RE: Full Wing Flutter
SO I take it the sheeting is applied perpendicular to the aircraft cl? it might be worth taking a leaf from the pattern pilots' book and run the sheeting parrallel with the leading edge, this diagonal sheeting should add to your torsional rigidity. if you need more spawise strength deepen your spars. Also are you monokoting this ? I'd probably glass it if it were me.
Posted on: 11/20/2009 9:11 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9268752

RE: Full Wing Flutter
[quote]ORIGINAL: edmoor [:D] fly a real airplane.....problem solved!!! [/quote] Wonderful, that's a real help. [:@] I'd also suggest adding another spar spanwise (following the high point of the airfoil) down to meet up with your existing spar at the tip. This triangle shaped spar should increase it's torsional rigidity. Also which way are sheeting? can you show us the direction of grain?
Posted on: 11/20/2009 1:27 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9266834

RE: Quantum L
Ha! greg that's better than my lawn! Nice looking ship that:)
Posted on: 11/18/2009 7:23 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9263836

RE: Need a Solidworks model of an Airfoil
if you do get a chance, have a play with something that may or may not be "an old wives tale". It was considered in the past that having a aileron LE that's smaller than the wing TE would incite flutter. I personally don't think that's the case, if anything a smaller aileron thickness may end up suffering from deflection issues. Conversely an aileron LE thicker than the wing TE is supposed to re-energise the boundary layer and make separation smaller. Something to play with anyway, if you're intersted...
Posted on: 11/17/2009 11:41 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9261869

RE: Airfoil program
ryan, this might not be much of a help, but you can get co-ordinates for a bunch of wings here [link]http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html[/link] I don't know of any program that will take an accurate trace of an airfoil. I suppose the most accurate way would be to scan in the airfoil and then trace it manually, i've done this for certain parts into rhino with pretty decent success. hope that helps.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 11:20 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9261813

RE: 140rx's days numbered?
Matt, I see your point having campaigned with an older design with only about 1.8m span (clipped tips) it snaps well, and flies nicely generally but I feel it's too fast. While we're on the subject, I was thinking this morning about drag. I remember reading something a while ago about Chip Hyde using thinner % section airfoils, and using induced drag to slow the aircraft. Now under normal circumstances I'd say "brilliant!" however upon closer inspection when you're flying a downline (which I would consider to be a 0°AOA state) you should reduce the induced drag to its minimum level, correct? So this isn't helping is it? Dave, as much as I agree with you, and admire Nat Penton's design work, I just don't think I can handle putting a dorsal fin on any of my planes. At least not as big as his, coolness is still a factor..
Posted on: 11/17/2009 6:23 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9261002

RE: 140rx's days numbered?
Dave, while I understand your point, I do have a few questions about your thoughts. I agree on most of what you say, however, while increasing the % thickness will result in a "body" more conducive of lift at certain angle of attacks, surely aspect ratio must in fact have a HUGE effect on it, it can't all be side area. My point of view is that having a deeper fuselage for a given length should increase aspect ratio, albeit slightly, and should, (at least in my alcohol fuelled brain, it's 8:00 pm over here) be more efficient. I think this is where Nat Penton's voodoo express was heading, side area in higher aspect ratios, to gain the required efficiency for snazzy KE. This has degenerated into a discussion about aircraft design, or is it an evolution of the discussion? Either way, I look forward to all your views. Oh, and just so you know, I'm seriously considering cutting balsa on a smaller, lighter aircraft, with the deep/skinny styling of a mid-rex. I suppose before I do, I need to do some more research into "designed in" drag. I know that some years ago John Roncz was messing with airfoils that would provide low drag at low speed and insane amounts at high speed, (these airfoils were used on the full sized staudacher for all you IMAC loonies). I think if an aircraft can be wholistically designed with this premise, a more constant speed form of aircraft would ensue, with the added advantage of being able to be powered by a more feeble powerplant. At this point I see the design of F3A aircraft as flying drag machines, requiring gobs of power to overcome the inherent drag in the aircraft. Am I trying to redesign the wheel? Am I a Pattern Heretic? Probably. Then again, when you have heroes like Burt Rutan, and Hanno Prettner (remember the calypso?) it's sorta par for the course.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 6:36 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9259692

Was the Beam pre-empting the 2011 schedules?
Hideous as it may be, would this now be the perfect weapon for the 2011 schedules, resembling a mahi mahi on steroids? Surely it should do the the P11 figure M without needing to touch the rudder, right!! [:D]
Posted on: 11/17/2009 6:20 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9259684

RE: P-11 Figure M
Wow. The more I fly the Figure M the more I'm starting to think i might have to go "gay" and buy a tx tray. I just don't have the dexterity to feed gobs of rudder in smoothly (when going from left to right, M1) without feeling like I'm going to crush the transmitter inwards! how about you guys?
Posted on: 11/17/2009 6:17 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9259679

RE: JR 9303 2.4 is not bindind??????/
can you talk us through your binding procedure?
Posted on: 11/16/2009 8:09 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9258817

RE: Engine Mount for YS 140
The MK OS 140 rx mount used 2mm countersunk bolts to hold the engine in! NEver had one fail, 6-32 is a bit bigger than that:D
Posted on: 11/14/2009 9:53 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254242

RE: Recommendations for Nose Heavy Osmose?
You might be able to add some lightness to the nose area.. Take a look at anything that can be trimmed/clipped/etc to lose some noseweight? You're not using a heavy engine mount are you?
Posted on: 11/14/2009 12:49 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9252526

RE: Canalisers, fins and things, and whirlygigs..
that'd sound about right, I'd assume that the canaliser would have decresased effectiveness at keeping the airstream straight and over the tail at low airspeed. Love that little nosealiser, but yeah, doubt it'd work.
Posted on: 11/2/2009 6:54 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9223438

RE: Canalisers, fins and things, and whirlygigs..
not adverse to selling my soul to fly better, cheers Willie Brown, aka Rendegade...
Posted on: 11/2/2009 8:54 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9222103

RE: MK MATTLAS 40
Kestrel, love the fact that is ostesibly a Curare paint scheme on an atlas, that must bend a few heads!!! like putting a mercedes badge on an audi!
Posted on: 11/2/2009 8:50 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Classic Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9222095

RE: Engine Mount for YS 140
Having had experience with both I can categorically state that the hyde mount, WHEN USED WITH A NOSE RING is scientifically proven to be about a squillion times better. why? I have noticed that the du-bro mounts do remove some of the vibration but they have a tendency to sag and wear out fast, not to mention the units themselves are total bricks. the hyde mount is light, removes the vibration in an axial fashion (the same way the vibration is induced), and with a nose ring doesn't sag. it costs an arm and a leg but I don't think I'd go for anything else anymore.
Posted on: 11/2/2009 8:23 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9222055

RE: Canalisers, fins and things, and whirlygigs..
TN_walker, I think you're right. I may just have to go out on a limb and add some crap to my plane. btw, every time I see your user name, I think of T-bone Walker, one of the best blues men in history. And this, at least here, is a stormy monday.
Posted on: 11/2/2009 8:16 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9222043

RE: Canalisers, fins and things, and whirlygigs..
Kjell, wow, I have to admit, that's not quite what I was after, but having said that, what you've done is definitley inspiring! how wide is the strip of velcro? I assume from the pictures it is 4-6mm? BTW, a whirlygig is the same as a thingamabob,thingamagig and possibly a whatsit. :D
Posted on: 11/2/2009 7:52 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9222017

RE: P-11 Figure M
JB, the first one is the way I've been getting around it, condensing the roll part of the maneuvre to "cheat" and not need so much KE time, but I figure hatta's way is the correct way.
Posted on: 11/2/2009 5:44 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9221910

Canalisers, fins and things, and whirlygigs..
Hey guys, just thought before I start adding more fins and things to my current ship, while the new one waits for me to pluck up some courage and throw so balsa at it, I thought a bit of a discussion about fins, would be worthwhile. This includes ALL fins, not just canalisers. I'm sure I'm not the only person to to be interested in this either. My question relates more to sub fins this fine day. I guess the first place to start would be Nat Penton's planes, as they have a huge sub fin, (and corresponding dorsal fin) to give very effective side area, as I understand it. Now I've also noticed that the japanese have been fiddling with sub fins, albeit smaller, and I'm starting to wonder whether they'd work well for me. I have a long and low old girl with a canopy almost on the trailing edge of the wing, and I'm thinking of adding sub fins (I'm thinking about 2inches high and 4-5inches long) oon the belly pan forward of the canopy almost under the landing gear, set at 45° like a v tail, to increase my CP forward and give me a bit of side area. Is this area below the CL going to help or hurt me? Is it going to do anything at all?
Posted on: 11/2/2009 2:02 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9221798

RE: P-11 Figure M
Okay guys, I'll try going in with power earlier, and see how that goes. And maybe, just maybe, the old girl may end up bristling with fins all over! Ooh, that reminds me, time for another thread.....
Posted on: 11/2/2009 1:31 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9221775

RE: P-11 Figure M
JAs, cheers for the help. I guess my biggest problem is running out of lift sideways! I end up dropping very low once I get to the knife edge portion of the maneuvre and overflying the radius. I'm thinking I need to power up sooner to get the side area working, that said I'm still flying a long and low old school type, maybe it's time to upgrade...
Posted on: 11/1/2009 9:34 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9221318

RE: P-11 Figure M
Okay gents, go easy on me with this one. I'm having a little trouble with the old figure M, now if I read what I've been given, it states that the half loop with an integrated half roll, I assume to mean that at the start of the half loop, I being the half roll as well, and come through the bottom apex at knife edge and finish the roll as I finish the loop. I've been spending some time during the week on a simulator to get my head around the schedule and it's pretty difficult to get around the bottom of the figure M in this fashion. Am I doing it right or am I making the proverbial dogs breakfast of it?
Posted on: 11/1/2009 9:06 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9221231

RE: MODEL TECH 2M REMEDY
[quote]ORIGINAL: TNWalker These ''gimmicks'' are just another way to get your attention. As I have said before, no matter what you come up with or do to your plane, ''you still gotta fly it!'' Regards___TNWalker [/quote] Gerhard Mayr DID fly his Osiris well, Some people had commented that his style was the the most accurate of the worlds. Gimmick? Could be....
Posted on: 10/25/2009 1:19 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9199891

RE: Which way do they fly Down Under?
Left to right is more comfortable for me. Also works well with the prevailing winds here.
Posted on: 10/21/2009 10:49 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9192325

RE: laminating sheet tail surfaces.
I was considering bagging them with polyurethane, in the same fashion as my wings. I might give it a whirl anyway. If it's light enough (even if it's the same) I'd propbably go with it just to allow me some extra stiffness. Hinge slotting becomes easy with laminated parts, just cut the shape of your hinge out of the centre part then glue it all together! voila!
Posted on: 10/15/2009 4:10 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9174652

laminating sheet tail surfaces.
Hey all, I'm getting ready to knock out a Mach none, and I want to keep it light and stiff. Also because I'm a tight fisted #@*#, I've got a lot of 1/32" sheet left over from sheeting my cores. I'm thinking of laminating the tail surfaces, possibly with either 3 laminates of 1/32" or a stack of 1/32 -1/16 lightened-1/32. I know this will give be a stiffer structure less prone to warping due to it's stucture being like ply, but will I see any weight benefits ? Is it worth doing or should I cut up another sheet of 1/8"?
Posted on: 10/15/2009 3:29 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9174630

RE: Pincher or Thumber
Hehehe, straps help on the slope too, just in case you decide to chuck the transmitter and hold onto the plane!
Posted on: 10/14/2009 2:08 AM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9171824

RE: Benefits of swept wings?
One wonders whether the increasing amount of sweep has some effect on knife edge flight, giving the aircraft more effective dihedral. Maybe it means that you can get away with less dihedral in the wings, which i have to say I'm not sure is such a great thing. It's been proven before that an aircraft with no dihedral doesn't knife edge as well as one with dihedral (just enough, not too much that it rolls out) due to the extra projected side area given by the wings. Food for thought though. I too find it a little hard to swallow that more sweep will aid rolling and stalling. It does however shift the MAC aft which may be desirable.
Posted on: 10/13/2009 9:02 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9171086

RE: 60 to 90 Size F3A Pattern Kit or ARF
Say what?
Posted on: 10/13/2009 7:52 PM by Author "Rendegade" in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9170876