victorzamora

Alrighty, guys. My Dad and I are looking into manufacturing ARFs....but I need to know what y'all would want in a 3D plane. We are going to be designing a series of 60-sized planes, approximately 60" Wingspan. We're pushing for 600 squares and 5.75-6.25 pounds all up with a Saito 100. There aren't a lot of full-fuse planes that fill this gap right now, and I've had bad results from a lot of them. We looked into 40-sized planes, and that was just too small to get a good-looking high performance full-fuse plane.

I don't want to give a lot away, but I want to know what y'all want in a 3D plane of this size. If you could have your choice of features in an ARF...what's important to you? My Dad and I are looking into manufacturing ARFs in this size because what we were looking for doesn't exist...and we're trying to extend the opportunity to give y'all what y'all want.

I'm anxious to hear what y'all have to say.

Mr67Stang

Ease of feild assembly/disassembly
Adjustable weight and ballance built in.
Bolt on horizontal stabs
Adjustable engine mount (you can design it around the Saito 1.00 but someone will want more)
Fuel tank centered on recomended CG
Midwing design
Something we have never seen before
$200 or less

Good luck and I look forward to seeing the final product.

EDIT:// I live reletively close to you, I would love to be a beta tester

rcplanenut

My Feedback: (12)

2 piece wing
motor mounted anyway except inverted
I believe it's call tip stalling. be able to pull hard elevator without one wing stalling.
visable trim scheme
Good luck
should be a good market for a plane like that

ro347

My Feedback: (13)

All of the above sound great! 2 piece wing a must.

Ultracote

Good luck!!!

victorzamora

I don't know if the tank can go under the CG, but I'll look into opening up a spot for it. The problem is that glow motors do an awful job of drawing fuel any considerable distance, and there may not be space for a tank under the wing tube on a plane this small.

I'll definitely look into making the motor mount system as flexible as possible, while keeping 2S and 4S and electric all in mind...but that's a matter of tweaking once the prototype gets here. I do have an awesome (I think) plan for it, but we'll see how it works.

The tube-based bolt-on horizontal stabs is an idea I had from the get go, but with the added weight and cost for the set-up it may simply not be worth it on this sized plane. There's got to be a reason for no one building a bolt-on stab on this sized aircraft. However, we're looking at different ideas for that. Why would bolt-on stabs be something you'd want?

Field assembly/disassembly is a huge factor for me, and will definitely be taken into consideration.

The adjustable weight is going to be taken care of with multiple Rx battery strap positions.

Mid-wing is going to be up to the design you choose. Right now, we're looking at 3 planes...more if the demand is enough to justify it.

Something you've never seen before is hopefully going to be taken care of by a couple details we've decided to include, as well as one other major decision we've made. I don't want to give much away until they're closer to being done.

2-piece wing is guaranteed.

Inverted motor mount is often times the best way to mount a motor. Not only that, there's no real reason to not have an inverted motor. You always have the option of changing that yourself, but cowl fitment may dictate an inverted motor mount.

Though what you're talking about is technically tip-stalling, but you're talking about it snapping out...and it's almost all about weight and set-up.

We haven't decided on color schemes, but Oracover is a definite must!!

Thank you for your input so far. Opinions on my list? More wants?

nmking09

My Feedback: (61)

Yak 55M with light wing loading (17-19oz/sqft) large control surfaces.

Oh, yeah, no foam core wings on planes that size!!

Murdoc

Removable stab and fin, high quality hardware and landing gear. Huge control surfaces and covering that stays on the plane longer then 20 flights

Mr67Stang

2oz header tank up front.

Ever break a stab? Bolt on is easier to remove and repair/replace as neccissary. Also easier to box up and ship if you want. The Funtana 125 is a similar sized aircraft (a little larger) and it has bolt on stabs.

Oh that brings up another thing. Airfoiled stabs.

Are you looking at a short or long tail moment? Benifits and drawbacks to both.

victorzamora

nmking, 17-19 oz/sqft is going to be a hard thing to hit. There's nothing in that size and class that gets anywhere near that wing loading. I'm looking at 20-23 and, depending on the prototype, we might be making the wings a little bit bigger. Right now, the goal is a maximum of 6lbs and 600sq-in. We might be bumping that up, but that really depends on the prototype.

The wings are definitely going to be built up as I'm NOT a fan of foam core unless I'm the one building it from scratch . I'm on an Undergraduate Airplane Design Team and we have access to a CNC foam cutter, and I love using that instead of built-up...but not on something I can have built.

Murdoc, I hear ya on all of those points.

Bolt on stabs is still a feature we're heavily looking into as long as it doesn't add weight.

The stabs are definitely going to be airfoiled. I'm too big a fan of airfoiled stabs to pass that opportunity up.

About the length, we'll see how the prototype turns out balance wise. Shorter might mean lighter, but I would hate for it to detract from the smoothness. Right now, the first design is destined to be 56" long. Tweaking the length is going to be up to flight tests of the first prototype, really.

Daniel Z

Tall fuse for KE, legs installed on the bottom not in the middle of fuse to save weight, a 14-16% airfoil to fly slow but still glides, and the most difficult... wings capable of rock free harriers AND snaps

victorzamora

Noted....and that's going to be something that I'll have to fight for, but I think that we've come up with a plan for that. I'll fight for no wing rock in harrier as well as enough control authority to snap deep and hard!!

KE is my favorite basic maneuver, so these planes will definitely KE well with little to no coupling. If not, I will refuse to even try to sell these things.

The airfoil I haven't quite decided upon. A thicker airfoil is floatier and a little better for some maneuvers...but a thin airfoil makes a plane smoother (generally) and do better in many other maneuvers. That's going to get tweaked with the prototypes.

Eganwp

My Feedback: (1)

This sounds awesome! I'm excited to see a prototype. Honestly, if it's not going to be a scale looking plane, make those wings MASSIVE. Adding another rib or two to a new design adds hardly any weight, but the payoff in wing loading will be absolutely worth it. I promise, if you and your dad can build a 60 size plane with HUGE wings and tail surfaces to get her cubic wing loading really low, everyone on these forums will be buying one. Plus since it's not a typical edge/yak/extra it doesn't have to be scale so who cares! It's something so critical and almost to the point where people are going overboard, but a plane with light wing loading will sell planes.

Personally, I don't think 600 squares is enough. Heck, my super sportster 40 has 555 sq. inches and it only weights 5 lbs and flies pretty heavy! Pump those wings up to 800 squares, even if it requires 1 setup-up in engine, and you'll have a real winner.

For me, I also would love to see 50* surface throws on tail, 40* on ailerons.
Removeable 2 piece wings
Strong LG area (aluminum bracing like many of the new designs if possible)
Huge wing area
I don't mind perminant tail surfaces
Good hardware, or else none at all.
Cheap!

Mr67Stang

I have a Saito 1.15 waiting for this plane. When is the delivery date?

I will have to agree with a previous post about increacing the wing area. 600 squares at 6 lbs puts you at 23 oz/sqft. While I do not want you to build a Funtana 125, I reference it for it's advanced design in a reletively small plane. It has 1108 squares at 8-8.5 Lbs (let's just say 9 lbs since they never turn out like advertized). That gives us 18.7 oz/sqft. at 9 lbs. If you accept that the the Funtana 125 is your competition and beat it at every turn. Your product will do well.

Murdoc

This is gonna be awesome. I love that your really going for this

Daniel Z

I can recomend to you to use diferent airfoils in the root and the tip of wings, I had great sucsess with 12% root to 16% tip, this can make your plane stall the root first thus no tip stall and smooth harriers, and it allows you to taper the wing to have better roll rate and snaps, with big chord at the root and good taper you can easy achieve more than 700 sq/in in the surface

Good luck!

victorzamora

Murdoc (I'm responding here first because it's quickest)....I know, me too!! My dad said it half-jokingly a couple months ago...and now we're looking for ARF manufacturers! I'm So pumped!!

Eganwp, this is going to be based on a scale plane...so there's only so much I can do without the looks starting to suffer. 800squares might be a stretch. I'm hoping to be able to keep it at or under 6lbs. Hopefully 700 squares is a more likely number. At least for the first prototype. 6lbs and 700squares is under 20 oz/ft2. The Fliton Edge is one of the best flying planes in this size range, and its wing loading is between 20 and 23. In fact, I want this plane to compete with it (without the horrible build). I really want this plane to be absolutely over powered with a Saito 100...so 6lbs is vital to the plane. We'll get the wings as big as looks decent without breaking 6lbs.

Tons of throw is definitely going to be necessary. I'm double-beveling the hinge lines as per standard with 3D planes now, with a little extra beveling to ensure that the plane itself isn't the limiting factor on control throws.

I hear you on the hardware, too. I'm going to do my best to get the good hardware with the plane.

The bolt-on elevator is mostly for assembly ease. It might not be with a tail tube because of the increased weight of that set-up and ultimately, performance is the MOST important thing with these planes.

Daniel, 12-16 seems about right and is precisely what I was thinking. Between that and a little bit of wing twist and we're set on demolishing that wing rock. Right now, I'm just trying to figure out the incidence angles...but that has little to do with wing rocking.

The taper is going to be dependent on the plane. There are hopefully going to be 3 different models, and each one will have its scale (or close to scale) taper and sweep. I can't divulge which ones are going to come out yet...but I'll tell y'all that I'm really excited about the models coming out. I've wanted two of these in this size range for a while now, and the third is simply one of my all-time favorites. However, I fear I've said to much already.

victorzamora

Oh, and what do y'all think about servos? Right now, I'm considering standard size servo holes all around and including five ply adapters for standard to mini servos. Rudder pull-pull in the fuselage behind the wing tube, and two slots in the tail for elevator servos. I don't know how I feel about possibly requiring 2 elevator servos or your own adaptation for a single elevator servo. I have just never seen a good way of setting up a single elevator servo in a high performance model.

Aero31t

This all sounds great to me...

What I would want is basically what everyone else is saying, but I would add that what I really like in a plane is the scale appearance to be exact! Landing gear, cowling, and canopy must be scale appearing...I can't stand when I look at a plane and the canopy is bubbled up so bad that is has no scale appearance. I haven't yet seen an Edge 540 that comes even close to resembling the new Red Bull Air Race style...I think if a company did that, that would be huge. There are companies that have tried, and look pretty good...But they don’t meet my standards. Hah.

Also...I think there’s one thing that could really help an ARF company sell planes...Offer a solid color scheme option. White or Black, so customers can put graphics on, or even paint their own planes.

As far as mechanics of the plane...Composite reinforcements on the engine mount and landing gear...a must. And anywhere else strength is needed...Quality hardware and carbon fiber is great too!

bgw45

My Feedback: (1)

VZ, if you can, take a look at the Precision Aircraft MX. A 58" electric that I think is built with remarkable innovation. I could give you some ideas for your project. Look at the specs on that model. My son has one and it flies superb.

victorzamora

Aero, I really do love the Edge 540X, and the RBAR in general. However, the Edge 540T is commonly touted as better in KE due to its longer canopy reducing the roll and pitch coupling as well as increasing side area for more rudder authority. Also, all of those pretty scale details simply add weight. As for solid color schemes, added mfg costs will determine that...but I'll look in to it for sure, thanks.

One more thing...there is literally no way to produce a completely scale Red Bull Air Race Edge in this size range with my goal weight, intended for the motor range it's intended for, and durable with incredible hardware and tons of CF all while keeping the price of the ARF under $200 is impossible to do. Believe me, I'd love to have a plane with Carbon through it (huge fan)...and I'm looking into carbon where it's absolutely necessary (boosting the Wing Area, really). I'm going to have to compromise some thing for others to make sure this thing is a good deal for all of you, too. If it's not close to that $200 mark, I'm afraid people will be unwilling to trust a new designer. I'm in contact with the manufacturers about the increase in cost (and their ability) to do carbon and fiberglass work for reinforcements throughout. Also, a big goal of mine for this aircraft is for i to be extensively prefabricated. However, that is also dependent on the manufacturer's price for that. I'm fighting to get y'all the best flying, best deal in this size range that I can.

bgw5, my problem with the ExtraMX is that it has an aspect ratio of 4.6, the full scale has an aspect ratio of 6.15. I know that doesn't sound like a big difference, but in looks it's everything. Precision Aerobatics did an incredible job with that plane and I don't mean to take a THING away from them. And while there are definitely some things I will take away from that design, there are a lot of things about the plane I simply do not want to emulate. Also, a lot of those features only work because it's strictly an EP aircraft. Plus, it costs WAY more than my target price for a smaller aircraft.

Daniel Z

Victor: Washout may take out wing rock but when you flip the plane wash out turns into washIN, so It may be better upright and worse inverted, I have done something very close to your objectives (avatar plane), and diferent airfoils on root and tip have taken all the wing rock out
and if you have limitations on CF please use it in the landing gear because I think is where you can have greater savings in weight

Mr67Stang

Carbon Fiber landing gear and wing tube and a few key features then you can easilly break into the $250-$300 range. The risk factor of an upstart ARF from a no-name may be over the top though. You would have to donate one to a very reputable reviewer that can publicize the results for you to hit the higher dollar mark.

I will admit that I kind of lost interest when you emphasized the plane would be "scale". Lets face it. Real planes don't 3D. Planes designed to 3D are the best at it and rarely resemble a real plane. So called scale planes like Yaks and Extras that do 3D well are tipically much larger than 60 size and have grossly exagerated control surfaces from there full scale counterparts. It sounds like your ball is already rolling and obviously a poster or two in here do want a scale representation so you will have your market. My first post stated that I wanted, "something never seen before". Therefore scale was out of the picture, for me, from the get go.

victorzamora

Daneil, I've been looking at the wash-out thing...and literally scratched it off of my list right before I looked at this post. And yeah, that would be the place to put some CF in. The wing tube, tail tube (possibly), and landing gear block reinforcements are the most important things for me to have in CF. I'm pushing for a CF spinner, too.

Stang, I've been trying to decide which reviewer to beg for a review once this ball gets rolled on a little farther.

Also, I don't mean that it's going to be completely scale. I simply meant that they're going to be based on full-scale planes. I want these planes to still have the heart and soul of their full-scale counterparts. By no means am I trying to accomplish an "unenhanced" R/C model. I have already tweaked the first design considerably from its full-scale counterpart. By "Scale," all I meant was it's not going to be like the Extra MX or the Fliton Inspire or a Mojo 60. Like I said earlier, I want this plane to be a replacement for the Fliton Freestyle planes....but better flyers. I had a Fliton Edge that was the best flying plane I've ever flown. However, I understand that slightly bigger wings, more control surface deflection, more features, and a much better build. This is a plane designed by a pilot and an Aerospace Engineer, not a Scale Masters competitor. I want a good looking plane that flies GREAT. Right now, with a wing loading of under 20oz/ft2 I think that these planes are going to do VERY well in the air. I know that they're going to far out-fly my thumbs.

Aero31t

I should clarify what I mean when I say scale as well. I just mean scale appearing, or scale based....I agree with you that it should be built to fly like a 3D performer, large control surfaces, with allowance for long throws.

Mainly the fuse and cowling are the two biggest areas where I see most models out of proportion in my opinion…Also, I really like the looks of the landing gearcuffs as well. I’m a detail person, so these are things I really look for…Along with how well the aircraft is going to fly and perform. I’m not afraid of spending an extra $75-$100 for something that has the fine details that im looking for...

victorzamora

I'll ask the manufacturers about gear cuffs for you.