The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

RAF56_Ball · 6 July 2009, 05:56 PM

Sorry, between work and the build, have been tied up a lot.

TexasGR, the Pup is the only one that I am sure of that had no dihedral in the initial kit plane, but Robert is correcting this on the Pup shown on the site, and changed the plans. He didn't like the look wtihout it, either, heheheh.
Any plane with a droop look is more likely camera paralax (or whatever those deformities are called) as opposed to real, unless a builder blew it. Nieuports are a fairly flat wing, IIRC, with sweep that can give the appearance of anhedral.

Dale/Bookmaker, as experimentals, what maneuvers the planes are capable of is up to the builder. But acrrobatics are not recommended in these designs. I was referring more to roll sensitivity in general.

Nickh - MEGA thanks for the information!! And I feel honoured by the offer. PM OTW.
IIRC, the odd paint schemes were all in training units, except for one that I just saw a picture of displaying what appeared to be a dragon figure on the right fuselage (only had the one view, so wonder if was bilateral?).

MESSAGE TO ALL - PLEASE NOTE Robert Baslee expressly states NOT FOR AEROBATICS. While the design is stressed for adequate "G's" they are not designed for acro per se. The first thing I observed was no stops for ailerons, rudder or elevator. Any tail side could overwhelm the structure/hinges colapsing them. I don't think that adding them alone would be enough. You get the idea.

For those not convinced, and realizing that when I was a young and "invincible" backseater I did unauthorized maneuvers in 150's, it is tempting.
But this plane is designed as a fun flying normal catagory-like plane. Even the originals were not designed to to "acro" although they could "stunt". Pilots were not trained to do it, they just tried it out. Remember, though, more pilots died of training accidents than died in combat. And unless you took a course designed to teach you full acro WAY beyond simple loops and rolls, but including severely out of control maneuvers and recovery, a person could foolishly risk their life in an inapt craft. Since the owner is the test pilot, he needs to well know and stay within his level of training and skill, as well as the limits of the bird.

Do I think it could safely roll 360? Yes, and probably loop, cuban-8, Split-S and more, but if I wanted to do real acro, I would get a real acro kit so I could do it right, with cleaner performance. And I recommend the same to anyone else. Thanks for listening!

Glenn

6 July 2009, 05:56 PM	#16 (permalink)
RAF56_Ball Forum Ace Contributor Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Wausau, WI Posts: 742	Sorry, between work and the build, have been tied up a lot. TexasGR, the Pup is the only one that I am sure of that had no dihedral in the initial kit plane, but Robert is correcting this on the Pup shown on the site, and changed the plans. He didn't like the look wtihout it, either, heheheh. Any plane with a droop look is more likely camera paralax (or whatever those deformities are called) as opposed to real, unless a builder blew it. Nieuports are a fairly flat wing, IIRC, with sweep that can give the appearance of anhedral. Dale/Bookmaker, as experimentals, what maneuvers the planes are capable of is up to the builder. But acrrobatics are not recommended in these designs. I was referring more to roll sensitivity in general. Nickh - MEGA thanks for the information!! And I feel honoured by the offer. PM OTW. IIRC, the odd paint schemes were all in training units, except for one that I just saw a picture of displaying what appeared to be a dragon figure on the right fuselage (only had the one view, so wonder if was bilateral?). MESSAGE TO ALL - PLEASE NOTE Robert Baslee expressly states NOT FOR AEROBATICS. While the design is stressed for adequate "G's" they are not designed for acro per se. The first thing I observed was no stops for ailerons, rudder or elevator. Any tail side could overwhelm the structure/hinges colapsing them. I don't think that adding them alone would be enough. You get the idea. For those not convinced, and realizing that when I was a young and "invincible" backseater I did unauthorized maneuvers in 150's, it is tempting. But this plane is designed as a fun flying normal catagory-like plane. Even the originals were not designed to to "acro" although they could "stunt". Pilots were not trained to do it, they just tried it out. Remember, though, more pilots died of training accidents than died in combat. And unless you took a course designed to teach you full acro WAY beyond simple loops and rolls, but including severely out of control maneuvers and recovery, a person could foolishly risk their life in an inapt craft. Since the owner is the test pilot, he needs to well know and stay within his level of training and skill, as well as the limits of the bird. Do I think it could safely roll 360? Yes, and probably loop, cuban-8, Split-S and more, but if I wanted to do real acro, I would get a real acro kit so I could do it right, with cleaner performance. And I recommend the same to anyone else. Thanks for listening! Glenn __________________ Glenn 'Chip' Burt Integrity is doing the right thing, regardless. in Honor of Albert Ball. A valiant pilot, but a man of God first and last. Last edited by RAF56_Ball; 6 July 2009 at 06:02 PM.