...
【24h】

AN ITCH TO SCARTCH

机译:痒痒

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

When we draw up a scale model we're stuck with the scale outline, areas and proportions, aren't we? Well, not really. Not for the kind of scale models most of us want to fly. If we were going to design a museum level scale ship for competition then I'd say, "Yes." But, we are not at that level. (If you are, then I need to be reading YOUR column, not you reading MINE!) I'll concede that today's electronic stability systems make it possible to fly models that would be too touchy to stay in the air just a few years ago. But we can design a lot of the stability issues out on the drawing board and not have to depend on an electronic co-pilot. Plus, those stability systems can't make a model easier to build. If you take a careful look at just about every scale kit on the market you'll see changes made to improve construction and 'flyability'. For example, a popular semi-scale Spitfire ARF has landing gear that retracts inwards, instead of outwards. It looks silly, but it greatly improves ground handling. Likewise, many models are boxier than the full-scale types they represent, because that makes them easier to build.
机译:当我们绘制比例模型时,我们会被比例尺轮廓,面积和比例所困扰,不是吗?好吧,不是真的。不适合我们大多数人想要飞的比例模型。如果我们要设计一个博物馆级规模的竞赛船,那么我会说“是”。但是,我们还没有达到这个水平。 (如果是的话,那么我需要阅读您的专栏,而不是您的MINE!)我要承认,当今的电子稳定系统使得能够飞行几年前过于敏感以至于无法飞行的模型成为可能。但是我们可以在绘图板上设计出很多稳定性问题,而不必依赖电子副驾驶员。此外,这些稳定性系统无法使模型更易于构建。如果您仔细查看市场上几乎所有的磅秤套件,您都会发现为改进结构和“可飞行性”而进行的更改。例如,一种流行的半规模Spitfire ARF的起落架向内而不是向外缩回。它看起来很傻,但是可以大大改善地面处理。同样,许多模型比它们所代表的全尺寸类型更开放,因为这使它们更易于构建。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Radio Control Model World 》 |2015年第7期| 58-60| 共3页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号