Walter-
Boy am I gonna get flamed for this <g>. Absolutely! I have seen many planes that fly
better heavier than lighter. The first one that comes to mind is my NSP sparrow
(RG-15). It flew ok at 22oz. Kicked serious butt at 28-29oz. I would say a lot
depends on airfoil. I am sure that the techical types will tell you it has to do with
Renolds numbers, all I know is sometimes it works. As I remember Dave Register wrote
an article a few years ago in RCSD about ballasting; might be worth a read. In my
limited exp it seems the thinner "cleaner" sections do better heavy than the think
ones, might be wrong...(happened once before...).
Kristopher
In a message dated Mon, 10 Apr 2000 9:18:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Walter Lynch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Was out flying the Mantis today. Mantis may be the lightest of the light
> full size planes out there. The wind wasnt particularly strong/lift not
> that great but I decided to add a 10oz ballast slug anyway and guess what-to
> me the plane flew better than in non ballasted mode. It still signaled
> lift/thermalled well, yet seemed to be able to range a but further and
> faster, although it will never be "fast." Seemed to turn a smoother thermal
> turn as well. Also, noticed it seemed to "cut a better groove" on landing
> approach as well, being less affected by turbulence, wind, etc yet still had
> that float and stop landing
> characteristic it is known for. I dont know, light is good but too light
> may be too much
> of a "good" thing. Any opinions? thanks, Walter
>
>
> RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
>"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
