|
RE: New Elapor foam Cessna 185 **NOW WITH PICTURES**
Hi, just got back on the forum again after 2 more stints in hospital, so everything has been shelved and as we have moved house as well, I'll have to sort all my stuff out and start over! - starting to think about flying but it's winter ( officially just gone into spring) here and it's wet and windy. That's the situation at the moment but there's a lot of sorting out to do!
Posted on: 9/3/2012 3:12 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Park Flyers & Backyard Flyers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11215350
RE: New Elapor foam Cessna 185 **NOW WITH PICTURES**
I just purchased one of these Cessna 185 foamies yesterday from the store (in Auckland New Zealand ) which is selling them and it is not at all like the ones from Hobby King. It is very well finished as far as I can see, the scale LOOKS ok but who cares if it is exact or not. They are made in Taiwan by MTH Hobby. - I think it would probably cost you about $70 -$80 (US) for freight. making the total about US$150 to jmport one to USA from here or Australia - (just noticed, - someone said something similar earlier). I am recovering from back surgery, boredom is setting in and I need something which I can take to the local park (on my mobility scooter [X(] ) and have a lot of fun without too much expense or needing to travel too far. This will be my first venture into electric flight. - I was hoping I might be able to link up a Lipo charger to my scooter batteries (2 x 12V) - anybody got any ideas on that? You'd be ashamed to take one of the other Cessna models to the flying field?? - try taking any plane to the flying field on a mobility scooter! [:)] - that's why I want to go to the park!
Posted on: 3/8/2011 2:31 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Park Flyers & Backyard Flyers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10387290
RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
[quote]ORIGINAL: Leslie Ward In my book anyone that builds an aircraft that can only land on just a handfull of airports around the world ain't too brilliant. Aloha, [/quote] Going back to post #263:- Not an entirely sensible statement, - I seem to remember someone in 1969 saying exactly the same thing, (referring to the Boeing 747,) but as we all know, it still went ahead successfully!
Posted on: 3/23/2008 7:09 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7271180
RE: Why does it fly?
PERTTIME I don't think you realise just how frugal this guy is ( not me by the way, - he's a guy I used to work with), - he got EVERYTHING virtually free, - believe me, the rubbish skip, or "dumpster" as the Americans call it, never really got full when he was around! - never wastes anything! As for me being serious! you must be joking! - I can be serious when necessary of course, but I'm "tounge in cheek" most of the time, - that's me! However in this case I'm being a little serious, - something I've figured out over the many years on this earth is that every joke is inspired by a serious thought. As an engineer who has done the hard graft ( not in aircraft though) I've seen this sort of thing happen! [;)]
Posted on: 3/28/2007 5:34 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5628617
RE: Why does it fly?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Villa Hi Willdo I designed and built the attached Flying Lawn Mower. [/quote] D'ya reckon if it had a blade it could hover too? [:D] BM, We stayed in Vancouver with my wife's relatives we loved it with those huge mountains in the background! - we found the people very friendly as well!
Posted on: 3/28/2007 1:09 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5628287
RE: Why does it fly?
[quote]ORIGINAL: perttime I recall a site for full-size home-built aircraft (Rans?) mentioning that whatever all the engineers say, the primary thing that makes an aircraft fly is money :D ... [/quote] This machine cost ZILCH (except the cost of an old secondhand motor and an old RC) the rest was from scrap. and it FLIES! - of course it's only a lowly model, but the same principle applies to models, - ARF's etc. as opposed to designing and building your own exciting machines! The guy who made the above statement probably sat in his office, threw money at projects and let the engineers do all the hard work and worrying, and if it was successful he took all the glory - cos he was the leader of the team and he paid the money!
Posted on: 3/27/2007 4:11 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5625542
RE: Why does it fly?
quote ORIGINAL: BMatthews What's the big deal? I've hear that on the F14,F16 and F15's that more than 1/2 the lift comes from the fuselage and inter engine areas of the strakes and bodies as opposed to the actual wing panels. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Not a big deal my friend, just a simple enquiry to find out from someone who might know how it actually flies, and I got one answer which I will be happy with ( unless someone comes up with a better one). Slightly different situation to that of an F16 etc travelling at the speeds that they do, - what's the betting against it out manoeuvering an F16 at 3 or 4 mph![:D] Whereabouts in BC is Burnaby ? - one of my sons spent most of last year in BC (Fernie and Vancouver Island), - got down to about -40 there, not great flying weather!
Posted on: 3/27/2007 5:12 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5623116
RE: Why does it fly?
Dick, BTW, I did like the attachment - I'm not sure of it's significance in this thread, but I guess it could apply to the odd individual I have come across in other threads! [;)]
Posted on: 3/27/2007 5:05 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5623241
RE: Why does it fly?
Thanks for all the replies you guys, MESAE, Your post more or less vindicates my friend's "eccentric" line of thought and makes some sense of the message he was trying to convey to me, so I'll (try) get in contact with him and see what he thinks of the replies so far ( he doesn't know about me putting this on the forum as yet but I know he won't mind). I don't think he has flown it much lately because he has many and varied interests, this being only one of them, also this is only one of his arsenal of weird and wonderful flying "experiments". When he flies, it often attracts a crowd of passers by, and he gets comments like " what is it? - aren't you going to put the wings on?, - that thing can't possibly fly but it does, - ooh aah "- or, haw haw what a load of crap ( this often from people who consider themselves expert fliers of course), but it doesn't faze him at all. Thanks again everyone.
Posted on: 3/26/2007 1:38 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5619021
RE: Why does it fly?
Dick, Paul, Well, at least I've got replies, however blunt some of them may be! Dick, I do know that you've tried most things in regard to flying machines, so I guess you've got more ideas about this "thing" than I have, and Paul I believe that you are more of a traditionalist in your way of thinking, but you both have probably got a lot to offer. Yes, this guy ( not me, just in case you thought that) is definitely eccentric in his ways of looking at things, but he is intelligent and thinks a lot and his conclusions sometimes may look a little distorted to the average person, but a lot of his crazy ideas work, so who knows! He's interested in a host of other things, - builds his own fullsize ( successful) boats, in fact you name it and he'll have built something like it with his own twist to it! Also he has a dislike of computers which is why you never actually hear from him. You guys have been around a while and I respect your opinions and approaches (which very often would be diametrically opposed), but I guess that in this case you are in complete agreement! so who am I to argue? I just thought there might have been some wisdom behind his theory.
Posted on: 3/26/2007 1:53 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5617280
RE: Why does it fly?
A lot of food for thought here, First let me say that there was hardly any breeze, and it performed the same in any direction. I only said that his first effort was "wingless" for want of words to describe it, but it was just a term rather than a description. I like the one about the ground repelling it! [:D]. - and yes, it's a bit ugly, but not as ugly as the first one! I understand the ( Bernoulli ? ) principle of air speeding up etc. and I understand that it is actually the higher air pressure underneath, which is pushing it up, but a lot of people look on it as being sucked up by the vacuum which is technically incorrect of course. Talking about wing loading, I guess the plane is quite light as it hasn't got a U/C, but with such a small wing area, surely the wing loading must be a little higher than the average plane, and the average plane needs quite a lot of airspeed over the surfaces ( as obtained by forward motion) to fly at all? let alone sit at hovering speeds, - I do realise that at a high angle of attack, the prop will contribute a little - ( miniscule amount maybe?). Remember I don't really know much about this plane and the statements I make on it are just my thoughts on the subject, but I distinctly heard the guy who built it say on the day the photos were taken, that it was flying in a stalled condition ( when not moving forward), and that it was being kept aloft by vortices, and I guess the evidence seems to support that, - this guy always thinks outside the square in everything he does, so no doubt he's put in a lot of thought to this. I do remember reading somewhere that some fullsize ultralight aircraft use a wing with a flat angled end to obtain more lift by forcing the vortex outward ( in effect increasing the span a little) and I see that this thing has airfoil ends like that, - don't know if this has any significance.
Posted on: 3/25/2007 3:22 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5614531
RE: Why does it fly?
I'm still in the dark, - maybe I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, or getting too old - but there can't be much lift if there's hardly any forward movement, so any air movement comes from prop wash, which is always in the same plane as the flat bottom (so no deflection forces there). I guess then the lift must be coming from the camber on the top surface of the "wing". - but the wing area is extremely small, as is the prop. The AOA in the photo was when it was almost at a hover (virtually no forward movement). He did say something about getting lift from vortexes (or is it vortices?) which I really didn't understand, so I was hoping someone coud shed some light on the subject
Posted on: 3/25/2007 6:27 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5612861
RE: Why does it fly?
Not having a hard time at all, just mildly intrigued by the thing [:)] but now you're getting me more interested by the minute! So how does the flat bottom produce lift when there's virtually no forward movement?
Posted on: 3/25/2007 2:51 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5612758
RE: Why does it fly?
Well, the consensus seems to be "with loads of power you can fly anything" - trouble is I didn't see that in this case! - guess I'll never know.....[;)]
Posted on: 3/25/2007 12:38 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5612412
RE: Why does it fly?
SHOE From what I saw it wasn't ungainly, quite nimble in fact, - but it does look a little ungainly, the deep front fuselage I think is just to keep the prop off the ground so he doesn't have to use an undercarriage! PAUL, He did say something about it flying in a stalled condition (when flying slow I guess) and it was using a vortex to keep it in the air, rather than a lot of power, - guess I didn't fully understand what he was driving at!
Posted on: 3/24/2007 10:32 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5611840
Why does it fly?
A couple of years ago, I had a thread going about a wingless "contraption" built by a friend, which I was a little skeptical about. It flew quite well and I was a little surprised that it could almost go slow enough to be hovering. Now he's done a much improved version, which flies super slow or fast and can do quite a few aerobatics. Has anyone got any ideas on what makes this thing actually fly as well as it does? - I've included a few photos taken about 9 months ago, - haven't seen this guy around much lately, so I didn't get many details of the plane, just the photos. I do know though that it doesn't "prop hang", ( not much power, - it has a 20 size motor I think). The first photo is of his original effort.
Posted on: 3/24/2007 5:31 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5610600
RE: Flying Simulators
Alpha is much much more realistic in the landing department, - at take off, you really need to keep the throttle setting low to be realistic. Later on, experiment with wind settings but never set "gusts" higher than #1 otherwise they are like a tornado! - all this is how it is on my computer of course, - other computers may be different. No more than a couple of worthwhile planes on it though, - I guess you can download others (if you can find a good one), but for a "learning to fly tool" and not for a "game", I think it's fine as it is.
Posted on: 3/2/2007 6:25 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5500133
RE: Flying Simulators
ARMODY, Yes, FMS is very good (for the price, ie $0.00). I don't know which version you use, but I used the Alpha version which is much much more realistic than the Beta version, it comes with probably only 2 good aircraft, the Pitts being my favourite and in my opinion very good for learning, ie. - if learning to fly is your main objective, and not just for a game. It was a little difficult at first but didn't take long to master, and I was able to fly right away when I tried the real thing! On my computer I had to use a higher resolution which made it work well, the only criticism I would make is the throttle has to be kept at two thirds or lower to be realistic. Also I was able to use the cash (which I would have spent on a fancy sim) for a good engine! Many people will reject it out of hand because it's not the latest cool thing, but if you want the cash to buy a good trainer instead, then this is a good way of getting it.
Posted on: 3/1/2007 12:24 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5492053
RE: How effective are Flight Simulators...
I think that the quick answer to the original question is that sims are very effective in getting you going with RC flight, but not in making you an expert flyer. They are great fun when you've got a little spare time and bad weather. I myself learned a lot with a sim, however I'll never be an expert flier ( who cares? - great fun[:D]). EDIT. SP2Pilot, you got it pretty right, - well said! [;)]
Posted on: 1/29/2007 3:08 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5329325
RE: How effective are Flight Simulators...
Sims are great, I learned completely on the sim, and not on G2,G3 or anything expensive ( G3 is great, if you can afford it of course), - no, I downloaded the free alpha version of FMS, and after a bit of juggling with setting up the controller ( I used a G2 controller ) and getting the screen resolution right, I found only one good plane on it and that was the Pitts Special, - it was very hard for a beginner to fly, but I persevered with it and after many flights, paying particular attention to getting the orientation right till it was second nature, practising landing again and again. I used the throttle just a little over halfway, maybe two thirds open, as that was much more like the real thing - then I was a master - at least in my mind![;)] By the way, I found the sim is also great to learn how to trim the plane, - someone earlier said you can't do that! When I went to the field with a scratch built 40 size foam & sticky tape trainer, I found the fresh air and the engine starting procedure a bit daunting, but flew it ok and was very pleased with the result, - takeoff was perhaps a tad harder than with the sim, but landing was a breeze - no real problems! I had tried to fly a couple of times before finding FMS, with terrible results at takeoff - so the sim was the turning point of my flying career. I could have gone to a proper flying field and found an instructor of course, but at 60 something, I tend to be a little too old and pig headed for that! [:)]
Posted on: 1/26/2007 4:45 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5325198
RE: another "fly without an instructor" question
Chuck, Hope you use earmuffs with the pipes! - you must have good understanding neighbours! Did you need a buddy box to learn? [:D]
Posted on: 3/8/2006 1:18 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4007755
RE: Keil Kraft Phantom Mite
Thanks for the help guys, - wouldn't have believed that I'd be interested in control line again! but that simple little plane has some sort of appeal that has stirred up something from my past, - you know, like that nice girl you dumped years ago, and you think " what the h--l was I thinking" [:)] - ( maybe I'm losing it?).
Posted on: 11/6/2005 1:07 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3525548
RE: Keil Kraft Phantom Mite
I'm over 60 now and I remember when I was a kid, that buying a Phantom Mite kit was one of my greatest ambitions! - sadly this was never realised. Now, after seeing this it's all come flooding back. Where did you get the kit? or did you just build it from plans? I would be quite interested in obtaining some (plans) if you or someone could just point me in the right direction. - thanks.
Posted on: 11/5/2005 3:54 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Control Lines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3524259
RE: piston port induction vs. rotary/reed valve
That would be a winner!
Posted on: 10/31/2005 2:11 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3507900
RE: piston port induction vs. rotary/reed valve
An excellent example of a high performance engine with piston inlet port is the Yamaha KT 100 engine which has been used for decades in Karting, - it possibly is a little heavy for flying ( cast iron liner I think), but it is extremely torquey and doesn't have a gearbox. - I wonder if anyone has ever tried it.
Posted on: 10/31/2005 4:34 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3506592
RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
Looks like the childish bickering is just going to go on and on. I do think that the last flurry of retorts, provoked by the crash is in very bad taste - fact is, they all crash for various reasons and we just have to live with that! Don't knock the Boeings, they have been (and still are) great, and don't knock the A380, because not one of us knows how good or bad it is, just wait, and don't let loyalty to your respective countries make you produce stupid biased statements on how bad it's going to be! - and yes, I'll probably face a barrage of more of the above! [8|]
Posted on: 10/23/2005 8:14 PM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3483382
RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
The airlines obviously are reading the statistics quite differently to you, and you don't have to fly if you don't want to of course! I remember flying around the world in Boeing 747's right after the door blew out on one flight on the way to New Zealand, and I might add that it took the father of one of the victims sucked into the engines about four years and a lot of money, to convince Boeing that the door locking arrangement was faulty, ( I believe they eventually conceded). The Boeings were not grounded then, and were not grounded in other cases as well, - however, I still believe in the Boeings and by the way, our national airline operates the 737, ( good reliable little workhorse despite the problem you mention) 747, 767, and are soon to receive the 777 . - I do hope that the motive for your dissent towards the Airbus is not just blind patriotism. Oh, and by the way, did I hear you mention corruption amongst your airline officials?
Posted on: 10/22/2005 6:13 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3478772
RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
[quote]ORIGINAL: vlizard At the present rate of loss Airbus will catch Boeing in about 7 years best I can figure. At the present rate of loss of what? - passengers? profits? aircraft sales?
Posted on: 10/19/2005 2:18 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3469008
RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
"Mine's better than yours, yes but mine's bigger, no it isn't, anyway, our education is better, etc.etc." All I can say is thank God that I live down under, where there is still [b]some[/b] fresh air and simplicity in life, a good ( as in reasonable) standard of living, freedom of choice, be able to hop on a Boeing, or an Airbus and travel anywhere without caring which I'm on and above all, not be totally neurotic through being involved in the struggle to be the greatest power on earth. Look around! - there are other more serious things looming, people trying to undermine and destroy you both, while mother nature is conspiring against everyone. The days when being the star is paramount, - are virtually over! World events in recent years ( or weeks) put an entirely new perspective on our ( humans) ability to do anything of significance to deal with them, and I doubt if any expensive new airliners or warplanes whether American or European, will be able to change these situations. In saying all this, I do realise of course that down here, we could have our share of troubles too, ( earthquakes, volcanoes etc.) but of course we just have to accept these things as being out of our control! Just as an example, - doesn't the Airbus look a little insignificant beside Mt St Helens when the bubble bursts? !! [8|]
Posted on: 10/11/2005 5:57 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3443952
RE: what most people don't know!!!
Still quite a few signs of the US soldiers here ( Auckland), - One of our big hospitals started off as a US military hospital ( much changed now but still quite a few buildings left), a large stores facility, which had still been used by small businesses up until about a year ago, - has just been demolished to make way for the inevitable shopping complex, plus a couple of concrete paved roads, which, amazingly are still intact, and a few wharfs etc. around the coast. New Zealanders are very passionate about aircraft, and have quite a few Ag aircraft ( many built here), there is a big warbird following in the South Island at a place called Wanaka, - Harvards ( Texan), DC3's, Kittyhawks (Warhawk), Spitfires, Hurricane, Sea Fury, Dauntless, Mustang, Corsair, Yak, Polikarpov, etc. etc. In the museum in Auckland there are the remains and replica of Richard Pearse's efforts to fly a powered aircraft in 1903, some swore that he managed it, but sadly we'll never know - he was a very reclusive gentleman! Strange theory about the hair! Sorry to get off track! [;)]
Posted on: 10/11/2005 1:00 AM by Author "Willdo"
in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3443707
|
