Totally unrelated to a RC Warship Airplane, but... Check out this large scale model of a Staaken Bomber. Simply incredible. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=713642
Being an old Air Force person, I am very partial to aircraft. Too much time and money is lost in RC aircraft crashes, thus I have no desire to get back into flying models, but it has not stopped me from contemplating adapting them to this hobby. I have done a little R&D into a 144 scale B-25 and GM4 Betty Bomber. (I have 144 scale plans for a B-25 on hand) The wingspan is apx. 6 inches! My idea was to have it drop paint balls. Turns out a paint ball is too big fit in the fuselage. The Betty Bomber. It is only one inch larger! I have considered the possibility of a spring-fired weapon for aircraft. I have yet to calculate the recoil... I expect that the aircraft will lose all forward airspeed! I have heard where aircraft have been used in the past. They were fired by rubber bands, and if any landed on a ship that would be considered as a hit. If two landed on the same ship, the ship would be considered sunk. But as commented above, We want to see something SINK! I see it as only a question of time before electronics are compact and light enough to make 144 scale aircraft feasible. Our club had a discussion about aircraft a while back. It was commented that the BB’s would not hesitate to open fire upon anything flying in the combat zone. There’s my two cents worth.
High angle weapons would not be needed... If the aircraft had to drop to down to near wave height to attack with a torpedo. But with a such a small, fragile plane, it would be just as likely a gust of wind would make it crash than actually hitting it with a BB.
"...it would be just as likely a gust of wind would make it crash ..." In 1:144 it doesn't take human perceptible "wind" to make it crash. YOU may not even feel that 3-5mph breeze that just sent the plane into the drink. In 1:72, I suspect things improve dramatically, but still... Seems like a lot of effort for little reward. Presuming that the critters are possible in 1:72 and rules accommodations can be made by Queen's Own; once you get past the bragging rights (which would admittedly be enormous), now what?
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=PKZ3200 http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=PKZ3300 I saw these two planes in my horizon hobby magizine. These two planes have very tiny motors, batteres, recevers, speed controller, servos, ect. The plane its selph is not to scale but you could takes it apart and build a war plane.
I'm agreeing with you in a funny sort of way. I would have no problem seeing a 1/72 WW1 biplane bomber dropping torps or mines. Nor would I have a problem with them being "immune" at altitude because they are no high angle guns to shoot at them. But I do accept some reality in that they will always be fragile toys at the mercy of the breeze, its not a question of rules or technology, its our inability to scale down the wind... I'd say anybody that wants to try should go for it, as long as they aren't planning on arming it with bottle rockets, CO2 cartridges, etc. But there should be no whining if they can't fly in a slight breeze, no whining if their non-waterproof electronics go in the drink, and especially no whining if their plane gets chewed up in somebodies props [}].
Just looked at those planes in horizon hobby magizine. The first one has a sixteen inch wing span! That tells me that 144 scale RC aircraft are still a ways off! With a 144 scale aircraft the wing area will be insufficent to attain flight with that power plant and electronics. Now maybe if two props are driven by the one motor that same way the Wright Brother powered thier first aircraft.... The power may be enough to atain flight, but then the aircraft would be flying at 'Mach' just to stay airborne.
True... But a WW1 Zepplin Staaken in 1/72 scale has a wingspan of around 23". And its a biplane so it would have lots of wing area.
In 144 scale the Zepplin Staaken has just over a 11 1/2 inch wing span. So it does look like a possibility! Can't arm it with torps! UGH!!! Checking on paint balls.
I don't know about dropping anything, I'd be happy seeing a plane take off from a carrier at all (B-25 being the largest to take off from a carrier in the time period, although a Staaken is just plain cool). If you want to drop something, consider dropping a string with a small weight at each end. If you drape it over the target, it's scored as a hit.
I would have an ENORMOUS problem with allowing ANY craft to participate without having a way to be defeated in combat built in. I don't care how "difficult" it is to build something that flies, submerges, is so small, etc. or how cool such craft might be. If it isn't vulnerable to enemy fire, then it shouldn't be allowed to play in a combat game. Offense MUST be balanced by defense, & the ability to inflict damage MUST be balanced by the possibility of receiving damage in return. "Immunity" is tantamount to allowing a ship with no penetrable area. The single distinguishing characteristic of combat craft is the ability to be sunk! JM
Well if the aircraft is axis just put a small C4 charge in your superstructer so when they fly into it they will be no more []
lol you might be no more. "I would have an ENORMOUS problem with allowing ANY craft to participate without having a way to be defeated in combat built in. I don't care how "difficult" it is to build something that flies, submerges, is so small, etc. or how cool such craft might be. If it isn't vulnerable to enemy fire, then it shouldn't be allowed to play in a combat game. Offense MUST be balanced by defense, & the ability to inflict damage MUST be balanced by the possibility of receiving damage in return. "Immunity" is tantamount to allowing a ship with no penetrable area. The single distinguishing characteristic of combat craft is the ability to be sunk! JM" JM it dosent matter if the ship cant fire on it. The ships would have the wind on their side not the plans.
John is right. For every action, you need to have another opposite action to counter it for the sake of gameplay. It would still have to have a counter weapon other than wind. I suspect that "wind", or should I say butterflies in Argentina, would be enough to keep them from flying. It definitely matters if the ship can or can't fire on it, and conventional antiaircraft fire in the conventional sense isn't safe since it would involve going above the horizontal for positive elevation. I hope this thread has helped explain most of the issues involved. Realistically, most of the energy in this discussion could be better used on existing problems though.
Yes, it DOES matter, at least to me. I know I'm in the minority here, but I'm into the game for the game. - I'm not into it for the scale modeling. If I were, there are ample, better opportunities elsewhere. - I'm not into it for the tinkering or invention. If I were, there are ample, better opportunities elsewhere. - I'm not into it for the history or education. If I were, there are ample, better opportunities elsewhere. What makes this sport/hobby/game unique, at least in my eyes, is the gameplaying aspect of it, combined with the fact that the damage is real, actions have actual consequences, & there's no "re-spawning" with the push of a button. A fundamental part of the game is that every OFFENSIVE (or defensive) capability is offset by a vulnerability TO somebody else's offensive (or defensive) capability. The ability to shoot holes in somebody else's hull is offset by the ability of that same somebody else to shoot holes in MY hull. Any craft that possesses an offensive capability, without a corresponding vulnerability to its target's defensive actions, violates this fundamental balance. That makes the real problem with aircraft (or any other weapon without a counter) not technical, but operational in terms of the game. To counter aircraft, some above-level-firing weapon would be needed, because that's where the threat is. However, most (all?) clubs prohibit above-level-firing weapons for good safety reasons. Without an effective counter, aircraft have no defensive vulnerability, & therefore have NO PLACE in surface warship combat games. I don't care about wind - I can't control that as a defensive measure to defeat an attack against my ship. I don't care about the challenges of building something small - we all have challenges, to build things that work well & reliably within the constraints we're given. What I DO care about is the integrity of the game. I think aircraft, subs, out-of-scale boats, & plenty of other odd things are cool, & they have their place - just don't bring them to a ship combat event & expect to be allowed to play, any more than somebody should expect to be allowed to ride a horse in a football game. If anybody brings an airplane to a ship fight that I'm in, I'll pull my ship off the water - I've done so in the past, & I'll do so in the future, if necessary. I sincerely wish that everybody shared this attitude about stuff that doesn't belong (even if it happens to be fun, in the right setting). JM
Darn, you beat me to the punch! The only thing I can add is John is right on. If you want to damage the model I put out... you've got to take the same risk. Planes just aren't there yet for 144 scale big gun naval combat. Wait for the nano bots to come out! Mike Horne
Your right JohnmCA72. No matter how ineffective they would most likely be, unless u can counter them, airplanes just arent fair. And also, it would b interesting, but when shots are flying, and ur totally into the battle, a little buzzing airplane would not b good.
You guys totally missed my point about a high altitude "immune" zone for planes... The likely weapons for a plane would be some kind of torp or the tried and true weighted line and float "mine". Both of these weapons would require dropping down to near wave height to achieve a hit on a ship. Any guns that fire level to the water should be able to hit from them from a few feet out. Even creating splashes near the plane would probably bring it down. Again this is totally ignoring the challenges of technology and nature to even get the thing in the air. If the plane can fly at an altitude of 20 feet without getting shot at who cares as long as it does have to drop to down into gun range to attack? Its nothing like a ship with an impenetrable hull.
