|
RE: Spektrum DX18
That 'end of February' availability on the Al's Hobbies site now reads 'end of April' (no surprises, I guess). Oh, the waiting...the waiting...LOL. http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=48971
Posted on: 2/20/2012 12:16 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10967775
RE: Spektrum DX18
[quote]ORIGINAL: Mart (Ham) Anyone now when this is likely to be available in the uk? Regards Martin [/quote] Stocks expected end of [i]this[/i] month (apparently) on Al's Hobbies site here in the UK, costing £699.99 (Tx and rx combo): http://alshobbies.com/shop/cat.php?id=474 [8D]
Posted on: 2/2/2012 1:54 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10940668
RE: Thrust line in line with stabiliser / tailplane?
Thanks; really useful information, speedracerntrixie. :) That's very reassuring as that's kinda close to what I was planning to do. [8D]
Posted on: 12/24/2011 2:15 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10874862
RE: Thrust line in line with stabiliser / tailplane?
Thanks. [8D] OK so from what I'm reading, it seems that, for just sport flying, the stab being or not being on the thrust line isn't an issue that'll impact directly on the model's performance, but rather the other usual factors mentioned. Cool. Thanks for everyone's help with this; it's appreciated. :)
Posted on: 12/24/2011 12:46 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10874751
RE: Thrust line in line with stabiliser / tailplane?
Thanks for your help, guys. As it's just a 'stick' design for sport flying, I was wondering if the [i]stab being in line with the thrust line was critical or not[/i]. Like most sticks it'll have a typical semi-symmetrical airfoil, 1-1.5 degrees of positive incidence on the main wing, I'll start the stab at zero degrees. I'm not too concerned with all the other aspects as I'm confident it'll be fine (i.e. 2 degrees of right thrust etc), but the stab's relation to the thrust line was one aspect I wasn't sure about. If the stab isn't going to be really affected for not being in line with the thrust line on a simple sports plane, then I guess it should still fly/ handle well enough for basic sports flying, if it's not in line with each other?
Posted on: 12/24/2011 10:28 AM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10874587
Thrust line in line with stabiliser / tailplane?
Hi guys. Hope you can help. I'm building a few different 'stick' designs for sport flying. I was told by one guy who is an experienced builder (and haven't seen him for a while otherwise I would've asked him this myself),who had built several own-design r/c planes that I should try and keep the tailplane/ stabiliser in line with the thrust line, to help with flight characteristics. Can anyone verify or explain if this really makes a difference? I've got the incidence/ empennage sorted, the moment, side-thrust etc all OK, this is kinda the last thing I need to get my head around before drawing up some final plans. There's obviously T-tail designs and other configurations out there that I've seen that don't follow this... so does it really matter if the tailplane/ stabiliser isn't in line with the thrust line?
Posted on: 12/24/2011 9:09 AM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10874470
RE: Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
I can empathise Bill. I so want to get building further on the plane, but I'm not venturing into the workshop when it's cold like this. Having 'flu at the moment doesn't help either. [&:] I'm on leave from the 22nd, so hopefully I can make some progress with it before Christmas.
Posted on: 12/19/2011 12:32 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10866802
RE: Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
Brings back memories, Bill. I've nearly finished the 'pod' of the 79" wingspan pod n' boom sport plane. It's going kinda slow at the moment with all the Christmas stuff going on; hopefully I'll get time to put together the tail feathers and start covering next week.
Posted on: 12/18/2011 6:44 AM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10864761
RE: Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
@ ratshooter, I've only seen one SPAD design locally, the tail feathers and 'wing' were also coroplast, cut kitchen board for the engine mount, etc. Here's a pic of it; really crappy pic taken with the cellphone I had at the time: [IMG]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/963/484f0018.jpg[/IMG] Here's another earlier design, from circa 2004: loosely 'assembled' to see what it'd look like before final assembly: half a profile, half a boom thingy, but there was too much flex on the profile part (1/4" x2 ply laminate) when the wing etc was attached. I scrapped the profile part of the fuse at that point and a few weeks later built another more conventional lite-ply pod: [IMG]http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7092/yfgue.jpg[/IMG]
Posted on: 12/15/2011 11:52 AM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10861041
RE: Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
@ ratshooter, Cool. I've thought about trying some of the SPAD designs from the www.spadtothebone.com website, but I guess I'm in some sort of halfway limbo between the SPAD construction styles (i.e. aluminium fuz/boom) and more traditional r/c plane building. WRT Monokote, I was quite tempted to get some when I visited a hobby shop just outside Toronto back in April, although I'm very happy with how well Profilm / Oracover works. Here's a few pics of the Byron Originals Pipe Dream, the plane that started all the 'departing from the conventional r/c plane' thoughts (for me) in the late 80's: [IMG]http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/2993/ge95304.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/7382/wr55919.jpg[/IMG]
Posted on: 12/14/2011 9:42 AM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10859164
RE: Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
Sure does Mike. The Duraplane and the Byron Originals Pipe Dream from the same era were big inspirations. What put me off the Duraplane was the use of u-channel aluminium for the boom, which flexes too much for my liking, compared to the square thin-wall aluminium tubing that I use. Maybe that's why they only made the Duraplanes with tricycle undercarriages, unless I'm wrong (although I did see some tail draggers in that google search; dunno if they were officially made by Duraplane like that)? I remember that they had a more aerobatic version as well. Also, I preferred a 'normal' wooden pod structure (either 1/8" balsa with 1/16" doublers, or 1/8" lite-ply sides) than the PVC/ guttering idea, and I'm no fan of rubber bands for holding the wing; prefer the look and fit of nylon wing bolts. The whole idea behind these was if I do have any (serious) crashes, the entire boom and tail feathers can be unbolted and maybe just a new pod would need to be built; minimal waste etc. [;)] It's also easy to make a pod n' boom arrangement like this for any 'spare' wing lying around..
Posted on: 12/13/2011 3:22 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10858045
RE: Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
Thanks Bill. Yeah it's the biggest sport plane/ stick I've scratch-built so far. The wings are foam/veneer, so not as light as a conventional built-up balsa wing, although very quick n' easy to make. I've started on the pod now. Not sure what thickness balsa to use for the tail feathers. Usually use 1/4" balsa for the .40-.60 size planes, I guess it should be OK for this one too..
Posted on: 12/13/2011 1:46 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10857866
RE: Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
The 2-metre wingspan (79") stick's wing takes shape: [IMG]http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/6393/dscn2071p.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Posted on: 12/13/2011 12:19 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10857716
RE: Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
@ ratshooter, Dig the pre-war US colour scheme on your one stick pic. [8D] I really enjoy the simplicity of these types of designs; a kind of a RC blank canvas that's so easy to personalise. I use Profilm/ Oracover for my models.
Posted on: 12/13/2011 12:10 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10857706
RE: Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
@ Bill, Yeah it's really easy to scale up; I'm busy building a big 2 metre (79") wingspan version of it at the moment. Got a OS FS200 4-stroke ready for it. [;)] @ ratshooter, Cool. [8D] Seeing that design with the merging twin booms makes me think of a kit (trainer type) that Balsa USA used to make, although it didn't have the same conventional look in the front. Will try Google it later. @ Mildbill, That's really interesting; I'd never heard of the Yard Dart before. What did you use for the forward fuselage? Hardwood? I've tried using a double laminate of 1/4" ply on a previous design, but there was still a fair amount of flex in the 'profile' when I bolted everything on, which kinda put me off. Any similar problems? I took this pic at the flying field late this afternoon: [IMG]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7323/dscn2111w.jpg[/IMG]
Posted on: 12/10/2011 12:03 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10853150
RE: Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
Thanks, Bill. The ones with purple wings have 55" wingspan, while the others are around 59". Most of the fuselage pods are made with 1/8" liteply, although the second one and blue-winged one have 1/8" balsa with the usual 1/16" ply doublers. All have a semi-symmetrical airfoil, although the blue winged one and red wing design have thicker wing sections with narrower chords, so they have very pleasant flight characteristics. The first one has dihedral in the wings, the others don't. I put between 1 - 2 degrees postive incidence on the main wing, 0 degrees on the tailplane/ stabilizer. 3 degrees side thrust and 3 degrees downthrust, with the exception of the last design (red), which has no downthrust. I might draw up the plans neater before uploading them. They're such simple designs to build and if there's ever a bad/ serious crash/ damage to the pod, the boom can be unbolted with the tail feathers still attached and only a new pod would then need to be built. Minimal 'waste'. :)
Posted on: 10/28/2011 4:55 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10787203
Own-design pod n' boom sport planes: .45-.62
[image][URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/nov2010011h.jpg/][IMG]http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/3953/nov2010011h.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [image][URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/dec10016.jpg/][IMG]http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4613/dec10016.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/image] [image][URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/feb2011200.jpg/][IMG]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1446/feb2011200.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [image][URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/8/july2010009a.jpg/][IMG]http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1598/july2010009a.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/image] [image][URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/37/copyofrc32204007.jpg/][IMG]http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8831/copyofrc32204007.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/image] [image][URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/508/july2010144.jpg/][IMG]http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6512/july2010144.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/image] [image][URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/231/may2011037a.jpg/][IMG]http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4439/may2011037a.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/image]
Posted on: 8/28/2011 2:39 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10690849
Super-Simple Stick design (aluminium 'fuz'): .45-.62 engines
Hi guys. Relatively new to the forum, although I had registered quite some time ago. Back in the late '80's, I was finally in a position to get into R/C planes. I was intrigued by a design called a 'Pipe Dream', a petrol-powered stick design with an aluminium tube for a fuselage, with a pod arrangement around the main wing area. It was produced by Byron Originals, if memory serves me correctly. It kinda stood out from their normal mainstay of big warbirds etc. The 'Duraplane' designs also intigued me a few years later. For some reason the sheer simplicity of the designs appealed, and the in-you-face detour from the conventional balsa/ply zealots also appealed. I then discovered the SPAD designs and website some years ago. Again, while the simplicity of the concepts caught my attention, I still wanted to have a conventional R/C wing and conventional tail surfaces. Due to various issues and studies, I had to shelve the hobby until a few years ago. Various other pursuits and interests have limited my flying somewhat, but the challenge to design and build my own super-simple design, which anyone could put together and also somehow bridge the gap between ARTF's and scratch-building, to some extent... How? Well the er.. fuselage is just a 20mm square aluminium tubing, 1 metre in length when bought but trimmed down 50mm once the design work was all done. The wing is a conventional foam/veneer construction, constant chord and nice, relatively thick semi-symmetrical section. [image][URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/may2011037a.jpg/][IMG]http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/4439/may2011037a.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/image] 6mm sheet balsa make up the tail feathers, with 6mm square anti-warp strips on the ends. Triangular balsa gusseting adds gluing surface area to the boom (with epoxy, after 'scoring' the aluminium and balsa to improve the bonds). The battery pack and receiver are housed in a thin-walled plastic electrical box, and a future design will have one for the tank as well to keep the design a bit neater in appearance. The engine mount is a laminate of 2x 6mm birch ply sheets, bolted on and epoxied as well, and again supported by balsa gusseting. Carbon fibre undercarriage and tail skid. The u/c is bolted onto a 6mm birch ply plate, which in turn is attached to the aluminium 'fuselage' with epoxy and 2 countersunk screws, and again supprted by balsa gusseting to spread the load and gluing surface area. What took the most time, by far, was to make a simple enough way to attach the wing to the aluminium fuz, and I eventually settled for a simple cradle. This consists of an 80mm piece of hardwood, which is 20mm square, thus the same thickness as the aluminium. I then cut 2 wider 6mm ply plates and glued these either side of the hardwood strip. These 'cover' the sides of the alumium tube, so that it can carry the 2x titanium bolts which hold the wing nto the fuz. I then drilled 2x 6mm holes for the titanium wing bolts. I also cut 2x 2mm aluminium sheet plates and glued these onto the sides of the 2 ply plates, to ensure that the titanium bolts don't wear around the the titanium bolts, after frequent removal and assembly. These were also then drilled for the titanium wing bolts, using the pre-drilled ply plate's holes as guides. I then inserted the 2 wing bolts, to ensure that the cradle is secure and square on the aluminium boom/ fuz. It was then ready to be glued ionto the wings. This whole cradle was held in place by the 2x 3mm ply wing joiners (100mm in length), which had a recess cut into them to help hold the cradle. Part of the foam core was also removed to accommodate the cradle. I then spent time making sure that the cradle was sitting right in the wing before gluing, including 2 degrees of positive wing incidence and all square with the aluminium fuz. Once satisfied, it was epoxied into place. After that, a wing-joining kit was used to further secure both the cradle and wing join itself. It came out OK, and the wings were covered with Profilm/ Oracover. As this was such a deviation from the usual Stick/ Stik fuz design, yet still similar in concept to the various electric Slo-Stik designs, I used some 'different' Maltese Crosses for the markings, care of stocks of my other interest, i.e. motorcycles. I love 4-strokes, so settled for Saito's great .62a. I included 3 degrees of side-thrust when I cut the engine mount out of the ply. A small hole was drilled in the front of the plastic R/C gear housing, to feed the small throttle servo lead through and connect to the receiver. Similar slots were drilled at the back of this box for the other servos and to fit the switch harness and charging jack. The plastic container was bolted to the fuz with 3mm bolts. 4mm self-adhesive foam strips acts as a 'seat' for the tank and, importantly, absorbs the vibrations from the engine. Wing seat tape helps prevent the cable tie rubbing directly onto the fuel tank. A thin slot along the plastic container holding the R/C gear lets the cable tie 'loop' around. These slots were all made with the ever-handy Dremel. The rudder and elevator servos were fitted to a 6mm birch ply cradle and slid up and down the boom with the short carbon pushrods, until the balance point was achieved. (usual third from the leading edge). I got my good pal Paul to 'maiden' the plane for me, while I filmed the take-off and took pics of low fly-bys with my iffy digital camera. The plane flies well, much to my relief! :-) Yes, this design is obviously not as light as a conventional fuz construction, but it's also not much heavier, much to my surprise. No covering, sealer, etc.. and hell yeah, it's damn quick and cheap to build that fuz! Yeah, it bridges that ARTF v/s scratchbuild gap in some emphatic way, LOL. I'm really happy how well the plane performs and I'm keen to build one with a 2 metre wingspan with OS200 four-stroke up front, some kind of ode to that Pipe Dream from Byron Originals that originally inspired me all those years ago. Any improvements, apart for the use of another cover for the tank? Yup, Paul noted that there may be a slight tendency to drop the wing in turns, even though it's a constant chord and reckons maybe me trying 1 or 2 degrees of washout to compensate on a future design. He reckons maybe the lack of fuselage area may be a factor. It doesn't fishtail or anything, I made sure that the substantial fin and rudder area would keep things nice and straight in flight. Any suggestions? Keen to hear any input. Regards, Dave.
Posted on: 8/27/2011 4:02 PM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10689409
RE: Super-Simple Stick design (aluminium 'fuz'): .45-.62 engines
A few more pics; my bad for attaching a few of the same pics in the first post.. [8|]
Posted on: 8/27/2011 10:38 AM by Author "eastlondoner"
in the forum "Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10689431
|
