RE: Miss Lynn EF-1
Have you flown it yet?
Posted on: 9/2/2012 8:46 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Electric Pylon Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11214444

RE: Name the Plane
I like Walter better.....
Posted on: 7/22/2012 7:38 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "General Racing Discussion"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11165182

RE: Questions about modding an Enforcer...
I'll leave the debate as to weather this would make a good speed plane or not to the others. [:'(] To answer your question about CG, the plane flies fine in the stock configuration, at the stock CG location. The relation of the fuselage length to the wing will not change the CG location appreciably if you lengthen it, but adding canards will. It is essentially adding lifting surface in effect making the wing act as if the chord were longer. If you follow the established mods, follow their CG recommendations. If you roll your own, the CG will have to be re-plotted which is easy to do using the various web based calculators available.
Posted on: 7/12/2012 12:54 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11152871

RE: Hobby King turbine!
Like it or not, these Chinese turbines are coming, just like the gassers recently. They will have problems for sure, but much more likely than not, they will sort them out eventually. Will I rush out and buy one? Certainly not. Give it a some time though and the possibility of a budget priced reliable power plant is very real. The smart thing to do would be to drop the elitist attitude. Stop bashing them which does no good & instead promote the hobby as a whole to the newcomers who can now afford turbines to operate them as safely as possible.
Posted on: 7/3/2012 10:44 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11141432

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg You're talking about air speed and I'm talking about upwind rpm readings that are being recorded lower than what the true rpm [sound frequency] is. For this to happen, the wind must have an effect on the sound waves. [/quote] I'm talking about you confusing ground and airspeed, and how those affect Doppler recordings. Let's say a plane is traveling 100 mph airspeed and there is a 20 mph wind. Upwind the plane does 100 mph airspeed, but only 80 mph ground speed (this is what the microphone is recording) and why it shows lower rpm and speed, it's a lower frequency shift. Down wind the plane still does 100 mph airspeed, but now it's ground speed is 120 mph, the frequency and speed are higher and that's what it's showing. It's a very simple concept. The wavoscope is measuring different relative velocities to the microphone, the plane sees 100 mph both ways, the only difference is the perspective from the ground. The plane flies 100 mph ( and at a steady rpm) the same upwind or down wind, it doesn't matter. What matters is what you see and what the microphone on the ground hears. That is where the difference is coming from. I'm not sure who or what it will take to convince you of this. I've provided links, accepted theories and practices and invited you or anyone else to disprove this. Noone has or is capable, because it's the truth.
Posted on: 6/19/2012 9:19 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11123808

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg [quote]ORIGINAL: speedracerntrixie Ok now that I am able to read this and not laugh. As the airplane gains speed, the prop becomes more efficient and unloads thus bringing the engine into the power band. This is going to happen if the airplane is turned or not. In fact it may happen sooner going strait as a turn is drag. Problem is I am not capable of flying a 150 + MPH airplane 250 yards away. Are you? [/quote] The planes in question that would wait for the first turn before hitting the pipe always did so right after the turn was complete...regardless of when I decided to turn. Why would Wavoscope consistently read the upwind frequency [rpm] low..? My recorder is always pointed in the same direction regardless of wind. Both directions of the pass are close to the same distance from the recorder. If the discrepency is small [like a few hundred rpm] I wouldn't try to explain it. In the case of the 2 passes I showed earlier the discrepency is too large to ignore. [/quote] Once again it has nothing to do with wind. Wavoscope reads the upwind passes as slower because it reads GROUND speed, the speed of the airplane relative to the microphone, not what the airplane is doing relative to the surrounding air mass which would be airspeed. That's why you need to average an up and downwind pass to eliminate the false readings due to wind. Is this really that hard to understand?
Posted on: 6/19/2012 4:47 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11123490

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg [quote]ORIGINAL: airraptor CP i have had ''real'' telemetry in a plane. I was able to measure head temp, rpm and airspeed of the plane. none of those three area's data changed up wind or down wind as long as i stay fairly level. now the rpm and speed would rise in a dive both upwind and down wind. I did this on a WM t-34 with a OS 46 AX trying to find the best prop. the 46AX would turn the prop at 13,800 on the ground and run right around 15,100 in level flight. The air speed stayed right around 95 through the whole flight when level. i then switched to a engine that spin the same prop at 17,000 on the ground. It would unload to around 18,000-18,200. the flight sped only went up to 115-117. Still thru all this testing never once did the engine gainpower/rpm downwind. [/quote] Haven't you flown in a pylon race or just for fun where the plane doesn't unload until it makes the first downwind turn...? No dive involved. [/quote] So if there was no wind, it would never unload?
Posted on: 6/18/2012 9:55 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11122448

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg What do any of your sources say about doppler recordings that consistently show higher rpm downwind than upwind. ? How does Wavoscope create rpm that isn't really there on the downwind leg..? Just ignore it as ''magic''..? You still haven't addressed this......Mount a rubberband motor with a huge prop to the top of one of your electric or fuel powered planes and fly it both real slow and real fast to witness the transfer of energy both into and out of that rubberband motor with your own eyes. [/quote] [/quote] CP You are talking in circles. I have proved over and over again that the airspeed upwind vs. downwind is the same, and that only ground speed changes. In your scenario this can't be true. Your rubber band motor analogy proves nothing except that you have no clue what you are talking about. There will be NO DIFFERENCE in RPM upwind vs down. Period. Over. Done. As far as the doppler plots go, what you are seeing is well within the margin of error, but completely opposite of the laws of aerodynamics and physics. You are simply choosing to see what you want to see either because you don't have anyone around to talk to and explain whats really going on, or you know you are incorrect yet are too stubborn to admit it. The plane SOUNDS faster and LOOKS faster because you are a fixed point on the ground. Airspeed, & therefore what the airplane see's is EXACTLY the same. You are confusing airspeed with ground speed. Here it is plain and clear: [b]It is aerodynamically & physically impossible for an airplane to gain rpm downwind vs up.[/b] You seem like a reasonably smart guy, I'm baffled as to why you don't this? You are the only person I've ever come across in the ENTIRE WORLD who doesn't understand this basic tenet of aviation. You must be some kind of super genius, because everybody else is wrong. Yeah right! Your turn to prove ME wrong. Find just one site, one shred of credible evidence, something that upholds your claim and I'll listen. Until then you are just a troll. Go away troll.
Posted on: 6/17/2012 7:36 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11121836

RE: o,s, 32 max
Sorry I'm late to the party, been out pylon racing today. You know CP, those slow planes. Read up, you might learn something. http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/navigation-principles.html [b]A pilot flying in a 70-knot gale would be totally unaware of any wind (except for possible turbulence) unless the ground were observed. In reference to the ground, however, the airplane would appear to fly faster with a tailwind or slower with a headwind, or to drift right or left with a crosswind.[/b] Wikipedia.org [b]Ground speed can be determined by the vector sum of the aircraft's true airspeed and the current wind speed and direction; a headwind subtracts from the ground speed, while a tailwind adds to it. Winds at other angles to the heading will have components of either headwind or tailwind as well as a crosswind component.[/b] And on and on and on..... http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/instruments/q0210.shtml http://wiki.flightgear.org/Rectangular_Course oh wait....here is what NASA says, or are you smarter than them too? I think not. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/move3.html Gravity is a constant so that can be eliminated from your silly argument, that leaves up wind vs. down only. If you read and pay attention to any of the above you would understand that there is no difference because of the wind either. [b]Airspeed does not change from up wind to down, ground speed does.[/b] I still suspect that even though the entire collective mind of the aviation world proves you wrong over and over again, you will still refuse to accept this as truth.
Posted on: 6/17/2012 1:32 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11121434

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg [quote]ORIGINAL: Lownverted [quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg How much HP does it take to go from 155 mph to 170..? [with a 8x7] It's a significant amount [almost 1 HP] and it isn't being furnished by the engine. The engine only has enough power to do 155 on it's own in calm air. There are no free lunches in energy exchange and the engine acts like a watt
Posted on: 6/17/2012 10:21 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11121266

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg How much HP does it take to go from 155 mph to 170..? [with a 8x7] It's a significant amount [almost 1 HP] and it isn't being furnished by the engine. The engine only has enough power to do 155 on it's own in calm air. There are no free lunches in energy exchange and the engine acts like a watt meter in this case as it registers the energy boost with a measurable jump in rpm. It takes 2.6 HP to do 155 mph with a 8x7 and it takes 3.5 HP to go 170. The external power is sent through the airframe, through the prop and the engine looks like ''The Hero'' because it was able to spool up in response to this invisible boost...but never forget the fact that the engine ON IT's OWN POWER never could have reached that level of power without outside help. Works just the same way as in a vertical dive. People who know better can see power getting back fed into the machine from Mother Nature's stored energy. [/quote] Wrong, wrong wrong. The difference in the GROUND speed is the wind. Not extra magic force. The plane is going the same AIRSPEED both ways. Seroiusly, get a clue. There is no magic gain in HP.
Posted on: 6/17/2012 9:39 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11121213

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg Gravity applies a force that makes the plane gain speed and it takes the strain off the propellor/engine to pull the plane. The only reason why this happens is because of the external power that is taking some load off the engine. Flying downwind applies external power to make the plane gain speed. The engine doesn't care whether the external power is coming from gravity or from the wind. I suspect that most prop/engine/plane set ups aren't real sensitive to the subtle change in load at full throttle, but I don't spend time analyzing set ups like that. Q40s are propped to ''ignore'' changes in load so that they give the best average speed on the course. They unload quickly after takeoff and sound the same the rest of the heat. They aren't propped for optimum speed like the examples I'mtalking about. You might as well tell me all about your sprint car while we're talking about 1/4 mile dragsters. [/quote] HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA You should analyze physics a bit before you attempt anything else.
Posted on: 6/17/2012 8:42 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11121165

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: iron eagel [quote]ORIGINAL: Lownverted I isolated part of your quote above. [b]Actually Doppler is a pretty good measurement system, because it uses a time reference as it basis for calculations. [/b] This is exactly why its not accurate! Airspeed from the aircraft itself is the only true measurement. Doppler is referencing a moving object from a ground reference
Posted on: 6/17/2012 8:40 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11121164

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg Gravity applies a force that makes the plane gain speed and it takes the strain off the propellor/engine to pull the plane. The only reason why this happens is because of the external power that is taking some load off the engine. Flying downwind applies external power to make the plane gain speed. The engine doesn't care whether the external power is coming from gravity or from the wind. I suspect that most prop/engine/plane set ups aren't real sensitive to the subtle change in load at full throttle, but I don't spend time analyzing set ups like that. Q40s are propped to ''ignore'' changes in load so that they give the best average speed on the course. They unload quickly after takeoff and sound the same the rest of the heat. They aren't propped for optimum speed like the examples I'mtalking about. You might as well tell me all about your sprint car while we're talking about 1/4 mile dragsters. [/quote] You do understand that the airspeed a plane sees is the same regardless of wind right, and that only ground speed changes? The wind only helps in relation to your point of view, not the airplanes.
Posted on: 6/17/2012 8:26 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11121141

RE: o,s, 32 max
CP, The errors in measuring mph and rpm with doppler are well know and documented, I won't bother arguing them anymore. HINT: It's measuring from a ground based reference, therefore measuring ground speed, not airspeed. Therefore all mph and rpm calcs are suspect at best. Same with radar, gps etc. I suspect we are at a stalemate here, and I'm willing to accept that. I'm all ears and willing to listen. Would you please explain to me how an engine will rev higher down wind than up wind. I'm will to change my point of view. Convince me. This is what i'm really interested in.
Posted on: 6/16/2012 8:54 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11120786

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg [quote]ORIGINAL: airraptor see what i mean inverted he is so blinded by the doppler he cant even understand what he is saying. He just said the RPM stayed the same once the engine unloaded both upwind and down wind. Earlier he was arguing that the engine lost rpm upwind and gained rpm downwind. PIG your are cracking me up now lol. [/quote] dude, when you delivered your Class Validictorian speech at GED Tech, how many times did you say ''lol''...? [/quote] Typical misdirection when you have no valid argument.[8|]
Posted on: 6/16/2012 8:38 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11120775

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: airraptor see what i mean inverted he is so blinded by the doppler he cant even understand what he is saying. He just said the RPM stayed the same once the engine unloaded both upwind and down wind. Earlier he was arguing that the engine lost rpm upwind and gained rpm downwind. PIG your are cracking me up now lol. [/quote] You are of course right, he's arguing in circles. I don't know what I was thinking trying to educate a troll. FWIW, I looked at the doppler files from the same flight as the ICE data specifically for this very reason. It sounds like it's turning more RPM down wind vs. up. Same on my Nelson powered Q-40. I don't have RPM logging capability on that, but I do have a pitot system to check against radar and doppler. Red
Posted on: 6/16/2012 7:45 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11120735

RE: o,s, 32 max
Fine stay ignorant. Lemme guess, you believe in the downwind turn and belong to the flat earth society too right? The only epic fail here is your tunnel vision and refusal to accept that you are plain and simply wrong. It doesn't blow anything out of the water. Doppler is UNRELIABLE and only a good generalization at best. Your argument is flawed because you think there is a difference in RPM upwind vs down. This is fundamentally untrue, and can be backed up by even the most basic of textbooks. Airspeed is airspeed regardless of wind. An engine (or motor) sees the same load regardless of wind, or what direction it's coming from. RPM has nothing to do with wind. You can't grasp this simple concept, so there is no use beating dead horse. Do yourself a favor and take a ride with a full scale pilot on a windy day. Trim the plane for straight and level and fly as many up wind and down wind legs as you want and note the airspeed, rpm and if he's got a Garmin on board, ground speed.
Posted on: 6/16/2012 7:35 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11120723

RE: o,s, 32 max
CP, I can see you don't really understand how measuring doppler shift works. The plane is traveling more slowly up wind relative TO YOU, but the airspeed is the same up or downwind regardless. Therefore the Doppler shift is less, so mph and by virtue of how it's measured, the rpm will show less. That's why Doppler is only good for ballpark numbers and generalities. I have a Jibe F5d that will do 200+ mph all day long verified many ways. Looking at the data from the ICE logging controller, the rpm is the same up or downwind, no matter how much wind there is. What changes is ground speed and how it looks to me. I've looked at this many times. The fact that you looked at 100's of doppler's shows you are putting waaaay too much faith in them and believing what they tell you blindly. Stop, think about things for a second and see if you can understand. The Doppler trends you are using as evidence are lying to you.
Posted on: 6/16/2012 2:53 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11120436

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg [quote]ORIGINAL: Lownverted CP, I understand obviously quite clearly how and why engines unload. I would suggest that it is in fact you who doesn't understand how wind effects (or does not in this case) a flying aircraft. If you want to bury your head in the sand, dig in your heels and be ''right'' no matter what, then so be it, nobody can help
Posted on: 6/16/2012 1:22 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11120372

RE: o,s, 32 max
CP, I understand obviously quite clearly how and why engines unload. I would suggest that it is in fact you who doesn't understand how wind effects (or does not in this case) a flying aircraft. If you want to bury your head in the sand, dig in your heels and be "right" no matter what, then so be it, nobody can help you. Just don't be surprised when other folks take exception to what you have to say. For other folks who are reading this I think it's important to not present myth & plain untruths as fact. Should you choose to educate yourself, there is tons of information out there. I would suggest starting with a private pilots handbook.
Posted on: 6/16/2012 11:23 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11120293

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: airraptor [quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg [/quote] Flying down wind the engine doesn't have to work as hard to pull the plane. This allows a combo that is aggressively [over] propped to rev higher than it normally would. Both the wind and gravity have energy that gets fed through the prop. [/quote] PIG you are dead wrong here. the engine works the same upwind as it does down wind. the plane flys the same speed down wind as it flys upwind. the thing confuse 90% of people flying R/C planes is they think the plane is flying faster down wind. You see the plane flying faster because of the wind speed. all the plane is doing is flying the same airspeed but it going with the wind. the planes airspeed plus the wind speed add or subtract to the GROUND speed. AGAIN this flight was not set up for a speed reading off of a microphone lol the distance from the microphone isnt the same everytime, the wind noise thru the microphone add in variables to the mix. [/quote] Get outta my brain! [:)]
Posted on: 6/16/2012 9:31 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11120204

RE: Altitude effects?
I think Crazy has the right idea. Sounds like the change in heat and humidity either caused the airframe or the control system or both to move and make it go out of trim. Not an uncommon thing with wood planes. The aircraft flies, stalls & does everything else at the same airspeed no matter the density altitude. What changes is how those speeds look to you.
Posted on: 6/16/2012 9:29 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11120199

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg [quote]ORIGINAL: Lownverted [quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg The force of the wind and also the force of gravity [in a dive] take a load off the engine which allows it to rev up. During a prolonged straight away pass after a dive you can hear aggressively propped planes gradually lose the boost that was provided by Mother Nature. [/quote] How does the force of the wind
Posted on: 6/16/2012 9:22 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11120194

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg The force of the wind and also the force of gravity [in a dive] take a load off the engine which allows it to rev up. During a prolonged straight away pass after a dive you can hear aggressively propped planes gradually lose the boost that was provided by Mother Nature. [/quote] How does the force of the wind have anything to do with it? It's not like the plane would "see" more or less going up wind or down. I buy the longer or shorter dive, but the wind theory doesn't work.
Posted on: 6/15/2012 9:49 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11119842

RE: o,s, 32 max
[quote]ORIGINAL: combatpigg Sorry guys, but I've listened to a lot of speed passes over the years and what I come up with is about 170 mph down wind and about 140 mph up wind. The up wind passes the engine bogs down to about static rpm and heading down wind it spools up to about 25500. It is not feasible for a .35 to be able to turn a 8x7 well enough to do 190 mph. I looked at the laps from 1:29 up to 3:20 and the down wind passes were pretty consistent. The upwind passes ranged from 123 mph to 147 which tells me that the wind was variable. The truth is this... on a calm day this is a 155 to 160 mph set up measured over a distance of 600 feet. A far cry from 190 mph. [/quote] CP can you please explain why there would be RPM differences upwind vs. down wind?
Posted on: 6/15/2012 7:12 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11119721

RE: Lambert Microturbines contact?
[quote]ORIGINAL: 747drvr So is everything settle with all the parties now ? I was having a lot of fun with my Kolibri powered Twinjet untill it started flaming out on acceleration at 195K . I'm going to have to send it across the pond , I think , but I'm scared ! Marc [/quote] Chris did in fact finally get his turbine back after many, many calls, e-mails & promises. Martins excuse was that he thought Chris was using his "secrets" to give to JetJoe! Wow...I've heard it all now. [8|] Chris' now needs to go back for service again, so with no other choice, it will have to go back. I would highly, highly suggest you get in contact with the man before sending.
Posted on: 4/7/2012 7:52 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11031811

RE: EF 1 Rules
Albert, A two cell, or any other cell count than four, wouldn't work with any of the approved motors for obvious reasons. The battery rule actually works quite well at keeping things even.
Posted on: 3/26/2012 8:30 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Electric Pylon Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11015545

RE: Automotive aerodynamics
Great read....thanks for taking the time to explain all of that stuff. Fascinating. Anyway, I would be very tempted to try placing some VG's at the roof/window break. (if it's legal). You are likely making some lift there and losing some downforce from the spoiler due to separation. That coupled with the side plates should help out. Cheers Red
Posted on: 3/9/2012 10:38 AM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10993073

RE: Winterfest Day 1
If anyone can, please post pics. Are they running EF-1 too?
Posted on: 1/22/2012 1:42 PM by Author "Lownverted" in the forum "Q-500 Racing"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10921797