln::r
trl..ltl*ti'ffi,i
'!;:;:.:,1il'.fi
?.ti"nt,i,:l{,:i;:;;ilil{*diqif*,l,if'*{*i*i
ffi}#f,*"ffi
*t*u$,st*
sr*
ilhi:T;
$#ii:;-*,il#'il:
ffiirnfi*ffinrusfi**ffi

';i"

ffiffi

**;p*ff
ffi$Hi$$*}l}''

DOWel.

minutes.

\l
I
$:
r*#"i*::[*rrf"{#
kfr

DESIGN FOR AEROMODELLERS

82

.iiilli*ti*'**li*l*

II

stluct a large model,


but to make it strong
enoughand still down
to minimum wetgnt ts
quite another matter'
Size ,in Amertca'.ts
actually restricted bY
classrules. We have no
such rules in thls
country at th present
time, and it woulo
seem best to lollow
Practlce'
American
The largst moqeF

fiffi[ruffi
**[uul+***
tfrfirl*til*{;}tif
\

iI
{

$ffiffiffi

tI
I

ihFv

build.

there'

The
*;niln:ll
lll
i"i
'*::lu::*nt,':

Wing

,"ff:l1ll-.'1""-;igilTl""i::lx?'::T

*-#*;ffi

vcry large
lnd *ine.ection. ljue to the

";ifJni
:-,;"$*""1'ff
|#'j5j$;ffi
'i:'ii*.tli
but.Lroth
stabilitv'
t'or
llir.
'*ll.'.:'"'l'-"::"tWff.t
it;i"';:
desitableto
ii."- Ii"*"""t, it is very ^f
sec'
separete
down into
""aat.ii","

more dihedrrlbreakso; lotnts

"$iii?*i:ltn$!:T',.1:{'i"!i'{i
jH'X'";t-,1il;
:i""^:'t +"n?**iliu

bieok the wing


ior easeof .covering'Proii"X. ii
""rv
a .large sheet of
l'"'ari"giiii"'ie".J'
micro-filmis quite dllncult'
in the indoorfield
Most top designers
siraight dihedral.is not
ot ne-edstoo-large a
-".ii"t'itt*
.if"ctiue
The hest
"noughiTective'
be
alihJ'"i.ngt"".
be the
to
appears
L.i,"*i."]itt*"t"te,
tip-dihedralledwing'

\
(,

l.lf}*::}llfi-iri*;ffi:*:m'"rn"'":"r'tw:r"ru*"tr
iltqlttfid'+*id':ffi

t:f,lifip:f,}i:'ffi

:;r;
irii::nri
i#il'.n'#liljl*T
;';"-;';l#:l:'tii,.iill*J'pr"
nro,,o.

t*"q.,ri:tl,.ffi*{i:'l'ffi
13 DESIGN OATA

TABLE

Gq ln)
t50

(ii)

( 1 n .1

0.J
17

30
5l

t25
t00

75

2l

50

l6

(dih.dr:l)
( i i ')

2l

t5 l

t,r
ll

rl

sdck
(i nJ

(liJ

G c .1 . . )

ta

tl

60

t3

tot

50

l2

l0

{)

l0

JI
Blunt.lllDtlG

Iu.t..'--e...-sr/o('PP'o'J'

aa

of eliiptic ou"tline,with
ratherbluntertlPs-tnan
a true ellipse. lYlng

","

I
I,-

i::'-"xl"ii':l"r"ii'i;
of the sPan, giving an
asoectritio of between
6.4 and 6.7. This
sDpearsthe best com_
piomise between art
efficient aelodYnamlc
olanlorm and an econimic structural one'
Tailplane asPect ratto
is lower-a root choro
of one-third of the sPan
being a good figure'

':
!

1
i

DEsIcN FoB AERouoDELLBts

As regards wing section there is one


"popular favourite"*the
McBride B-7.
This has a universal following, although
the modern trend appears to bl to rega;d
the wing sectionas not particularly criiical
and aim simply at a curved section with
a definite camber heisht and location.
Fig. 2, for example, sfiows the McBride
section and also the section used bv
Andrews on his 32-minute model.
Th same section is usually employed
for both wing and teilpla;e and the
method of reducing the basic section for
teper is a simple one. Wing and tailplane
dbs are simply cut down from the rear ro
the required iength.
The remainder of the designprocesscan
nore be grouped under three main headings: structure design,propeller designand
construction, and the rubber motor.

The Propeller snd Motor


The simplest way would be to build a
"recommended size" propeller and then
select the size and weight of rubber moror
to suit, Rubber powir can be varied
initially by difierent cross section, and
then by increasingo! decreasingthe over.
Bll length of the motor, altedng the overall
weight of the model and thul the power
tequired for flight. The first is an c:rireme
adjustment, the second a finer one.
The question of rubber size is going to
be an important one for modelleri in ihis
country. We have no rubber availeble in
fractional sizes, verying in width by
l/84 inch at a time and so we are not likelv

INDoor

to have nough sclec.


tion of rubber cross
sectionsto enableus to
sdiust motor sire io
this way. It may be
necessary,thercfore,to
use whatever rubbe! is
available and design
the propellr rccord.
ingly.
On his thirty minure
plus flight, Andrews
used a 16 in, loop of
l/10-t/30
rubbei
powering a propellerol
l7l in. diameter. The
model had 14? sq, in.
wing arca, but nes very tight. Few m;del.
lersin thiscountryarelikely toget down to
the same ultralight wing loading as the
Amehcen experts, when a greater rubber

crosssectionwill be neccssary.
Times,of
course,will go down accordingly.Typical
nguresa!e:
Iubb..
(rwo
Mo.,.l v.lth.
.ol G.ots or .
*x
,Ot5-.055 ot.
* x
.060-.080 o!,
* x
.oan- .l ooor .
lx
'gu.d on l 5In. dl ..

Por.nrldl
tet on
hdttmum
(.drdr)
m.
t/30t..
3ohtnr .
l/301n.
2t mtn'l/301n,
2{mi
.
l /totd.
20ntnr .
r r oD . r nd t50tq.tn. m od.L

As regards propeller design and con.


structioh the standard carvd propeller is
invariably cut from a diseonalbteik with
no depth taper, eithet from a singlc in.
tegral block qual to the di.meter; or e
block equal to one-half of the diamcter
plus obout I in. cut along a diagonal lap
jointed, as shown in Fig. 3. Carvc-dprooel'.
lers, however,ate largdiy out of daie. l"he
built-up,
microfilm-covered DroDeller
is very much lighter and equally, if
not more, efficient. Furthermore, the
micro6lm propeller is, if anything, easier
to make. Much of the recent imDrovement
in American record times is due to the use
of the microfilm propeller. This, in fact,
became almost standerd Drectice in
about 1940.
Details arc summarised ln Fig. 4.

Conrtruction
Herc we would emphasisc that light
$eight with adequate ltrength can oily
conre0s the result of very caieful selection
of matcrials, Ordinary stock balsa iust is

86

not good cnough.-Thc right typc of rood


no! Io Da ptckcd out and it tskes en
expert to
the qualities realty
-appreriatetherefore, should
requircd. Meterials,
bi
obt.ined from a first cla$ model shop
trhere an .xpcdcnced retailer can help,
if occcsary. The recommendeddensitv G
4.4 lb./cu, ft. stock.
Wings and tailplane are invariablv of
spellss-constructioD, relying purelf on
tnc outthe 6parsfor strength. To conserve
weight, spars should be tapered out
tos,ards the tips, reducing the tip sections
to, the smallest possible 6gure. betails of
wlng constructton are summadsed in
Teble II. To achieve the lishtest oossible
wctht a braced wing shoulii be usid-the
bracing being.00l nichrome or tunssten
wire. Proper.bracing, however, is a tiicky
businessand many modellers will prefer
to build an unbraced wing, when'spar
Eizes must be increased accordinsly. bn
account of weight it seemsbettet-io use
solid stock for the outline sDars, rather
than laminated strips, althouqh the latter
type of constructionis usuaily stronger
aod considerably eesier to hanile.
As regards fuselage and tail boom
const.uction it is interesting to fnd that
the minimum sheet thickness possible
on the very largest models is also the
minjmum size which can be used for any
model, emphasisingthe potential advantage of the large model as regards overall
weig,htsaling and thus reduction in wirrg
roaorng. Unty the experts, however, can
really handle a l/64 sh;et motor boom and

u.1

t161

uu

tlu

tl61

u61

tlu

| 151

l161

t161

tl t28

ll61

tl51

tl61

TAILE ll r AUILOINC DATA


wlNGS
Ootll..
Rlb!

Gc.l'|J
t50

*i t *

l2tt

ix

tm
,5

50

r tx

Rib

'til:F s.I["

1.161

sti.k

3161

u37

| 132

r/r2

.1161

tl32

tr

tt61

llu

tlJz

tl61

tl6a

r/6,t

tlc4

tl5a

7-21

ll-2

81
86

rccommendedrubber sizes,for example,


were quoted for T-60 rubber. Other
varictics Inay have mole .or less.powet
for thc same ctoss sectlonr wlllcn rs
rvhere a sirnple torque tester will be
invaluablefor compatatrvetests'
Nor do rvc feel thlt we can glve a
material.
table of weights. As we
recomrnended
summarised
are
fittings
Finallv. detail
the ligbter the model
earlier,
stressed
have
praet
tce'
of ntodern
in Fie.5 representative
provi,lcd
that it is not so
betler,
tlle
ii ;r'nor plt.it t" to go into the struclrrrrl
that it will deform in flight or break
weak
sp^cc'
oi
account
on
detail,
in
side
'l he airr, therefore, is to reduce
Sl-it"itv, to mention has treenmade of uu,
xs hr ts possible,-.onsisLcnt
\i'cigh(s
Inlcro'
ol
the ploduction alrd alflicatlon
tlris requiretncDt lhe lrgures on
filnr. lhe r e hav e been ot her ar llc les on rvith
02 elnphasisethc imPortance of
itri. ..U;""', ,o *t,1.1' t Jnt"t'6qshorrlJ nice
c{Iccting potential maximum
ihis
the
on
wc
elaborale.
can
}lot
i"
^s
'lhe
duration
qurlities
-^aJ.
eflect
of different rubber

l/128 sheet tailboom with lafst{ on.a


large model. 'fhe recommendedstTesrn
th;sl ructurald^l a lable:rtetnorecottttnon'
Fuselagebracing with sinrilar.'00) wtre
;. .olrl'"tirn". uied but should not be
necessatywith correct selectronol Doom

Microfilm Formula
A good gcnerrl Purpose.. microfilm
solutio-ncan bc mxde by 'lddirlg a teaiioi-nlur or .i.to. oil to two ouuces.of
c'ieardooe or bananaoil. I he
cffect
'ollow'ng
ioi-ui"J Lru. been used ro gooJ
Britisb modcls.and.Providea
;;-;;;-;".
that the film can be
i".iliv of
. made from:-rt"tirtt

F!edbl. coUodion
Amyl .cet!t.
C as tor oi l .- .
2, Pl ni n c ol l odi on ..
Amtl acctstc
Triqcsyl FhdPhat.
3. Flexit le collodion
Am!l acetatc
Cnmphorarcd oil .
4. Fleaibl. collodion

IN D EX

DESIGN FOR AEROMODELLERS

l.

l
Aetodynomic data tables,glider
power duration ..'
'..
redio.control models
,..
rubber models ..'
speedmodels
Aeiodynamic design,stunt models
Airfoil Selection,tailless ...
...
American Motors ...
Appendix ...
...
Algmntr Tubes . .
Autoruddels
...
A2 Specifications ,..
T)
l)alance in design,canatds
Basic Types, gliders
Best model layouts, floatplanes
Biplanes
comparative size
design for efficiency
effect of gap
gap and stagger
British classes,speed
British motors, l96l-3
Building data, indoor models

8
I7
66
II
46
40
89
89
30
0
92

...
. ',

68
7

...

00

C ds tor oi l .,.
(Thtu i! e heavic 6lm.)

abin Power Models


C.G. position
24
design data
60
general layout data
motor mounting
2l
.,.
power loading ,.,
22
Cabin Power trlodels,tail area ...
wing design
Canards
?0
co!Iection factors
68
balance in design
68
snags
36
Care of charges,Jetex
2A
C.G. eflect, low wing models
30
C.G, position, PAAload .'.
Classspecifications
60
Comoaiative size, biplanes
-power
l9
dr.tration
Com;onent weights,
84
Construction, indoor
46
speed
l6
data, rubber
46
speed ..,
36
Contest design, Jetex
89& 94
Conversiontables , .
?0
Correction Fectorsr cenald
6
Cowlings, speed
4S
team tace

a2
60
I
6l
69
30
40
3l
l4
80

T]
DFect of gap, biplanes
size, glidets
Lffect ot wlng loaolng, polver
. '.
duration
-[

.A.1.generalrules

power models
69
...
68 Float design for Seaplanes
...
best modellayouts ...
43 &52
.,.
hookedfloats ..'
90
...
...
...
86 Float propo.tions ...

..

,tL

esign data csbin


indoot
team races
..'
Design features, glider
Iloats
for efficiency, biplanes ...
...
Jetex, contest ..,
layout, stunt
...
PAAload wing ...
specifications
Dimensions, prop. block ...
Directional Stability, tailless

Formulae, microfilm
Fuel Feed Troubles, Stunt

30

92&93
ot
82
,..
64
,..
6l&60
...
86
...
30

\>ap and Stagger, biPlanes


General layout data, cabin
Gliders
aerodynamicdata table...
auto rudders
basic types
..'
designfeatures ..'
efiect of size
materials...
'r T
11elicopters
improving stability
Jeticopters
motor oeslgn
High speed or long longe, team
racers ...
Hooked floats

Improuing stability,helicoptcrs
Indoor Models
buildini data
construction
design data
microfilm formulae

60
8

68
00
8
B
7
8
l0

7l

18
64

8I
84
82
86

..,
...
..,

progressin U'S.A.
propeller and motor
size and duration
T
J etex Jrlodels
augmenter tubes
care of charges ...
contestdesigns ."
helicopters
sizes
thrust line and trim
thrust outPut

Lon*

83
36
36
36
?6
34
34
33

...
...

,on*" or high speed,team

Low wing Porver Models ...


C.G. eflect
stability requitements
thrust line
trim requirements
_ tr
stunt
-fVlanoeuvrability,
Mictofilm formulae
Model sizes,Jetex

4A
;;
:\
19
fl
;;
''

cnced

frloi- a".igt, IlelicoPter ...


Motor mounting,cabin ..lllotors, raciDg
Motor types for R/C
-t-r
Moclels
fAA-load
-i.C.
fosition
wingiesign
wini-load'ing elTect
;".t"t;;;ents, Ric
P";;,il;;;
^
'
.'..
i;;i;;;;;,;;;;;
...
Models
Dur"tion
P*"i
aeiodynamic data
co-p6rr"nt *"ights
structural data ."
"
po*"i-toraing,
""Uio
racer ..,
Power units, team
Practicalrequiremenls,R/C
Progressin U.S.A., ittdoo.
a-i..n,ion.
i,;;;.;]";k
;;;;.;;;;;.;i;;;;....

81
84
82

...
.,.

38
80
34
43
14
23
42
63

.r
i)eaplanes
Sizeand duration,indoot
Specifications,World Class
S-peed
Control Line
'aerodynamic
data
...
British Classes .'.
consttuction
construction data
cowlings ...
modelslzes
...
racins motors ..'
stauititi requirements,low wing
Str,,.tuial data, power duration '
team racers
design.stunt
Stunt ControlLine
aerodynamic design
designlcYout
fuel leed troubles
manoeuvrabilitY
shapesand sizes...
stability and desigo
strrctural design
'
Sweepbackeflect,tailless.'.

cabin"
62 wing design,

i;il;;;yt*t

typc of motor

...

.'.

'..

63

ll
ll
10
l4
12

Rubbe! Models "'


aerodynamic data
constructional data
prop block dimensions . .
iailplane size

rF
29 I ail Area' cabin.
."
30 'failplane size, rubber
Tailiessmodels
3I
...
airfoil selection
30
"'
directional stabilitv
64
...
stablitv devkes "
... ne, rs
sleepback erects
11
...
Team Racers
l?
class.specificstions
lg
"'
cowlings "'
20
"'
desiSndata
2l
. ,, "
tables
perf-ormance
48
...
"
power rrnl(s
66
..'
tange and sPeecl"
8I
..
"
stru-ctural data ...
14
tanks
84
...
Thrust line and trim, Jetex
<o Thrust outPut' Jetex
:"
62
...
...
i;-;"^,,;''"-"".r"r"* w'ng
rrim requirements'low
-f\.adio Control ...
'oi"s
ii
aerodvnamicdale
64 r .7
perfoimancerequirernents ...
66
W akefields
practical lequirements ..,
'..
PiA'lo;d

89

A uE R IC A N E N GIN E S

DEsrcN FoB AEBoMoDELLERS

88

"'
"
"'

"'
"'
'
"'
'
...
'
...
"'
-'

6l
82
92
46
43
48
46
46
43
12
26
20
DI

4l
40
40
39
38
4l
39
4l
7S
22
12
76
17
80
?8
7g
41
47'Sz
49
60
48'
19
i:
+o
67
4s
34
33
27
92

22
3l

AIIIERICAN ENOINES
m p l o Yi n g
Designers
American engines'but using
a British model as a basis,
may compare their capacities
bv referenceto the accom'
pinying conversion table.'
Typical American engines
in production are:-

E U fi OP E A N
--

c. c.
.75

-.Loura,ao*

. o45

Glowplug Motorr
Atwood .040
Atwood .061
Cameron .I9
Forster .29
Folster.3l
For( ,I9
Fox .29
Fox .36
Infant Torpedo .020
K. & B. Glo'Tolp. .29
K. & B. Glo-Torp, .32
K. & B. Totpedo '049
K. & B. Toryedo 'I9
.
K. & B. Torpedo '23
K . & B. To r p e d o .1 6
K. & B. Torpedo .09
McCoy ,9
M c C oy.l 9 .
ItlcCoy .29

o. & R. .23
o. & R. .29
o. & R. .33
o. & R. .60
O.K. Cub.090
O.K. Cub .030
O.K. Cub .049
O,K. Cub .074
O.K. Cub.14

TJ

6---I

; \!0
I
= \

(32:

\E
40
4 .5
(4.75t
50

o.s..2s

SpaceBug .049
Triumph .49
Triumph,61
Veco.29
V eco, 31
Wasp.O19
Wen llsc .049
Dierol Enginor
McCoy.O40
O.K. Cub .06
O.K. Ctrb.16

.45
80
9,O
to.o

z
o

z
o

.E

i9

i5j

-:
r-;
9 i!l

ei!?

E:

i q* i
a.ir'a
<d [<

3 . i i =.

R
F9P9

Ir'?Y

i { +4

Ig H g
,tllt
S':rx

i< 1" '


didi;di

ltll

!!!!

:i 5:

bs9s

.fa. b

++

. EE g , { p + *-+

-E

9I

:!

iz?.* is i r
:9aE
t.?-

.. ..
..r_-.-.".-

i!l

:.E---:

ad
Fa
<ri[<

c
t:

F E o o-;
d cl
c' i
= :.i= =

ri
1. 9

i<,-ii
8+
S !
9?
f dd: =

i:

BE.5gF
-i
l' i- i

sls;R

t-l l l

a,

a*++:

!!rt!

e.:

!=

r!
E e ld

,l t

3 ii
C9

l: j: i! i

I
I

l x:

lll

EEAe- a
'-l

* a!

+a++q

5e

rt t t t ll
r

:Z:ZZ

\5

i r i"C : 3 ; ; i"

3
3
t

rr

P r

f idii

" 4 5ii 5f $; : if
|

:9 =

.i :a
,!e ;

cg
.il

99

x.q=

9- rrrS

t' ttf

-1

J lt+

i?

!1f =
++ + +

i!
:;96

t ba'
,
i g . c!s!e!

++ + +

EehI
I- ::
i i=

.i

-.:

t+ **++

.i b 3
.i i
-.i - e R

E qqE QQ

14!!c!"?!rg!

q- - :- - - -

E -ceqB t

-qqarqa-

()d

-.:

3si
!r^
;:,i::;:

; f ii: if

"

..;

.- -i

6ad

i=

\
J

,ii:!3
i t t x; ;
-- rB

i:

sg+ ;E- e- n!,l i n


:H
6:

' t9
:i

aE
tri o-tt.r

83.883

tl;tll
:.!..!.!.!T

{ <<<<{
q R
-* +

6.
3g;

3 ';

tci *

I
Ei

.!

lt r

+rA

::
gg

.a
.r-t-t

3;:

t t rlll

-e
i

J!:
++-

r
i5!

q$+JJ: n : ! -+ :

z
ic

U *r+*

++**++

::g
f=

3ii!t

F?:E;{

fi*g,qi

gB t

e!s!c!eEi:ic
2&.2e.2&2eE6E6
5i;33#;55
E6Ed.Ee.Ee.;3;3$tjx;ijx;3

+++++

d - ORF

-!:tt
c !
d

; iiii

'llstlo

'i
,!

94

DEsrcN FoR AERoMoDELLBRS


M ET RIC

Sq.In

Dm,

CONVERSION
TA B LE
In ch e s to Sq u a 1 6 deci metroa

Sq.ins. Dm 1

Sq.ins

.0645
. | 290
. t 93 5
.2580

2l
22
23
24

t.3 5 5
t.4 t9
l.{83
1.548
t.6 t2

7
8
9
t0

.3870
. 45t 5
.5t60
.5805
.6450

27
28
29
30

tl
t2
t3
t4
l5

.7095
.7740
.8385
.9030
.9665

t6

1.0320
r.0965
t . t 6t 0

l8
t9
20

t.2900

34
36
37
38
39
40

4l
42
43
44
45

5l

2.838
2.902

t.677
| .7 4 1
t.806
t.870
t.9 3 5

45
47
4A
49
50

2.967
3.03!
3.096
3.t60

2.000
2.064
2.128
x.t93
2.257

5l
52

3.289
3.354
3 .4t8

2.580

59
60

4
7
8

63
64
65
67
6g
69
70

4.257
4.321
.{.386
4.450
4.5t5

5.547
5.6t1

76
77

7a
79
80

87
88
89
90

5.289
5.4t8
5.482

5.740
5.805

4.579
4.654
4.708
4.773
4.A37

9l
92
93
94

5.869
5.934
5.948
6.063
6.177

4.902
4.966
s.03|
5.095
5.t60

96
97
98
99
100

6.t72
6.321
6.385
6.450

M il limetres

3 .t7 5
25.4
50.8
76.2
t 0t . 6
177.0
t52.4
t77.4
203.2

Dmt

s.274

74

3.612
3.676
3.741
3.805
3.870

Sq.ins

D ml

3.934 . ..81
A'
3.999
4.063
83
84
4.t28
4.t92

7l
72

54

2.451

tN.
0

Sq.ins

7.644
2.709

Inchs

Dmr

9.525
34.92
60.32
85.72
t.t2
t36.52
t6t.92
1e7.32
2t2.72
238.
t2

3t . 75

79.375
104.77
t3 0t7
.

t07.95

1a0,97
206.87
23|.77

t58.75
t 84. t 5
209.55
234.95

t2.7

88.9
114.3
t39.7
t65.t
t90.5
215.9
24t.3

44.45
69.85
95.25
146.05
t7t.45
t96.85
222.25
247.65

Ounces
Oz.

tf
tI
l
i

tit

|.772
3.544
7.088
t0.632
14.t75
t7.720
2t.264
24.808
26.580

4
6
7
9

28.35
s6.70
85.05
I t3.40
| 4t.75
t70.t0
t98.45
226.80

0
0*
;,
rt
7
2L
3
3l
4

Gr.

Oz.

283.5
297.67
3t t.85
326.02
340.2
354.37
368.55
382.82
396.9

iir
l6
t7
t8

l9
20
2l
22

4l t.07
425.25
453.6
48t.95
5t0.3

6?3.7

We ore lndcbt.d to loc9ues/Vofissetof Pofrsfor his wotk In Freientingtheseconyerslontdbrcr.

f..c
\\-

')oor;X;n
n"l*

type of modol oircrdft YoU want to


mdke sure it's o K E I L K R A F TK'T

buitd -

ESSEX
'sEEYoanotrunfuy WICKFORD,
WICKFORD 2315
IeleDfione;