iceyflyer

My Feedback: (4)

Hey all im looking to design/attempt to build an extra 260 or 300 50-100cc not sure which yet but im having some problems in the design stage so i was wondering if anyone here has any experince design somthing on this scale. if so please post what u have design or built and what program you used. i would like to attempt the entire thing in solidworks but i have some knowledge in autocad if needed.

marwen1

My Feedback: (6)

I am presently working on a TR260

how can we help?

marwen1

iceyflyer

My Feedback: (4)

well the part im having trouble with is the wings more particualr the airfoil.....not really sure on how to go about designing one or where to get a pre made/sketched one so like a dwf or dwg file im guessing.

CoosBayLumber

My Feedback: (1)

Used to be someone offering Autocad plans and parts for such in one of the links to plans noted above. I would think it a good idea to base your work off one of these, than to start out raw as mentioned.

Is simple to resize the plans drawn in Acad, tnat then use that airfoil, with adjustments. Then revise to suit your needs.


Wm.

iceyflyer

My Feedback: (4)

coos thats what i was looking to do but i found all extra plans or files iwere of .40-.60 size planes and i know from building both sizes that the design is far different . how ever if there is a place that offers larger scale planes (25%+) that i would like to have a look at

Alax

marwen1

My Feedback: (6)

iceflyer: R U saying that the foil for the same plame is a different shapw for the different motor sizes?

marwen1

CoosBayLumber

My Feedback: (1)

Marwin...

Could not have said it better. That is what I was thinking when first read responce.


Wm.

iceyflyer

My Feedback: (4)

not nessicarily the airfoil that is different but for example a .40 size would flat tail surefaces where as on a larger gasser they would all be airfoiled.

marwen1

My Feedback: (6)

This copy of the TR260 that I am making right now was drawn by a BRAD SHEPARD.

He claims in his article that he was the originater of the LAZER. If I recall, that was out in the mid to late 80's -- low wing -- and a pretty dasrn good power plant on it. ( AS AN ARF )

If you'd like to see a copy of the wing page, I'll be glad to email it to you direct.

--------

Funny story here. I had a buddy - back in those days, had a .90cc on it.

Was doing 2 -3 POWER loops with it. His comments were
"My God - I love this plane --- iy scares the hell outa me"

On his 3rd power loop, - coming out at the top of an outside loop, killed the throttle,
when all of a sudden, the wing came fluttering off-- safely to the ground -- while the remainder of the fuselage made a
straight POWER DIVE -- 11/7 auger into the ground.

"My God, I love this plane. It used to scare the hell outa me!"

All we could do is stare at each other and laugh our butts off!

It still hangs in the halls of glory -- about 6 inches shorter.

marwen1

iceyflyer

My Feedback: (4)

i sent u a pm marwen

marwen1

My Feedback: (6)

iceflyer: Not too sure if you were able to get my email directly but the reason you could not open that file was conveyed to me that you were:

quote: " Diagnostic code: lmtp;550 5.2.2 Delivery failed: Over quota"

Not sure if you can set your IP to a higher level or not.

That's all. It's close to the end of the month, so that would kind of make sense.

Email me at the first of next month and we'll try again.

marwen1

iceyflyer

My Feedback: (4)

yea i got your emails ill send u an email in a few days

thanks

CoosBayLumber

My Feedback: (1)

Marwin:

Your situation seems calm in comparision to mine. I have been working on a new or fixed up plan for a model once popular in the 1960's. The desginer is alive in Florida, and I have been in contact with him. Sent him copy of the new plan, and got back about 11 items he found wrong or needing revision.

Couple were: Increase length of fuselage about 1-2 inches, increase nose about 1/4 to 3/4 inches, go to 90 glow for power (which doubles the original power) cut dihedral angle in half, increase the landing gear wheel base, and many more. You think these subtle changes then still represent an original?


Wm.

marwen1

My Feedback: (6)

So, Wm: what is your overall goal?

With a small percentage of his "admitted" requested changes, that, in my learnings --- says that YOU now have a set of plans that you may refer to as YOUR COPYRIGHT!

I have a few legal begals for friends.

If a photograph is taken -- the copyright goes IMMEDIATELY to the photographer that pushed the button on the camera. ( a few minor variances apply here)

If I make CHANGES to that overall image, it is NO LONGER the image that WAS SHOT!

A draftsman makes a layout of (in our case) an aircraft. simply reaarangeing them on the page, in the legal sense of the word, changes the copyright. However, you know the author is going to call foul!

Now, in your case, you have changed the overall physical apperance of the FLORIDA author.

With his blessing ( and I'm sure he didn't mean to) gave you a green light to rename it!

By making a substantial change in the original by around 20% DEEMS IT A NEW DRAWING!

So, the name of this --- is --- what? LOL

maarwen1

CoosBayLumber

My Feedback: (1)

The aircraft plan he sent me was all altered this way and that. It may have been a biggie winner at the AMA Nat's but the days of that boxy design are long gone. Much of the alterations to original plan look to have been done in the 1990's by a friend of his. Actually, I should say "Plans" for they came on separate sheets. Oh, did I forget to mention he lost the original for the Hoz-stab?

I had an original plan from back when, and it was one of those "Lets show all the options, but only give it a one-half wing" for good builders can then figure out the full wing. 'nuff of that biz. The ribs shown on the original plan were NOT TO coordinates cited in article and plan, but "close to instead" so then things graphically fit in one location and not another. Using corrected (and tested) coordinates things then took a swing to "Oh, this was the original intention", which he confirmed.

Much of that original build has details upon how to Stitch with Thread, the rudder on to the fin, but with DuBro parts today, who does it that way anymore. Everything regarding the "Stitching" was then bleeped out.

And a Veco .45 is hard to locate today, but a common Tower Hobbies of same size is cheaper and stronger too. Oh. the original had Zero right or down thrust. But notes came back to alter this just a bit. Long as I know of such, it can be accomodated tomorrow quite easily.

It looked simple to begin with, but is not now.

Wm.

marwen1

My Feedback: (6)

What a BITE! It kind of reminds me of the lady called me as few days ago, wanting me to help her do something with her iPod. She said that everything was soooooooo hard. My feedback to was perhaps a little aloof. I helped her with it but then I said "nothing is hard" as long as you know how to do it.

Then in my mind set, I'm having a problem trying to understand some of the direction and/or logic of this TR260 that I'm working on.

As I see this set of plans, both the fuel tank and the smoke tank are permanently sealed into a compartment behind the motor. To me, that doesn't make any sense!

marwen1

CoosBayLumber

My Feedback: (1)

Marwin....

I worked on a little 1/2A set of plans couple years ago. Stupid fuel tank had to be placed up near windshield area, then realived, just how does one go about getting to that area? Can it be slipped in there, but then bolting it down is a problem. Original model had one of those glow engines with fuel tank for mounts, but I did not.

Got to think ahead some times, for you do not know of a bad problem until you experience one your self.

Wm.