Author Topic: Utilizing the P-51D's instability (Read 7294 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #45 on:** January 07, 2008, 09:33:53 AM »

Er.... RC planes can also hover on their props.

Don't think a real life war plane can do that.

Just because a 2-lb. plane with enough thrust to break orbit can do it doesn't mean a 12,000lb plane with a single engine and slow acceleration can do it.

You get my point?

scottydawg · « **Reply #46 on:** January 07, 2008, 10:06:55 AM »

I agree with Krusty (ohh that hurt to say)... I don't think that RC plane and real life warplane handling have much to do with each other.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #47 on:** January 07, 2008, 01:14:28 PM »

Candelaria's move reminds me of the "death blossom" from The Last Star Fighter movie, circa 1984.

Hoffman · « **Reply #48 on:** January 07, 2008, 01:46:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Er.... RC planes can also hover on their props.

Don't think a real life war plane can do that.

Just because a 2-lb. plane with enough thrust to break orbit can do it doesn't mean a 12,000lb plane with a single engine and slow acceleration can do it.

You get my point?

Yes but the same physics apply to both RC planes and real aircraft.

The only difference between them is scale and P/W ratio.

If you scaled down the engine performance to the same scale as the RC aircraft's size/weight it would theoretically have the same performance (scaled down) as the real thing. And thus be able to perform the same maneuvers.

That an RC aircraft can perform similar maneuvers to real aircraft with engines that are not to scale doesn't mean the airframe cannot perform the maneuver. It only means there is a difference in power applied from the engine.

From what I've seen in the vids posted this doesn't look impossible, nor even improbable, just really hard and from the way the plane tumbles... that pilot is going to have a very painful next morning.

Krusty · « **Reply #49 on:** January 07, 2008, 02:49:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hoffman
Yes but the same physics apply to both RC planes and real aircraft.

You can't be serious. The laws of physics are the same for an elephant falling and a feather, but they forces ACTING on said objects are so far different as to be uncomparable.

Same for RC planes and real planes. You can NOT compare them in a serious manner.

SlapShot · « **Reply #50 on:** January 07, 2008, 02:59:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
You can't be serious. The laws of physics are the same for an elephant falling and a feather, but they forces ACTING on said objects are so far different as to be uncomparable.

Same for RC planes and real planes. You can NOT compare them in a serious manner.

Well ... I guess all the wind tunnel testing of scale aircrafts and vehicles is not needed anymore.

Krusty · « **Reply #51 on:** January 07, 2008, 03:02:28 PM »

You notice wind tunnel mockups don't actually fly?

SlapShot · « **Reply #52 on:** January 07, 2008, 03:09:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
You notice wind tunnel mockups don't actually fly?

grasping ...

Krusty · « **Reply #53 on:** January 07, 2008, 03:17:20 PM »

Likewise...

Kweassa · « **Reply #54 on:** January 07, 2008, 03:46:31 PM »

Quote

You can't be serious. The laws of physics are the same for an elephant falling and a feather, but they forces ACTING on said objects are so far different as to be uncomparable.

Apparently, Krusty, under the current laws of physics that governs the Earth such a maneuver is;

a) possible
b) did happen
c) was documented
d) is repeatable
e) can be observed in airshows with real planes
f) already well known amongst real pilots
g) simulated by a FM claiming to be close to that of real life physics
h) simulated by scaled-down RC planes

It might not be possible in your laws of physics, but unfortunatelty, your laws of physics don't seem to exist outside your imagination.

Quote

Same for RC planes and real planes. You can NOT compare them in a serious manner.

If you keep maintaining this absurd attitude despite the variety of evidence and opinions laid before you, we might as well not take YOU seriously at all.

Krusty · « **Reply #55 on:** January 07, 2008, 03:55:53 PM »

Kweassa, none of that has been shown.

I go down your list categorically, and not one of those points has been proven in this thread. Not with any proof. 1 pilot's anecdotes 60 years after the fact on a show with less than reliable fact-checking doesn't cut it. RC planes don't cut it.

EDIT: P.S. Because it's in a flight model don't make it so. Because a RC plane can do it don't make it so. Nonsensical bullet points.

Kweassa · « **Reply #56 on:** January 07, 2008, 03:58:01 PM »

*sigh*

Whatever you say, sahib.

Did I mention you can get all the evidence you want from Youtube?

Krusty · « **Reply #57 on:** January 07, 2008, 03:59:57 PM »

Show me a P-51 tail sliding backwards, in such perfect control that it can fire its guns at a plane following it, and then correcting without much loss of altitude. Yes, show me that on youtube.

Did you even bother looking at the animated GIFs supplied? Did you read the thread? Or just go to my name and post the opposite of whatever I said?

SlapShot · « **Reply #58 on:** January 07, 2008, 04:00:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Likewise...

Hardly ... wind tunnel testing is used to test "real" physics upon scaled down surfaces, which correlate directly to the full scale subject ... there is no need to actually fly or for a vehicle to actually drive down a road ... in a controlled "scaled" environment to garner correct and telling results.

To broadly say that a properly scaled RC does not react the same as it's full scaled counterpart is not correct.

Krusty · « **Reply #59 on:** January 07, 2008, 04:02:35 PM »

Wind tunnels are used to test air flow over certain air shapes. They test for aerodynamics, drag, etc. They're definitely not being used in the same manner as a sideways-sliding P-51 going butt-first into the wind.

Wind tunnel models are so folks know when the wing rips off, to simplify it.