RE: TopFlite DC-3/C-47 questions
It's hard to give an average number, but I can tell you that it is a relatively long build. You should definitely be a person who enjoys building to consider this plane. It has many build "extras", such as a round fuse with many stringers, the offset hinge rudder (although you can choose not to do that option- that would be a shame), the two engine nacelles, the three piece wing, etc. The build is helped by TFs tail/wing ribs, which have temporary risers on them to allow you to quickly build the wing and tail surfaces on a flat table. It's been a long time, but I'll guess the build took me 100 hours, and I'm a casual builder (not an expert).
Posted on: 7/28/2007 9:53 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6166446

RE: a wee question regarding 3 views
[quote]ORIGINAL: sharpshooter243 is there anyway to import 3 veiws that arent dxf into deltacad. or is there any free downloadable cad i can use to put them into. or, is there something that will convert normal picture files (liek you would get right off google) into dxf [/quote] What format are they in? What formats does deltacad accept? If you're talking about a non-vector graphic format (like jpg, gif, bmp, etc.), then it really isn't possible to import into a CAD program... except as an image that can be traced over, as has been discussed as what most of us do.
Posted on: 7/16/2007 12:44 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6117598

RE: Ziroli DC-3
Great job, Steve!! Now for God's sake, get some sun on those white legs!!!!
Posted on: 7/10/2007 10:07 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6092769

RE: Christen Eagle - Building, Alterations and Modifications
Deleted
Posted on: 5/5/2007 11:37 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5713095

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
[quote]ORIGINAL: LAFAPilot OK I just was cruisin around and looked at the posts here. My answer as a A+P IA is , when it comes to maintenance... BOEING kicks AIRBUS butt! Unofficailly most mechaincs still know that airbus airplanes are the "disposable" kind (sorta like a YUGO car was back in the 80's) and I can back that up with one easy question.... HOW MANY airbus birds out there are over 30 years old and STILL allowed to fly passengers?? It's just a simple question. [/quote] Aw geez, let's not start another war. It would be easy for someone to simply say Airbus or the European regulators have higher standards- no way to answer that question within an absolute context. Let's just not say anyone kicks anyone else's butts period!
Posted on: 3/27/2007 9:19 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5623755

RE: TopFlite DC-3/C-47 questions
[quote]ORIGINAL: jaka Hi! Forget about the OS wankels for the Great Planes DC-3...they are just way to powerful andwill make the DC-3 fly like a pattern airplane and not slow and scale like. [/quote] Bologne... that's what that stick on the left side is for (no offense mode 1 guys).
Posted on: 3/14/2007 4:25 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5560872

RE: 3D swept forward wing????
Forward sweep refers to the angle of the mean aerodynamic center line, not the LE or TE. When both the LE and TE sweep forward, you know the mean aero. center line is also forward. For planes such as the Edge 540 that have a straight LE and a swept forward TE, this also results in a forward swept mean aero. center line. When you have the LE swept back and the TE swept forward, it is possible for the wing to be swept forward, backward, or neutral, again depending on the angle of the mean aero center line. The mean aero. center line is ususally near the 25% chord line, so you can do some simple geometry to learn your sweep angle (and direction).
Posted on: 3/5/2007 10:41 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5513354

RE: 3D swept forward wing????
I'm missing something... The Edge 540 has a forward sweep (other 3D planes have a neutral to forward sweep, too), as it helps per LouW's post. I guess it's a matter of degree for a more astonishing look.
Posted on: 3/2/2007 12:39 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5498846

RE: Propellor Mustang P-51
You might want to post this in the scale forum if you haven't already. There are scale props (for static display only) out there on the market.
Posted on: 3/2/2007 12:19 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5498794

RE: Winglets on Props?
See this thread about Q tip props: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_2191474/anchors_2191474/mpage_1/key_bent%252Ctip%252Cprop/anchor/tm.htm#2191474
Posted on: 3/2/2007 12:12 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5498777

RE: Is there a system for using lasers to align parts during construction?
God, I love this forum!
Posted on: 1/9/2007 1:42 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Tips & Techniques"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5237019

RE: Ideas on working slats...???
You might consider using air cylinders- a very small one would do the trick- but only if you already have an air system on board. And I would go with the idea of using a couple of long rods integral to the slat that slide within tubes mounted into the wing. Don't use brass, though- too pliable. Use plastic, fiberglass, or carbon fiber. Having the control rod, however it is actuated, centered between two sliding rods should prevent much unparallelism, and it should not bind. Edit... Oh yeah, use some graphite lubricant (like the tube you squirt into door locks) to prevent friction.
Posted on: 1/9/2007 1:39 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5237005

RE: Hobby shops in Kalamazoo Michigan
Bill, If you aren't already planning it, you MUST go to the Air Museum on the airport ("Air Zoo" I believe they call it). They have a very nice fleet of aircraft, many in flying condition. I dreweled most over their C-47.
Posted on: 1/9/2007 1:17 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5236919

RE: Flaps
A little more feedback on flapersons and the washout aspect... With typical wings, they can be designed such that the inboard portion of the wing will stall before the outboard portion- this is done either by using different airfoil sections at the root and tip or by twisting the wing such that the root always has a slightly higher angle of attack. This allows the ailerons to still be effective when the wing begins to stall (as the outboard of the wing is still "flying" while the inboard portion is stalled). When you add flaps to the inboard portion of a wing, this simply adds to the above condition. Of course, the flaps greatly reduce stall speed and enables slower landings/steeper descents; and they do not take away from the desired early inboard stall characteristic. Adding a flap mix to your ailerons upsets this desired early stall characteristic. By using flapersons, you increase the angle of attack of the outboard portion of the wing relative to the inboard portion (unless the ailerons run the full length of the wing). So, it is possible to cause the reverse of what is desired... the outboard portion of the wing will stall early. If this "tip-stall" occurs, the ailerons lose their effectiveness, and the plane may be uncontrollable once the stall begins. Having said all this, it may or may not affect your plane significantly depending on how much flap is used, the geometry of the wing to begin with, etc. I am not familiar with your plane, but as it's a pattern ship, I would guess everything is symmetrical and no washout is built into the wing... which means your are starting with everything neutral... so you would certainly be adversely affected by adding flaperons. It is not a great idea if you can avoid it. Use flaperons only if you can't land without flaps, you cannot add traditional inboard flaps, and/or if your ailerons are the full length of the wing.
Posted on: 1/9/2007 1:10 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5236880

RE: Lanier Yak
Anyone put a Moki 2.10 in this thing? Think it will work? It's a big plane, but 5 hp and 25 lbs. should be enough, no? I imagine I'd run into balance issues...
Posted on: 12/7/2006 1:32 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "3D Flying!"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5086877

RE: TopFlite DC-3/C-47 questions
A little late on the reply, but... balance with tanks full and gear down- this gives the most aft CG. Also if you have a strobe on your tail, balance with the light on... the extra weight of the electrons should be considered ;)
Posted on: 11/20/2006 1:07 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5018722

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
[quote]ORIGINAL: Strykaas And for those who mention "arrogance", take a deep breath, relax, and consider teasing ... or what we here call "2nd degree"... It is SO obvious than no other aviation industry can compare to US's and URSS's ones in terms of different aircraft ever designed / produced... but when a 3rd party seems to take advantage over these, it looks so unusual that some could want to tease the acknowledged leaders... add to that my command of english level which might not be *enough* (as some noticed), so take care when speaking to non native english speakers... [/quote] I have lived abroad for several years, and I appreciate the language barrier, but... there is no such thing as tongue-in-cheek or "2nd degree" in written form. Those of us on the receiving end of "Once again, we kick the ass of all other aicraft manufacturers !" don't see your body language or know the nuance of your statement. We take it at face value. It is an inflammatory statement, hence you were flamed... repeatedly. Soap box: A close friend described one of the reasons her first marriage failed. She said her husband kept teasing and joking with her with statements that the speaker would probably define as harmless, but that she said, "chipped away at the ball of love." I'm sure you have noticed that relations between our nations have been strained these last few years. Please refrain from teasing or joking about that which we take pride in, whether it is true or not, and we will refrain from making statements like "Once again, we kick the ass of all other wine makers !"
Posted on: 11/20/2006 12:57 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5018678

RE: Ziroli DC-3
[quote]ORIGINAL: rbdesign Hi everyone!!! Super link and really good pictures. I´m hoping someone here can help me. I´m looking for a kit or plans for a DC 3 in 1/6 scale, and if a did my mathe right it should be 189.6 in. in span. Is it possible to buy a DC 3 that large? Regards Richard Sweden [/quote] Nothing out there 1/6... the Ziroli 1/8 is proven. I am scratch designing/building a 1/7 scale, just to be a bit bigger, so don't one-up me!!! :D
Posted on: 10/16/2006 10:45 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4874279

RE: Radio South Pro driver III How many starts ?
It will burn off excess fuel only to a small extent, really. The great thing, though, is that if the engine is flooded, you will see more than the typical 3 or 4 green lights lit- you will know it without a doubt.
Posted on: 10/10/2006 10:24 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4849723

RE: TopFlite DC-3/C-47 questions
0.5 oz. or 0.75 oz. fiberglass suits this plane beautifully, especially over those much to thin skins on the outboard wing sections. Added weight is very minimal, and was not an issue for my plane (Wankels on my plane). This plane flies better a little heavier IMHO. A little higher wing loading = more stable, scale-looking flight. You can add all the extras (flaps, retracts, lights, on-board glow were all on mine) without worrying about too high of a weight on this plane. Of course the bonus of fiberglass and paint is the durability and easy clean-up. Use a panel line pen, too- very nice on this bird.
Posted on: 10/10/2006 10:12 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4849685

RE: Ziroli DC-3
Steve, You might consider Nero Ultra. It's an easy and powerful tool; it will handle all your video/audio/data needs for a long time to come. About $100. If you have a video and don't want to spend the money, I'd be glad to edit it for you as you would like (for posting or whatever). Your video would have to be on DVD... or you'd have to send me your camera ;)
Posted on: 10/4/2006 9:21 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4826570

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
From the The Register of England: "Third A380 delay tests airlines' patience Wiring woes will cost Airbus dear The patience of airlines waiting to get their hands on the Airbus A380 is beginning to wear thin following an announcement yesterday that just one example of the "Superjumbo" would be delivered in 2007, as opposed to the nine previously promised by Airbus parent company EADS. The EADS press release states: "According to this revised plan, the first A380 will be delivered in October 2007. Thirteen more will be delivered in 2008 and 25 in 2009. The industrial ramp-up will be completed in 2010, when 45 A380s are going to be delivered." While previous delays were attributed to "wiring problems", the latest release is a bit more forthcoming: In June, the amount of work to be done to finalise the installation of the electrical harnesses into the forward and rear section of the fuselage had been underestimated. Beyond the complexity of the cable installation, the root cause of the problem is the fact that the 3D Digital Mock up, which facilitates the design of the electrical harnesses installation, was implemented late and that the people working on it were in their learning curve. This third delay to the programme, following similar knock-backs in June 2005 and June 2006, will cost EADS an extra €2.8bn euros in profits over the next four years, in addition to the €2bn euros announced in June. According to the BBC, EADS may also have to stump up compensation for airlines including Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Qantas, and Virgin Atlantic, who have 43, 10, 12 and six A380s on order, respectively. Emirates will now get its first A380 10 months late, and says it is "now reviewing its options". Qantas won't take delivery of its first example until August 2008. The airline's general manager John Borghetti asked: "How are we going to mount the capacity in the short-term?" Singapore Airlines said it was "reviewing the situation", while Virgin Atlantic expressed concern that the delay had "serious implications" for its business. Airbus boss Christian Streiff, however, insisted all the airlines were "still on board", and told the BBC: "Our customers are just working with us, helping us on how to improve the schedule." Indeed, experts think it's unlikely airlines will cancel orders. Analyst Scott Hamilton explained: "By the time the airlines get through extracting all the penalties and concessions out of Airbus for all the delays, they are going to have the cheapest widebody in the world. They would be crazy to let that deal get away from them." Accordingly, there are still 159 A380s on order. Sadly, as the Airbus website notes, there are currently 0 aircraft delivered and 0 in operation. ®" Unbelievable level of incompetence. I've never considered this option before, but I will refuse to fly on an A380 until they've been flying commercially for at LEAST a year.
Posted on: 10/4/2006 9:08 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4826536

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
Wow, that DOES look quite squirrelly for such a big plane... wonder if there was no ballast and it had a particularly light wing loading at the time.
Posted on: 6/24/2006 5:09 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4426251

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
[quote]ORIGINAL: Funtana140 Bingo you got it in one. Two huge companies, spending huge amounts of money to design 4 aircraft where just two will do (A380 spec and B787 spec). There's no technology sharing, no research sharing, no nothing, to guarantee that both companies waste as much money as possible to make the same thing, twice. What a waste. [/quote] Do you think if both companies weren't designing "the same thing" that either product would be as good (in many respects)?? Competition makes things better, no? Therefore, I don't see it as a waste. I'm sure glad we have O.S., Moki, Enya, SuperTigre, et. al. all designing the same thing ;)
Posted on: 6/15/2006 3:59 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4394225

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
[quote]ORIGINAL: Strykaas Heard about Enron ? Tsss tsss ... Think you've opened a can of worms [&:] [/quote] No, who are they? Really, though, do you view Enron as an example of how capitalism is bad or just plain ol' corruption? I say you'll find Enrons in any socio-political system... in some systems these things are better hidden- anything come to mind??
Posted on: 6/15/2006 3:54 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4394202

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
Another 6 month delay for A380 announced (at the 11th hour) this week, which will cost Airbus/EADS $2.5B... Singapore Airlines is seeking damages from Airbus and has just gone to Boeing for $4.52B in 787-9s. Pretty plane, but this is what happens with subsidized companies, whether aircraft manufacturer or health care provider... gotta love capitalism.
Posted on: 6/14/2006 10:29 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Airplanes - Full Scale"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4389141

RE: Aft CG and aileron effectiveness
[quote]ORIGINAL: Shoe Because its wing loading is HIGHER, not the same. [/quote] Not to insult your obviously unlimited knowledge, but you did not simply point out differences in flying characteristics. Your above statement is incorrect and I would like to point that out to others reading the post- others can/will believe what they want. And if you think my knowledge is limited and my thesis on canards is incorrect at all, by all means point out the faults in my explanation. I made the explanation for those who'd like to know, but please share your less limited knowledge of the subject so that we may all learn- I hope I haven't led anyone astray, Sensei. [8|]
Posted on: 4/23/2006 6:50 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4201315

RE: Aft CG and aileron effectiveness
[quote]ORIGINAL: Shoe Suppose you have 2 geometrically-identical airplanes flying side-by-side. Airplane 1 weighs 10 pounds, and its CG is placed such that there is no up or down load on the tail in level flight. Airplane 2 weights 9 pounds, but its CG is placed such that there is a down load of 1 pound on the tail in level flight. In both cases, the wing has to lift 10 pounds in level flight. Is the wing loading of these planes the same? I say absolutely not. Suppose that these 2 airplanes experience the same vertical gust as they are flying side-by-side. As long as the wing and tail of both airplanes remain on the linear part of the lift curve slope (a good assumption in most cases), the change in lift due to the gust will be exactly the same for both airplanes. However, the 9 pound airplane will experience more vertical acceleration and more flight path deviation than the 10 pound airplane (a = F/m). If you were watching these airplanes fly past on a gusty day, the heavier airplane would have a perceptibly smoother flight path. Why? Because its wing loading is HIGHER, not the same. [/quote] Wrong. Wing loading and inertia are two different things. Both planes you describe, by your very own definition, will experience 10 lbs. of load on the wings. I certainly hope you aren't the one designing the main wing spar of the 9 lb. plane if you think it is experiencing a lighter load than the 10 lb. plane... if indeed it has a natural CG bias as you posit. When people consider wing loading in such esoteric evaluations such as reaction to gusts and if it's a floater or not, it is only a rule-of-thumb that is generally useful, although not exact, with a certain class of plane. As has been talked much about in other threads, a wing loading of 100 would seem hardly flyable and if so, then very sturdy for the average RC model, but for even a small full-scale plane, a wing loading of 100 would be the most fluttery floater you ever saw. Another mistake in an earlier post is the notion that nothing changes in the lift/drag equations when you move CG. This skips about six chapters in aeronautical design. In order to understand the lift you need, you need to know the static margin, thus the down force on the tail, thus the load on the wing (including the weight of the plane). THEN, you can look up what your requried AOA will be for a given airfoil (using CL curve). The required CL and AOA WILL be different (higher) if you shift the CG forward. Of course, as AOA increases, not only does CL go up, so does CD, so there's a "drag-bucket" evalation that needs to be done in optimizing the planforms, etc. THEN, you can go back and re-evaluate dynamic stability (which is generally improved with a forward CG). And it's really not this sequential- in reality, there are interdependencies between the different characteristics of an airplane, so the design process is iterative. Starting to repeat some of the things that were explained before, so I'll give up...
Posted on: 4/23/2006 2:45 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4200540

RE: Aft CG and aileron effectiveness
The load on the wing (in S&L flight) is equal to the weight of the airplane PLUS the load necessary to counteract the downward force on the tail. The reason canards are beneficial is because they have positive lift versus the classical negative lift on a tail at the rear of the airplane. This means the lift is additive and the load on the main wing is less (ergo AOA is less)... therefore overall induced drag is less. The change in wing loading is not significant structurally, but it is for speed, range, and indeed most importantly, fuel economy (i.e., everything related to drag). Example: Your plane's weight: 200 oz. Your plane's main wing area: 5 sq. ft. Classical Wing Loading: 40 oz./sq. ft. Downward force required on tail to counteract main wing's lift induced nose-down moment: 5 oz. Required load on main wing for S&L flight: 205 oz. Actual Loading on Main Wing: 41 oz./sq.ft. (And slightly higher AOA required than you would expect if you only considered 200 oz.) Replace classic tail with a canard... UPWARD force required on canard to counteract main wing's lift induced nose-down moment: 5 oz. Required load on main wing for S&L flight: 195 oz. Actual Loading on Main Wing (Canard Configuration): 39 oz./sq.ft. (And slightly less AOA required than you would expect if you only considered 200 oz.) With both a traditional tail and a canard, the induced drag on the tail (or canard) surface is nearly the same, however the induced drag on the main wing is reduced with a canard configuration due to the reduced required AOA (which is also reflected in the reduced actual wing loading). Relating this to the original thread question, if you move the CG further forward, you make the plane more stable, but you also increase the tail load required and therefore the actual wing loading, required AOA, drag, etc. Flying the plane with the least stability manageable maximizes (milks) efficiency in speed and range. This is all separate from control surface "effectiveness", though. I hope this brings the gnat's a$$ further into focus.
Posted on: 4/18/2006 2:25 PM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4180532

RE: Can It Take Off??
I'll just keep posting the relevant word every once in awhile since this thread keeps going into oblivion, which is of course the only place the question can go... It's a PARADOX, people!
Posted on: 2/13/2006 11:02 AM by Author "mulligan" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3905222