steprman

If you're looking for your first plane, or maybe you already have an Aerobird, please come check out my website. I've gathered tips, including modifications, from many different places that will be of great help to you with this plane.

http://home.ptd.net/~steprman/

Hope you like it,

Andy

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Great start on your new web site. Let me know if you are looking for content. I have written tips and tricks for this plane. If you search on my site name, AEAJR, you will find many posts.

Some people may think I work for the makers or distributors, but I don't. I sell computers for a living.

I am also very interested in your conversion to a standard flight pack. Can't wait to see and read about what you did.

steprman

...thanks for the post. Actually, you and I have written back and forth in email land, so some of your tips may have already worked into the web site. I will search for your other posts, when I get some time. Thanks again! Andy

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Great. I thought we might have exchanged some notes.

I didn't see much past the first two pages, so I wanted to make the offer.

jdoyle

I don't fly my Aero-Bird anymore so I'm thinking about making a snow buggy out of it with skis.
I'm going to cut off the boom and make a rudder and a set of skis for it but I dont know if the ways the controlls are mixed will cause rudder problems.
I'll Find out I quess!!!
JIM

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Very interesting idea!

wings

Have two aerobirds, so I have starting tinkering with the electronics in one. I am going to see if you can removed the control wires (not the power wires) from the servos and rearrange them in a way that eliminates the mixer. It seems logical. I got it apart a few weeks ago and kinda lost interest on the project because I was having troubles resoldering the wires and got frustrated.

Has anyone tried this? There are three inputs on each servo. I assume it is kinda like digital input (either on/off, 0/1). But not quite sure because it is proportional to stick input, but this may be taken care of with the actual power wires. I am not sure. So I think if you get the correct combination it may eliminate the mixer. If I accomplish this I may try to but a convential tail on it, but with out the rudder control. I then can attempt to make ailerons for the wings with the second channel.

Does this sound far fetched? If anyone has evidence that it is completely impossible please share it with me. I think it would be kinda cool if i could get it to work.

By the way, you have very nice page so far.

Wings,

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Since the mixer is built into the contol board, I think you would have a very hard time trying to eliminate it. It would not be done at the three lines to the servos. You would have to isolate the part of the circut board that has the mixer logic and somehow bypass it. I don't think it would be worth the trouble. Most likely you would destroy the board.

Why not just take out the guts and go to a standard receiver and servos? You would need a radio with 3 channels. With a 4 channel radio you could leave the tail alone and just turn on v-tail mixing. Then Ailerons go on the 4th channel.

However you are still dealing with an undercambered wing which will resist inverted flght. Also, since it is foam and not supported to accept aileron input, you will have to reinforce or replace it with a stiffer wing, otherwise it will flex a lot when you give it aileron input.

If you want a plane with ailerons, I would not modify the aerobird. I would go to a new plane. There are lots of kits or ARFs in the $40-60 range that would be much beter suited.

However if you do go forward with your project I would love to see the results.

wings

Na, I don't want to put any money into it. I have a plane with ailerons. I just wanted to mess around to see if I could do it. I get side tracked very easily so it may be a while before I try to mess with it again. It will probably never happen because I alway dream up far fetched ideas then give up on them. But thanks for the input.

Wings,

steprman

I have managed to replace the control board that came with my Aerobird with one of my own creation. This allowed me to use my Futaba radio, saving me on AA batteries for the traditional Aerobird radio. Most importantly, and the reason that I did it, was to be able to connect a Buddy Box to my Futaba which would allow my kids to fly the Aerobird, with me as the "trainer".

"aeajr" touched on a interesting point in his last post and that is, that the Aerobird is now far more aerobatic, so much so that I have collapsed several sets of wings; even one with built in main spar. I have now added a piece of 20lb test fishing line to the underside of the wing, under the main body and back to the other side of the opposite wing. This line acts like a strut and seems to save the wing from folding during high performance turns which I can achieve using elevon mixing in my radio.

Certainly an expensive modification to an inexpensive plane but it has been a great learning experience for me.

Andy

Crashem

Steprman,

After reading your first post and your last post I applaud your ingenuity. But I have to ask how can you reccomend this a good first plane????

In your last post you have gone to alot of trouble to "standardize" the Radio found in the stock areobird while this shows you have technical ability you have gone to considerable lengths to create an upgrade (a trainer system) that is standard on most modern Radios as is the use of nicads

You further state that the increased modifications have caused several failures of the wing.


Your last comment seems to some up my feelings exactly
It seems to me that the lengths you have gone to to make your Aerobird perform better would cause one to conclude that this plane is NOT a good beginner or trainer plane most would not have the patience or expertise to make the modifications you have to get a model with the type of performance improvements, rather IMHO they would be better off buying a plane and gear that could do this without modification.

I am in no way bashing you... simply pointing out that it seems to me there are much easier ways for a beginner to learn.

steprman

No, no.....thanks for the reply.....but, you and I are on way different subjects here.

I do believe for say a 15 year and up, that the Aerobird, as it comes out of the box, is a great plane in many repsects for the first time buyer. I expect no one to modify an Aerobird as I did, as there is just not much point to it.

The Aerobird, as it comes, is a great plane for a first timer......I know, it was mine!!

:-)

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Andy, what kind of stunts are you doing with the Aerobird Challenger that you are collapsing wings? I presume you are flying in Pro mode. I have never folded a good wing on my Aerbird. I folded wings in the air, but they were damaged wings that I had tried to save.

We now have 5 Aerobirds in our club and I am not aware of anyone folding a good wing in the air. One guy is wild with his and HE hasn't folded any wings. Believe me, I would know. From the time he launches till he lands that plane is in constant turns, rolls, stalls, loops and he even gets it inverted for short periods. Oh, and he does all of this at full throttle at 50'. He doen't seem to like to get too high.

Certainly the Aerobird Challenger is highly aerobatic for a three channel park flyer, but I have never seen one fold a good wing. You must have some wild stunts figured out.

Tell! Tell!

wings

What is your hang up about the Aerobird, its like you get mad if anyone likes the plane? lol. It was my first plane. I think it is a great way to learn to fly. It is cheap and durable with three channels. Now I will agree that it probably isn't the best electric trainer. But, I think it is probabably just about one of the best electric trainers for the price.

I do think they are cheaply made and not the most dependable. But hell, for $150 bucks for a beginner plane that you most likely will toss aside and fly very little after you move on, it is a pretty good plane to learn on.

Also, I think the aerobird is difficult to fly. But why not learn on something that is difficult and sturdy and go to something that flies better and is less sturdy later. You can't go wrong.

I went form the aerobird to LT 40. The lt 40 is much easier to fly than the aerobird. This is why I learned to fly it immediately! And I didn't scrap the lt 40! And I didn't get an instructor or join a club like many people on here say is required for sucess!


Just my opinion. To each their own. But I don't know why you have to get your feathers in a ruffle everytime someone has something good to say about the aerobird. If you don't like it, your entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean that your opinion is correct.

Wings,

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Wings,

Well said!

steprman

This wing folding problem ONLY started, after I pulled the electronics out and replaced it with my mine own. Therefore, I have altered both the flight controls and the amount of deflection I can put into the V-Tail. In my Futaba radio, I used Evon mixing and reduced the amount of throw tremendously to minimize the amount of control surface movement. I would say that the CG has moved back by about 0.25", but that's all I can find. other than that, I can find no other changes............but something is different; as the wings now fold. (without the fishing line strut.)

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

OK, so your bird is not stock anymore.

Any idea how much weight you added? Could be your wing loading is exceeding the wing strength.

steprman

....good point and good question. I balanced the old board against the new board as best I could, but I didn't have any really ideal method to compare the two. They are close, but how close is close enough when it comes to wing loading? (Can't say I know too much about that)

In a previous post you caught my interest, when you wrote:

"However you are still dealing with an undercambered wing which will resist inverted flight. Also, since it is foam and not supported to accept aileron input, you will have to reinforce or replace it with a stiffer wing, otherwise it will flex a lot when you give it aileron input."

Would you explain " undercambered wing" for me? I'd like to know what you mean. While my modified bird doesn't use Aileron's, I am using Elevonmixing in my radio, which is an elevator function blended with ailerons. You caught my interest when you said "it will flex a lot when you give it aileron input"......how true..... it flexes all the way to the point of folding straight up!! (With the new fishing line strut, it flies pretty awesome, for a weird, one of a kind plane.)

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Before reading my comments, bring up this page in another browser window and refer to it as you read. The pictures on the right and figure 3.1 toward the bottom will help to make things clearer. You can read the text on the page if you like, but I am only using the pictures here. http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/Wing31.htm

Before I begin, while I have basic understanding of aerodynamics, I am not an aircraft designer. I am just a guy who likes to get into the technicals. I am told I am pretty good at simplifying those technicals so I can explain them to others at a practical level. I guess that comes from 23 years in sales in the computer business. Let's see how I do.

Simplistically, there are three types of wings. There are variations and degrees, but basically three:

Wings with flat bottoms, wings with bulged bottoms or bottoms that curve down, and wings with concave or curved up bottoms. As I understand it, the last one is called undercambered because the bottom of the wing actually curves up following or approaching the camber, or shape, of the top of the wing.

This kind of wing produces very high lift at low speeds. I expect that is why a lot of our parkflyers have this kind of wing. The aerobird, Sky Scooter, Slow Stick, Tiger Moth, are all examples. This is an intentional design feature to provide a plane that behaves in a certain way. This is one of the reasons the Aerobird glides so well at slow speeds and why you can climb so fast with a firebird without an elevator, just by using the throttle. If it had a flat bottom wing, it would still climb, but very slowly. Neat design!

However this design fights inverted flight. When you roll it over that high lift factor is pushing the wing down so the plane does not want to fly upside down. I would guess that you would need a huge elevator to fight that downward lift in inverted flight, and most likely the plane would just lose altitude in a level fashion.

Add to that the dihedral, the fact that the end of the wing is higher at the tips than the root, where it attaches to the fuselage. This is a characteristic of most entry level planes because it makes them fairly stable and makes it easier to turn with rudder control alone. Polyhedral wings, wings that go up, then up again at a sharper angle are even more self stabilizing so a poly wing is REALLY hard to fly inverted.

So, put undercamber together with dihedral and you get a plane that REALLY REALLY wants to right itself. The combination makes it very hard to remain inverted for very long. You are fighting two intentional design features of the plane that want you to be right side up.

This is perfect behavior for a beginner plane. This is a major reason why the Aerobird, and frankly the entire bird family is so easy to learn to fly. The are very stable and want to right themselves.

I hope that was not too confusing.

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

It occurs to me that this undercambered wing design combined with the light wing loading common on parkflyers may be the reason that a lot of the glo pilots find them hard to fly. I don't recall seeing any glow planes with this kind of wing. That is probably because those planes typically fly much faster than the parkflyers and slow flyers common to the electric community.

I recall reading somewhere that the Aerobird, flat out with a 7 cell battery is probably doing about 25 MPH and is stable probably down to about 6-7 mph. A typical .40 glo trainer is probably closer to 40+ MPH and would probably stall at 10 MPH. These speeds are all guesses. I have not documentation to back these numbers.

Glo trainers tend to be flat bottom wings and the more advanced planes have more curved bottoms. Both are more appropriate to advanced acrobatics as compared to the undercambered wing.

To them, this hi lift design may present strange behavior making it hard for them to control the plane. Of course those of us who learned to fly on this kind of plane expect this behavior, so to us it is normal.

steprman

Actually, that was a fantastic breakdown on the subject and the web site reference took it another step forward. I appreciate you taking the time to explain that for me...always nice to learn something new. Again....thanks very much.

Unfortunately....Aerobird III (rebuilt w/ GWS flight controls inside) died a sudden and painful death last night. I was up 100 feet or so, bringing it around in a gentle circle, setting up to let a friend drive it via my Buddy Box. Something failed and I tried to recover the fall one to many times under power, which drove the plane into the ground at 30+ MPH. It's toast. In all my Aerobird crashes of old, when I was learning to fly, I have never completly wiped out an Aerobird, in one crash, like I did last night.....and in front of 2 good friends!!

Aerobird IV - (using parts from # III), will fly again, but many hours will be needed to construct it. Maybe like all experimental aircraft, #IV will be even better.

Thanks again for the information.

andy

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

O hope you took photos of how you modified the plane to be on standard equipment. Lots of people would love to see that.

What actually broke so badly that the plane is dead. I have dropped my from 150 feet due to a control line failure - my fault - and the bird lived, but I did not dive it in, it sort of spiralied down with the motor off.

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

In case our friend did not take photos of his Aerobird converted to standard equipment, here is a link to a Firebird XL converted to standard equipent and three channels. Same body, so the same mods woudl work.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...5&pagenumber=1

Crashem

No hang up, simply think there are better ways to waste 150.00. Just my opinion

Feathers are not in a ruffle maybe you need to take your own advice my opinion may differ from yours and there is no need for you to get your feathers in ruffle

IMHO I believe that the 'bird series of planes has harmed the hobby more then helped.


Wings maybe you could help me with these comments you made?????

In your first statement you call the plane cheaply made (I'm assuming from the context of your statement Cheaply is refering to quality of construction rather then cost of construction) and not the most dependable, Then you go on to basicly endorse the product because the only charged you a little for it. To me cheap and not dependable equals bad product at any price!! Then you state that most people will toss it aside after learning (BTW I have a 8 year old trainer in flying condition and I bet others can beat that)

In your second statement you claim the arebird is difficult to fly. But yet you reccomend it for beginners? Wouldn't it be prudent to recomend a plane that is easier to fly? You then claim plane is sturdy yet you have already described it as "cheaply made and not the most dependable". So my question is? After reading what you wrote how can one conclude that this would be an ideal plane for a beginner??? You have bashed the plane worse then I ever have yet you seem to take offense at my dislike of the plane... go figure

steprman

aeajr,

I did take many photos of the modified control board and also many crash photos []

I would like to add them to my web site, but that takes time and I have so little........blah, blah, blah. I will add the shots soon.

The Aerobird (w/ GWS flight controls) was blown apart in such a way, like I have never seen before. Example: The 7 cell battery I was using was ejected out the BOTTOM of the plane through the plastic seam weld; spitting the plane in half. Actually, the battery itself was ripped apart down to the individual cell level with 5 of the cells hanging out of the bottom of the plane EACH by only their connection to the next one up in the chain. The nose was smashed in and the canopy was destroyed with cracks. Both sides of the foam tail were stripped off the body hanging by their fishing line control "rods".

I pulled my flight pack, the original motor and the tail spar......everything else hit the can. [:@]

I will rebuild....I will fly, the Bird, again.


andy