glypo

Yup, but that's basically looping the loop. F1 cars though, probably have more than enough force to drive on a ceiling.

You are spot on about the S, not sure why I made such a bad error. Looks like I essentially joined two sentences together. But yes the reference area applies for the wing, and rest of the sentence is fine. Trust me you don't use cross sectional area for a wing for reference! Typically you can use planform area, as I suggest in my post (use wing span and wing chord) or if you can be bothered use a wetted area. It is essential you keep reference lengths the same though for all the calculations, or you need to non-dimensionalise all your values when transferring between calculations. And no, we have not quoted the equation, for the very reasons mentioned above. For a non-lifting body such as a fuselage, or a car body, people typically use frontal cross-section. Thus if you look for empirical cl/cd's, as I assume was done in this case, you need to keep reference the same hence by point. However a lifting surface you always tend to look at planform or wetted area, thus empirical data will also be based on this, thus you need to use the standard lift equation I stated above. As for ISA, there is a reason in aerodynamics we use it. There is no such thing as standard! Simply assuming ISA at sea level makes life infinitely easier. ISA was set based on North American and European averages so it's as good as it gets for an average day. Hence everyone else uses it, and if you pull from dimensionalised empirical data you can almost be assured for race-car that ISA was set at sea level, thus non-dimensionalise, transfer to the rc car and then dimensionalise again but with the new values. As for CFD being complicated, it really depends on methods. Sure you can run an Euler, Reynolds-Averages Navier-Stokes..... and they take hours or days even on the big cluster machines at work. However the basic methods I stated don't require griding or computation, just plug in some numbers and get a result. It won't be totally accurate, but it's not as if an aircraft is being certified. Being in the ball-park I imagine would be fine. As for wings being used in RC, I have never seen a proper wing being used in RC so your argument about NACA sections falls over there anyway. If it was me, I wouldn't even use an aerofoil and just do flat plate theory, much easier. Typically you get spoilers on RC cars, so if this guy is trying to work out aerodynamics of a spoiler he is wasting his time using the lift equation. However judging by the fact he has gone to some effort, and done quite well minus a few mistakes, I assume he would be using a custom/special wing of some kind.

I can't really figure out your maths to be honest. W*H*A is total rubbish I feel. As are basically most the comments above by everyone (sorry, but it's true). How on earth can there by any generic factor where you can multiple a scalar in this manner with the wing alpha. The basic lift equation, and one that should always be used is: L = 0.5 * rho * (v^2) * cl * s So your S is reference length, typically you can use wing chord or span, just ensure the reference stays the same. Rho is density at ground level. You are kind of right, but again kind of wrong on this. Just pick the value for sea level from the ISA, this is 1.225kg/m^3. Cl is the lift coefficient of the wing. Simple as that. Also make sure velocity is also in SI units (m/s). This is how you work out the wing. To be honest I have no idea how you worked out your Cl's before without any kind of computational fluid dynamics. If I was you I would just chuck your wing geomety in a basic Kutta Joukowski solver, or one of panel methods that has the NACA 4xxx aerofoils already built in for basic wing design and analysis.

I'm sorry, but how? It's a two stroke engine, showing the two stroke cycle?

You PM inbox is full! If it's not already gone I'll take the M18, Thanks

YGPM

Well all the racers have moved away from the TT because of their speed around the track. Advertise it on sites with bashers as that will be your best market and give you much more money.

Didn't have to be Spud you got it off did it? If so enjoy my old Mugen Ace/Thunder tiger servos are good for the money as said above. KO and Futaba are always good too. Nija's simply haven't been around long enough for anyone too tell you how good they really are. They are doing OK in the races but so far not outstanding. The Euros later this month and of course the Worlds following not long after will but good tests of them. Novarossi is a bit of a dark area as well at the momemnt. Having lost nearly all of their team drivers, a new untested engine range (821 etc) and hard to ge hold of, might not be a brilliant choice. RB's new engines are great though and would seem like a safe bet for racing. They certainly hold their own in any condition, including this weekends mega heat.

Pretty good?? The best is closer to the mark! Just check ou JH on top of the nationals with one...

Nitro Models is the best place for RB's, they import them after all. The C6 will be much much more more then your 728. The WS7-III is a better choice, as they are fast and quick acceleration, but the power is smooth so it's not as hard on your transmission.

RcK review on it. I got a go when I was doing the photos/video for the review, not bad at all. http://rckingdom.co.uk/mam/index.php?optio...=179&Itemid=138

Real 2wd monster trucks, like the Havoc, are much faster then equivalent 4wd because there is only a third of the gearboxes/diffs then that of the 4wd, and no big shafts etc. Getting to get a 4wd to run well as a 2wd there are quite a few setup changes that need to be done to get the best from them.

That sums it up in my eyes. Petrols can't do the big jumps, hence to the comment above there is no big jumps. They are too heavy and rip up the track on landing. There is already enough holes at the Nook as is. They do race buggies and trucks, I just think the track is too bumpy for them. Trucks will be better then buggies with their bigger tyres though. If it's rallycross racing you are after try Pendle, after all they did hold the Euros not too many years back and it's still a good facility for decent buggy racing.

Kevs new site is a lot better then the old though. It's a shame as I missed out on setting him up with a real top notch site. Glad you got an email back. As others have said Kev is a top bloke and should sort you out.

I've been racing the RRCi Rallycross Buggies. The Nook at wakefield was the first track in the series. I agree with what you have read, petrol only. Check the video out here: http://glypo.co.uk/rrci/wakefield.php Dez Chand is the editor of RRCi magazine and a very skilled driver indeed. You can see just how much work he had to put in to get it around the track. For less experinced drivers it is fustrating. The bumps are too great for rallycross buggies in my eyes. There are some good tracks up north though, perhaps have a look at Pendle, at a guess about an hours drive from Leeds?