|
RE: Spread Spectrum modules, and high voltage servos
Thanks, It seems like the next logical step (especially the HV servos) and there should definetely be a market for them. Regards, Bill [quote]ORIGINAL: dsnyder I haven't heard of anything coming for what you ask, however I'll pass along your feedback. [/quote]
Posted on: 10/7/2006 9:22 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "JR Radio & Spektrum Radios"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4840325
Spread Spectrum modules, and high voltage servos
Danny, From my point of view we could use some high voltage servos. I'm slowly getting away from Nicad, and Nimh 4-5 cell rx pack on IC and E powered aircraft and going to lithium. Problem is you have to use a regulator which is something else to fail, not to mention it adds weight. From what I've read all JR RX's will handle 2 un-regulated lithium cells without issue. So what about some servos made to handle the higher voltage of a 2S pack? Also is there anything on the horizon in terms of a plug in 2.4 ghz SS module and rx's for existing JR 8103, 9303, 10X radios? I read somewhere that this was not practical to do, however I recently got news of the new Extremelink SS system which is supposed to compatible with most radios. Thanks
Posted on: 9/30/2006 11:12 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "JR Radio & Spektrum Radios"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4812909
RE: New Hanger 9 Planes
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound negative or to condemn the design, Doug. That wasn't my intention at all, as I'm sure it is very good at what it's designed for. Per Mikes post it's not a floaty 3D plane so I don't have to fly it to know. It's just not my cup of tea so to speak. I've been flying for quite a while and have flown lots of different types over the years so I have a general idea of how something will fly based on planform, wingloading, etc. Plus, as I mentioned I have seen the plane fly. I'll probably get some stick time on one later this year. [quote]It isnt a floaty 3D plane you are correct, but it isnt supposed to be either. IMO thos planes are so limited in their ability that they get old very fast. [/quote] I understand and respect your point of view. Not all of us fly artistic, IMAC, or pattern though. I'm sure that there are many of us that would be thrilled to see "3D only" arf designs made available. About ten years ago I started designing my own light loaded 3D designs due to none being available, and they haven't started getting old to me yet.[;)] I fly other things as well, but on a wind free morning or evening when I want to have fun this is the type of plane I fly and have the most fun with. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Regards
Posted on: 9/8/2005 2:35 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "TEAM RCU - Mike McConville"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3339677
RE: New Hanger 9 Planes
The Showtime is one of those "compromise" planes that I mentioned above which will do pattern and 3D, but does neither really well. I saw the Showtime fly at SEFF, and have seen numerous videos of them flown with glow power. I have yet to fly one, but judging by it's weight, wing area, moments, etc it's not an optimal 3D design IMO. People make them look really good in the videos with the rolling harrier passes with the tail almost draging the ground. However, that is with a very good pilot that has spent a lot of time with it or similar configured and loaded designs. The average 3D/funfly pilot will not be able to fly it like that, and hovering these planes is a bit difficult due to the long tail moment / surface effectiveness . The span is 66" with 900sq" or area, and from what I've seen they are comming in at the 9 lbs range give or take. That's pretty heavily loaded for 3D flying. To get similar "floaty" 3D characteristics like those of a foam indoor model, or like a 40% aerobatic design the weight would need to be a good bit less than 9 lb. I haven't calculated it, but I would guess somewhere in the 6-7.5 lb range. I know that's a construction challenge, but it can be done on "function over form" designs where the goal isn't good looks but rather light weight and good 3D qualities. Anyway, Just thought I would mention the idea. I really think 3D specific designs would do very well. About all that's available now that's close to this are the profile planes. They have their own problems and IMO seem to be optimized for nothing but hanging on the prop. Regards
Posted on: 9/6/2005 2:16 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "TEAM RCU - Mike McConville"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3334208
RE: New Hanger 9 Planes
Something that's missing is a good line of light 3D aerobatic planes in the 60-90 glow or electric power range. These need to be creative designs like the Tensor biplane for example. Scale planes in this size range just do not make good 3D aerobatic models IMO. The ones that are out there by all the different manufactures now are too heavy, and do not have the control authority really needed for 3D, or they have poor post stall flight qualities such as wing rocking for example. Many of the current offerings are a combination of 3D/pattern which I know many seem to like, but they are a compromise IMO and do not excell at pattern or 3D. So in addition to a line of 3D specific designs, maybe a pattern design or two might be something to look into. Something a little smaller than the 2m planes, but bigger than the .40 size sport pattern planes
Posted on: 9/4/2005 11:42 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "TEAM RCU - Mike McConville"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3329342
RE: How light can you go. (Comp. ARF Yak 2.6)
[quote]ORIGINAL: DKjens If you want the better 3D plane of the two Composite-ARF 2.6m planes, you're looking at the wrongg one, when choosing the Yak. The Yak exells in IMAC style flying, the Extra is much better for 3D. [/quote] Yes, I've heard that in general the Extra is better for 3D, but I just don't like Extra's. I know I shouldn't put much emphasis on the way a model looks, but I just like the Yak 55 design. I like the fact that the engine is in the open so I don't have to have a servo or other means to work the choke. Also it doesn't require a spinner to look "right" where an Extra does. If I wanted the absolute best 3D plane in this size I would be looking in another direction, kit built, probably not even scale. I just really like the 55 design, plus right now I'm looking for an arf and this one looks good in the red, white, blue, yellow (scale) scheme. As for the wing rocking, I wonder how much of that is due to it being too heavy..? [quote]If you wanted to go to the expense, perhaps you could have an extra light plane built, and you would be able to get close to your target.[/quote] How do you go about doing that? I didn't know that they offered it in different layup variations.
Posted on: 8/15/2005 12:31 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3263497
RE: How light can you go. (Comp. ARF Yak 2.6)
Doug, I'll be interested to see how much your airframe weighs. Could you let me know when you get started on yours? Thanks. [quote]Bill; Wow you shure got different info. If you build no cans whatever competition engine you should be in 26lb or less.[/quote] I know many have different opinions of what flies best. I have seen those in the 26+- lb range fly and I wasn't real impressed
Posted on: 8/14/2005 11:08 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3263189
RE: Re: Thrust line calculator?
That's a useful site, has other calculations as well. I'd hate to have to go to the computer everytime I needed to calculate an offset though. It's relatively simple to trig. Take the tangent of the angle times the length from the firewall to the prop, drive hub, etc. For example 2 degrees offset with 5" engine length.... TAN2 X 5 = .1746038 Same as calced on the site.
Posted on: 8/13/2005 2:56 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3259234
RE: How light can you go. (Comp. ARF Yak 2.6)
[quote]ORIGINAL: 3D ONdaEDGE If the Yak is built like the extra, then I dont see why you couldnt get to say 21.5 or so. I cant imagine how well that would fly. Why dont you try it and let us know how it goes. If it comes out to 24 pounds, then you can just give it to me. [/quote] Hey now that sounds like a good deal.... for you at least.[:)] On a more serious note thanks for the input. I wish there was one I could go look at somewhere local and weigh all the un-assembled parts to find out what it really weighs. It looks like someone would have already posted that info on here, but if it's here I haven't seen it. I would like to hear from some of the Yak 2.6 owners. Thanks
Posted on: 8/13/2005 11:35 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3258783
How light can you go. (Comp. ARF Yak 2.6)
I've wanted to buy a 2.6 Yak for a while now, however after talking with many about this plane it seems to be too far on the heavy side. The typical weight seems to be in the 26-28 +- lb range. Then again I have seen some posts where pilots claim their Yak is 21 lbs give or take. That makes me wonder if people are really weighing the plane and if so are they using an accurate scale? Anyway, I calculated what this plane needs to weight to have similar flight qualities of the bigger 3.3 m Yak. The result was that it needs to weigh 18-20 lbs to have good 3D flight qualities. So, I'm curious how light can one of these 2.6 Yak's be put together? Power, redundancy, flight times, noise, etc can be sacrificed for my flying. So even if I used 5 servos total, the very lightest engine setup, a single RX running off of a small 2 cell regulated lithium ion polymer battery, small tank, etc, etc. how close do you guys think I could come to 20 lbs? Thanks in advance
Posted on: 8/13/2005 12:46 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3257984
RE: Tensor
Your prop is too big for 3s. If you check your current it will be really high. Try going to a 10X3.8 or smaller (as I mentioned above) and the cutting out should go away.
Posted on: 2/8/2005 2:22 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2635054
RE: Upsize Tensor?
drawings available. Thanks, Bill
Posted on: 2/4/2005 2:28 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2619450
RE: Upsize Tensor?
More.. I haven't had a chance to fly it in good weather yet, but from the flights so far I think I might have went a little too big.
Posted on: 2/2/2005 2:06 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2611726
RE: Upsize Tensor?
Finally got it done. Specs. later
Posted on: 2/2/2005 1:58 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2611713
RE: Tensor
[quote]ORIGINAL: Micro Rotors For those running the AXI 2208/34, what props are you using, APC 10.47? Thanks Bill [/quote] 10X4.7 or 11X3.8 SF APC on 2s packs, and 9X3.8 or 10X3.8 APC SF on 3s. That's what I run anyway on either motor (2208/34 or Eflite 1080)
Posted on: 2/2/2005 1:47 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2611701
RE: "Stupid" flying video and do NOT condone...limited time only
[quote]ORIGINAL: edible_engine plane says he's using a 14mz, but theres a zap in his hands. notice that anyone[:D] [/quote] Someone else is flying it.
Posted on: 1/17/2005 11:50 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "3D Flying!"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2550128
RE: "Stupid" flying video and do NOT condone...limited time only
Good stuff This is what 3D flying is really about.. Having fun. So far I have only been able to look at the first video. One thing I noticed is than Bill wasn't doing the flying. He looked to be standing under the plane with a "dummy" TX while someone else was flying. It would be really cool if he could spin around like that and control the plane at the same time.[;)]
Posted on: 1/14/2005 10:54 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "3D Flying!"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2541332
RE: 42% EXTRA 260 Conversion???
[quote]I cant even afford a gas setup for a plane like that. Someone had made the comment to me, ¨I wonder if that electric setup costs more than the gas?¨ The reply was, you better believe it. But seeing as I dont fly electrics I have no idea. I know its not to save money, I was just curious. [/quote] These are just some rough #'s (US) All could vary depending on exactly what is used Batteries $2720 (this doesn't include the $800+- worth of battery chargers or the power supplies for them) Motors $1600 (this doesn't include the custom drive) ESC's $800-1600 So the power system cost would be at least $5000 even if you excluded the drive and other details. Now if I factor in some other prices for other parts of the plane,"WAG" factor the labor and misc cost's it could easily be a $15,000 airplane. Not cheap be it will be nice. Personally I think the cost of the power system less batteries is fine. I'm willing to pay more for an E powered setup than an IC power setup just because of the reliability and consistency. What hurts is the cost of batteries, as they are a major expense yet they are the consumable part of the investment.
Posted on: 1/4/2005 1:07 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2501169
RE: Upsize Tensor?
Thanks, George
Posted on: 1/2/2005 11:56 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2495562
RE: 42% EXTRA 260 Conversion???
Nice stuff, Sean Yuri does some really nice building and finish work, as I have seen his other scratch builds. Not to mention he can then take it and fly it through some of the most aggressive "one the edge" maneuvers that you will see. Is Yuri working on this out in AZ or is it in the northeast region?
Posted on: 1/1/2005 8:52 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2491314
RE: Tensor ?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Culverson I added a light-weight rod inside the bottom edge to stiffen it a bit, the foam is thinner than the Tribute and there's a bit of twist there still..Is there a mod I could do to reduce this? I slit bottom edge and inserted-expoxied a carbon fiber rod..still be nice to stiffen it. I added upper-lower rods to stiffen tailfeathers. [/quote] The rods placed in the foam really don't do a whole lot to increase torsional rigidity, but they are great at adding weight. As George posted above, keeping the weight down is important. With that said there are a couple of things you could do to strengthen the fuselage while adding virtually no weight. The pictures below show a thread bracing method that I have used on various planes. This is one of the "fixes" for the shock flyers. Another method is to use diagonal placed strips of 2mm depron on the top side of each side of the fuse "X" to form a box of sorts. This may not be real effective on the tensor due to the narrow width of the foam at the rear of the fuse and radio equipment placement. The pictures show how I have the thread run to thread brace this model. One picture shows the inside right SFG. If you look close you'll see two lines leading to the white dot on the sfg. this dot is acctually a 1/8" hole cut at an angle through the sfg to line up with the carbon rod on the other side. the thread is wraped and glued to the rod. The other two pictures show how the 4 threads lead to the carbon attachements on the tail. The top thread is placed high to match up with the approx distance that the lower lines are from the center line of the fuselage. This makes the fuse very rigid and probably only adds a gram if that. The threads can place a great deal of load on the wings and the fuselage if crashed or the lines are tensioned tight. And the lines can really get in your way reaching around the plane, so it's not the perfect solution for everyone.
Posted on: 1/1/2005 2:03 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2489931
RE: Tensor
[quote]ORIGINAL: nappyroots2182 i am going to get a tensor but im looking at getting a himax outrunner. does anyone know which i should get and what prop? i have a kokam 3 cell 1500, CC 25 speed control. would like to stick with himax cuz its cheap and worsk good. let me know what is good and what isnt please. thanks [/quote] From what I've seen the himax is more money. I would pick from the two park 370 outrunners, and I would also seriously think about a different ESC and battery as they are a little too heavy for the Tensor. I put one together for my brother with the 1080 KV park motor and it does pretty good with a 3 cell pack and a 10X3.8 apc SF. I checked the current at full power and it's drawing around 12 amps static using the 20 amp eflite esc. This is more than the motor is rated for, but as long as it's not held at full power for very long there shouldn't be a problem. The 9X3.8 prop would probably get the current down to the rated level, but the dia. of the prop is too small IMO. This one weighs just under 10 oz. with the TP 830 3s pack. I'll try a 2 cell setup with a larger prop, but at 10 oz. I don't thing the vertical is going to be very impressive. It will be very important to keep this plane as light as possible for best flying characteristics. I hope to fly one with the 1360 motor to see how it compares. I think the 1080 will be the 3S motor and the 1360 will be the 2S motor. Both setups should end up weighing very close to the same depending on the battery. The 1360 would draw more current, so you would have to go to a larger class battery. For example if you used a 730 3S pack on the 1080 you might use a 900 2S (which weighs the same as the 730 3S) for the 1360. Regards
Posted on: 12/31/2004 10:52 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2488601
RE: Upsize Tensor?
Thanks, Jon. Thanks, Ken I'll start a thread on it when I get it done. I would like to have one of those nice 90-0 ESC's along with a programmer, but at $400+ I just can't see it. I'm using the 77 3p with this motor which is fine as long as it gets the cooling it needs. I'm only running it at 1500 watts or less anyway. The power system is being flown in [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1243061&key=]this[/link] plane right now. I'm currently using a 5000 7s2p Tanic battery on it with a 22X10 or 22X12 apc prop.
Posted on: 12/27/2004 10:34 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2474601
RE: Upsize Tensor?
OK, OK..[:D] I guess I should have got those before posting. Here you go..
Posted on: 12/27/2004 5:53 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2473581
RE: Upsize Tensor?
Interesting topic.. I have put together a few of my own design that are very similar to the tensor. So far all have been in the 26"-32" range. After seeing how well this design flies, I upsized it to 70" span, and have the fuselage done for it so far. I had hoped that I would be flying it by now, but I can not seem to find the time to finish it. It's basically 70" X 70" which doesn't seem that big, but it's got a LOT of surface area. Aprox 2000 sq." on the wings, almost 1000 sq" on the SFG's. Power will be electric, Hacker C50 with Lipo so it's going to be a little heavy. I hope I can keep it under 10 lbs. 9.2lbs is my calculated goal, but I always seem to end up with some extra "mystery" weight in the end.[;)]
Posted on: 12/24/2004 12:52 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2465056
RE: Tensor recommendations
[quote]ORIGINAL: ROGER RUSSELL What Speed controller is everybody using if used with the stock motor that comes with it? Heard only needed a 10 amp one?? [/quote] It doesn't have a motor included with it. It is setup for a radial mount type outrunner brushless motor. The Castle P 10 will probably be the most popular ESC to use because of it's light weight. I'm curious to see how much the E-flite 20 amp control weighs. The site says 1/2 oz. which isn't bad for a 20 amp control, but that still about twice what the P 10 weighs. I wonder how much lighter it would be if the pins were removed from it and the motor wires soldered directly to the esc.
Posted on: 12/24/2004 12:22 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2464988
RE: How often does electronic ignition fail?
This particular engine was bought at a local shop, so it had probably been there for a while. As far as I know it is a Falkon as that's what the label on it says. Hopefully, I have just had a run of bad luck as andyt mentioned.. I should have the new module tommorow, and be back in the air soon. Thanks, Bill
Posted on: 12/12/2004 9:14 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2427513
RE: How often does electronic ignition fail?
[quote]ORIGINAL: mrbigg i read a couple of days ago on zdz's site that they are replacing the falkon ignitions.[/quote] I heard about this the other day, and I just checked the site for myself to see. That not a good sign, and I think the replacement I'll be getting is another falkon.[>:] I don't recall the guys at ZDZ (RCS) ever telling me about a new ignition module.
Posted on: 12/11/2004 10:12 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2422983
How often does electronic ignition fail?
We just got a new ZDZ 80 which came with a Falkon ignition module. Worked good first few flights then the ignition failed. luckily it didn't happen in flight. It was flown one day, and after landing the ignition was switched off. Next day it wouldn't crank. After working on it for a while we determined that it was the ignition. I should be getting another module soon (I hope) and get back in the air. But why would it fail so soon. I have heard from others that ignition modules fail from time to time. That's sort of discouraging being that this one only lasted a few flights. Makes me wonder how many flights I can expect form the next one... And where I'll be when it fails.... An ignition failure is simply not acceptable. Your thoughts and ideas appreciated.
Posted on: 12/10/2004 9:05 PM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2421813
RE: regulators
[quote]ORIGINAL: figueroa I am beginning to wonder if we are not adding too many opportunities for failure with the many gadgets available today. It seems like the guys with the simple set ups have less problems. [/quote] Exactly. I've been sticking with 4 cell nicad packs for this reason, and it seems I haven't had near the problems that others have had. That said, I have to admit that the lure of lithium is getting stronger as I'm looking for more capacity and light weight. The regulator has kept me from making the change to lipo though. When the duralites first came out I used them on a few planes because I could get away with using the 6v pack with no regulator. A bit more voltage than I like but it worked good. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this thread is. It's hard for me to believe that 3 regulators failed in a row on their own without some issue with the setup.
Posted on: 11/27/2004 10:12 AM by Author "Bill Mixon"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2379469
| 
