.010 Taylorcraft ?'s
07-11-2003, 08:53 PM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Park Ridge,
IL
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.010 Taylorcraft ?'s
Scaled up a Walt Mooney peanut of the Taylorcraft 212.5% to yield the following.
Wingspan = 27.5"
Chord = 4"
Wing Area = 110 sq"
Fuselage = 16 3/8"
Engine = Tee Dee .010 w/throttle (thanks Steve)
Target weight = 5oz
I originally planned to do a clipped wing but my Wing Area was only 84 sq" at 21" wingspan. So I opted to do a standard TCraft.
1. What is the best airfoil for this plane, Eppler 193 or Eppler 197?
2. Fuselage configuration lends itself to a positive wing incidence, it is currently +4 deg. What should it be for best flight attributes.
3. Cowl configuration lends itself to an 90 deg or inverted engine mount. Will a .010 run in this orientation, or should I just have the cylinder and carb. poke out of the cowl?
4. How much dihedral should I use for standard R/E configuration?
5. Would it make sense to have A/E instead?
6. Will 1/32 sheet construction with 1/16 tail surfaces be light enough?
Thanks in advance for the responses, any input would be appreciated.
Sean
Wingspan = 27.5"
Chord = 4"
Wing Area = 110 sq"
Fuselage = 16 3/8"
Engine = Tee Dee .010 w/throttle (thanks Steve)
Target weight = 5oz
I originally planned to do a clipped wing but my Wing Area was only 84 sq" at 21" wingspan. So I opted to do a standard TCraft.
1. What is the best airfoil for this plane, Eppler 193 or Eppler 197?
2. Fuselage configuration lends itself to a positive wing incidence, it is currently +4 deg. What should it be for best flight attributes.
3. Cowl configuration lends itself to an 90 deg or inverted engine mount. Will a .010 run in this orientation, or should I just have the cylinder and carb. poke out of the cowl?
4. How much dihedral should I use for standard R/E configuration?
5. Would it make sense to have A/E instead?
6. Will 1/32 sheet construction with 1/16 tail surfaces be light enough?
Thanks in advance for the responses, any input would be appreciated.
Sean
07-12-2003, 06:18 AM
#2
Re: .010 Taylorcraft ?'s
Originally posted by SeanT
Scaled up a Walt Mooney peanut of the Taylorcraft 212.5% to yield the following.
Wingspan = 27.5"
Chord = 4"
Wing Area = 110 sq"
Fuselage = 16 3/8"
Engine = Tee Dee .010 w/throttle (thanks Steve)
Target weight = 5oz
I originally planned to do a clipped wing but my Wing Area was only 84 sq" at 21" wingspan. So I opted to do a standard TCraft.
1. What is the best airfoil for this plane, Eppler 193 or Eppler 197?
Personally I'd use a Clark Y, but all 3 are so close you may not be able to tell the difference on a plane that small.
2. Fuselage configuration lends itself to a positive wing incidence, it is currently +4 deg. What should it be for best flight attributes.
I'd go with 0 degrees.
3. Cowl configuration lends itself to an 90 deg or inverted engine mount. Will a .010 run in this orientation, or should I just have the cylinder and carb. poke out of the cowl?
I'm not a Cox expert, but I think if you start it with the plane upside down and the engine upright, so it doesn't hydraulic lock, you should be fine.
4. How much dihedral should I use for standard R/E configuration?
For a high wing R/E model, 5 degrees. That works out to about 1 3/16" under each tip for a 27.5" span.
5. Would it make sense to have A/E instead?
R/E is lower drag and better for slow flying.
6. Will 1/32 sheet construction with 1/16 tail surfaces be light enough?
Use the lightest wood you can get and you should be okay.
Thanks in advance for the responses, any input would be appreciated.
Sean
Scaled up a Walt Mooney peanut of the Taylorcraft 212.5% to yield the following.
Wingspan = 27.5"
Chord = 4"
Wing Area = 110 sq"
Fuselage = 16 3/8"
Engine = Tee Dee .010 w/throttle (thanks Steve)
Target weight = 5oz
I originally planned to do a clipped wing but my Wing Area was only 84 sq" at 21" wingspan. So I opted to do a standard TCraft.
1. What is the best airfoil for this plane, Eppler 193 or Eppler 197?
Personally I'd use a Clark Y, but all 3 are so close you may not be able to tell the difference on a plane that small.
2. Fuselage configuration lends itself to a positive wing incidence, it is currently +4 deg. What should it be for best flight attributes.
I'd go with 0 degrees.
3. Cowl configuration lends itself to an 90 deg or inverted engine mount. Will a .010 run in this orientation, or should I just have the cylinder and carb. poke out of the cowl?
I'm not a Cox expert, but I think if you start it with the plane upside down and the engine upright, so it doesn't hydraulic lock, you should be fine.
4. How much dihedral should I use for standard R/E configuration?
For a high wing R/E model, 5 degrees. That works out to about 1 3/16" under each tip for a 27.5" span.
5. Would it make sense to have A/E instead?
R/E is lower drag and better for slow flying.
6. Will 1/32 sheet construction with 1/16 tail surfaces be light enough?
Use the lightest wood you can get and you should be okay.
Thanks in advance for the responses, any input would be appreciated.
Sean
07-12-2003, 09:08 PM
#3
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chilliwack, BC, CANADA
Posts: 12,425
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
.010 Taylorcraft ?'s
For this size the fancy airfoils are gross overkill. And assuming you're tissue covering it the airfoil integrity is non existant anyway. Stick to a simple Clark Y.... or even a tracing around your shoe as long as it "looks about right" It'll be so light it'll fly just fine. Why not just use Uncle Walt's original airfoil scaled up? It's great for slow flying with light models such as this.
If it was my model I'd build up the fuselage from sticks and tissue but perhaps that's more work than you want. For a sheet fuse I'd use 1/16 sides with 1/16 top and bottom back to the wing and then 1/32 top and bottom for the tail. And then 1/16 C grain for the tails. That should take a few nose first landings with no damage.
+4 sounds a little high. I'd drop that to +2 and plan on a slightly rearwards CG of about 35%. It'll still be stable in pitch but you won't need a lot of elevator travel. It'll be more efficient with flying on the wing that way too.
R-E is simpler. A-E is more aerobatic. You choose. But A-E will probably be a little heavier as you have to arrange for more control stuff.
If it was my model I'd build up the fuselage from sticks and tissue but perhaps that's more work than you want. For a sheet fuse I'd use 1/16 sides with 1/16 top and bottom back to the wing and then 1/32 top and bottom for the tail. And then 1/16 C grain for the tails. That should take a few nose first landings with no damage.
+4 sounds a little high. I'd drop that to +2 and plan on a slightly rearwards CG of about 35%. It'll still be stable in pitch but you won't need a lot of elevator travel. It'll be more efficient with flying on the wing that way too.
R-E is simpler. A-E is more aerobatic. You choose. But A-E will probably be a little heavier as you have to arrange for more control stuff.
07-13-2003, 03:24 PM
#4
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Park Ridge,
IL
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.010 Taylorcraft ?'s
Thank you for the replies BipeFlyer, BMatthews.
Two votes for the Clark Y, I will have to see if Profili has those coordinates. I just have to decide on a covering material, some have posted success w/Doculam. I am also looking at the Nelson Lite Film.
As soon I get parts cut out, I will post the progress.
Thanks again,
Sean
Two votes for the Clark Y, I will have to see if Profili has those coordinates. I just have to decide on a covering material, some have posted success w/Doculam. I am also looking at the Nelson Lite Film.
As soon I get parts cut out, I will post the progress.
Thanks again,
Sean
07-13-2003, 04:23 PM
#5
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chilliwack, BC, CANADA
Posts: 12,425
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
.010 Taylorcraft ?'s
Profili certainly has the Clark Y.
Almost any of the materials used for parkflyers would be perfect for your T-Craft. Personally I vote for good ol' Jap tissue and dope. Stick it onto the frame work with UHU glue stick. Let dry overnight, mist LIGHTLY with water to shrink the tissue, and then 3 coats of clear dope. For a truly non taughtening, non shrinking and non sag final finish lay on a final coat of Coverite's Balsarite thinned a LOT with dope thinner. It seems to plasticize the dope and prevent any bad stuff for later. I use this technique on all my free flight models. Many are about 10 years old now and haven't seen a steam kettle for warps in 8 or 9 of those years.
Otherwise Litespan or some such should work fine.
I should have added in my first post that if it was me I'd use the scale number of ribs but cut from 1/32 sheet. It'll hold the airfoil shape a little better that way too.
Almost any of the materials used for parkflyers would be perfect for your T-Craft. Personally I vote for good ol' Jap tissue and dope. Stick it onto the frame work with UHU glue stick. Let dry overnight, mist LIGHTLY with water to shrink the tissue, and then 3 coats of clear dope. For a truly non taughtening, non shrinking and non sag final finish lay on a final coat of Coverite's Balsarite thinned a LOT with dope thinner. It seems to plasticize the dope and prevent any bad stuff for later. I use this technique on all my free flight models. Many are about 10 years old now and haven't seen a steam kettle for warps in 8 or 9 of those years.
Otherwise Litespan or some such should work fine.
I should have added in my first post that if it was me I'd use the scale number of ribs but cut from 1/32 sheet. It'll hold the airfoil shape a little better that way too.
07-13-2003, 07:08 PM
#6
Senior Member
I cannot wait to see it!
B, I love your idea of scale ribs, but I would suggest building an all sheet wing first to test the areas and dihedral. If it works out well, a scale construction wing could then be built using the scale location ribs....
As for an airfoil, my little ones are using the Chinnohten airfoil, but the Clark y sounds great.
Your sheet fuse construction sounds like a good idea. I can attest (don't ask how) that if you build it right with that construction, it will make it away from a nose first landing (or two or three)......
As for incidence, all of my little .010's have been built with 0degrees on wing and tail, and appropriate thrust lines. I guess it kinda depends on what you are building it for.....
Go for Rudder/Elevator on this one and then build another to put Ailerons on......
As for an airfoil, my little ones are using the Chinnohten airfoil, but the Clark y sounds great.
Your sheet fuse construction sounds like a good idea. I can attest (don't ask how) that if you build it right with that construction, it will make it away from a nose first landing (or two or three)......
As for incidence, all of my little .010's have been built with 0degrees on wing and tail, and appropriate thrust lines. I guess it kinda depends on what you are building it for.....
Go for Rudder/Elevator on this one and then build another to put Ailerons on......
07-13-2003, 09:53 PM
#7
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chilliwack, BC, CANADA
Posts: 12,425
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
.010 Taylorcraft ?'s
M, if your airfoil is like many that may have a flat bottom when it's 0-0 to the flat bottom it's actually plus a degree or three to the true chord line of the airfoil so all's well. Or we just compensate during the timming with some up elevator.
And HEY, it's a T-Craft. If he can stick to those numbers and the weight is down around 5 to 6 oz it'll fly fine. Mind you an all sheet wing WOULD be quick but I can attest to the fact that it's heavier than a lightly constructed FF style design.
And HEY, it's a T-Craft. If he can stick to those numbers and the weight is down around 5 to 6 oz it'll fly fine. Mind you an all sheet wing WOULD be quick but I can attest to the fact that it's heavier than a lightly constructed FF style design.
07-15-2003, 11:38 AM
#8
Senior Member
No doubt B,....
a FF constructed wing would definitely be much lighter.
I guess I have been building mine overly tough lately because of the rough landings they take occasionally.....
I would love to see the T-Craft with an all built up construction. Would be a real beauty.
Sean, keep us posted. We want pics!!!!
I guess I have been building mine overly tough lately because of the rough landings they take occasionally.....
I would love to see the T-Craft with an all built up construction. Would be a real beauty.
Sean, keep us posted. We want pics!!!!
