GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
03-17-2003, 09:10 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Se, AK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
I have a Great Planes 10-300 Utimate Bipe that I would like to start puting together. After studying the plans for a few days. I came to the conclusion that the ribs they have with the kit are a little thick.
It seems to me that the airfoil being used is desinged for extra lift. I was contemplating going with a NACA 0014 airfoil that is about half the size of the one in the kit, and extending the chord another inch or so.
It seems like the airplane might benefit from this along with substituting some of the stock wood with some smaller sticks to make it a little lighter with out interfering with the structual integrity because this thing looks like a tank on the plans. Any thoughts or sugestion would be greatly apreciated.
Thank you
It seems to me that the airfoil being used is desinged for extra lift. I was contemplating going with a NACA 0014 airfoil that is about half the size of the one in the kit, and extending the chord another inch or so.
It seems like the airplane might benefit from this along with substituting some of the stock wood with some smaller sticks to make it a little lighter with out interfering with the structual integrity because this thing looks like a tank on the plans. Any thoughts or sugestion would be greatly apreciated.
Thank you
03-18-2003, 01:10 AM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Gordon:
If you want an Ultimate leave the airfoil alone.
If you want a rocket that happens to look like an Ultimate have at it.
The thick airfoil is the base for almost all slow and fun fliers, not to mention 3D.
When you thin the wing you decrease the lift at a given angle of attack and airspeed, thickening acts in the opposite manner. There are limits, of course, but before you got there you'd proably decide it didn't "Look" right.
By increasing the chord the area will go up, naturally, and tend to cancel the effects of the thinned airfoil, but you still wont turn as sharply with the thinner wing.
But all this is by-the-by. It's your plane, and a large part of the fun is bashing. Try it and see how you like it!
Twin to you means wings.
. For me, engines are the things.
Bill.
PS: Your thinned wing will probably have a sharper leading edge, and that will raise the stall speed with other considerations the same. wr.
If you want an Ultimate leave the airfoil alone.
If you want a rocket that happens to look like an Ultimate have at it.
The thick airfoil is the base for almost all slow and fun fliers, not to mention 3D.
When you thin the wing you decrease the lift at a given angle of attack and airspeed, thickening acts in the opposite manner. There are limits, of course, but before you got there you'd proably decide it didn't "Look" right.
By increasing the chord the area will go up, naturally, and tend to cancel the effects of the thinned airfoil, but you still wont turn as sharply with the thinner wing.
But all this is by-the-by. It's your plane, and a large part of the fun is bashing. Try it and see how you like it!
Twin to you means wings.
. For me, engines are the things.
Bill.
PS: Your thinned wing will probably have a sharper leading edge, and that will raise the stall speed with other considerations the same. wr.
03-18-2003, 03:11 AM
#4
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Se, AK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, BUT!!!!!
Thank you you for all your great advice but I was going on what I read from MODEL AIRPLANE NEWS and the article from Chip Hyde. here is a quote
"This is where I feel the Ultimate really excels. With the added drag of the flying wires, the Ultimate gives the pilot a lot of time to think, and that’s a huge advantage—and the wires add tons of strength and allow you to use very thin airfoils (and I have always been an advocate of thin wings!). I love it when somebody walks by and comments about how long it must take or what a pain it must be to assemble the airplane because of the wires"
That is what I was wondering about if you can get this smaller bipe to perform better with the thiner wings and flying wires for support. And by reducing the weight.
Kit bashing is part of the fun in this hobbie. Trial by error. Thank you all and lets keep them flying.
"This is where I feel the Ultimate really excels. With the added drag of the flying wires, the Ultimate gives the pilot a lot of time to think, and that’s a huge advantage—and the wires add tons of strength and allow you to use very thin airfoils (and I have always been an advocate of thin wings!). I love it when somebody walks by and comments about how long it must take or what a pain it must be to assemble the airplane because of the wires"
That is what I was wondering about if you can get this smaller bipe to perform better with the thiner wings and flying wires for support. And by reducing the weight.
Kit bashing is part of the fun in this hobbie. Trial by error. Thank you all and lets keep them flying.
03-18-2003, 03:28 AM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Gordon:
Rephrasing my earlier post: Go for it.
Welcome all help from Hyde.
. Good man to have at your side.
Bill.
...and a large part of the fun is bashing. Try it and see how you like it!
Welcome all help from Hyde.
. Good man to have at your side.
Bill.
03-18-2003, 04:12 AM
#6
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Se, AK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Originally posted by William Robison
Gordon:
Rephrasing my earlier post: Go for it.
Welcome all help from Hyde.
. Good man to have at your side.
Bill.
Gordon:
Rephrasing my earlier post: Go for it.
Welcome all help from Hyde.
. Good man to have at your side.
Bill.
Gordon
03-18-2003, 04:53 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sterling , CO
Posts: 6,059
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
If you look at a tank in the rite way they are a gracefull peace of equipment ,they do what they are designed for but always can have improvements. 10-300 is great bird fly the tail off of it, and send the rest to me!
03-18-2003, 09:16 AM
#8
My Feedback: (8)
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Hey guys, I normally don't get a chance to surf any, but I had a little time so I thought I'd see whats goin on. I saw this thread, so I decided to take a peak. Please keep in mind these are just my opinuons, based upon what I have experienced over the past few years.
The way I look at wings is, IMO, a symetrical wing provides zero lift, since both sides are the same, it requires some angle of attack to produce the lift to overcome the weight of the plane, so it will fly. In that case, as far as bipes are concerned I feel it makes since to go for the lightest airframe possible, and that to me says, light wieght construction and thin. Then add the wires to do all the work for the strength, as well as providing drag to keep it a constant speed.
The difference in a 10% thick wing and a 14% thick wing in drag is probably not enough to be able to tell which was which in the air, and thats if they weighed the same, on a bipe they won't, because strength is not the issue. The 14% wing will definitely be heavier, so it will probably come down faster and that would be both wings without wires. Next add the wires to an even lighter set of wings and now you've made probably the most constant speed airplane possible. (without using varible pitch props or something like that)
As for the free, I am not even sure we need wings anymore<G>, it seems to me, it's just about all power to wieght. Anyway I say try it and let me know how it works. The best little Ultimate I have ever flown was a highly modified goldberg. The chord was widened 1 inch and the fuse stretched 4 inches. He replaced the lite ply sides with balsa, and had a Y.S. 91 in it, at around 7.5 pounds. More wing aera, and less weight, it was pretty awesome.
Chip
The way I look at wings is, IMO, a symetrical wing provides zero lift, since both sides are the same, it requires some angle of attack to produce the lift to overcome the weight of the plane, so it will fly. In that case, as far as bipes are concerned I feel it makes since to go for the lightest airframe possible, and that to me says, light wieght construction and thin. Then add the wires to do all the work for the strength, as well as providing drag to keep it a constant speed.
The difference in a 10% thick wing and a 14% thick wing in drag is probably not enough to be able to tell which was which in the air, and thats if they weighed the same, on a bipe they won't, because strength is not the issue. The 14% wing will definitely be heavier, so it will probably come down faster and that would be both wings without wires. Next add the wires to an even lighter set of wings and now you've made probably the most constant speed airplane possible. (without using varible pitch props or something like that)
As for the free, I am not even sure we need wings anymore<G>, it seems to me, it's just about all power to wieght. Anyway I say try it and let me know how it works. The best little Ultimate I have ever flown was a highly modified goldberg. The chord was widened 1 inch and the fuse stretched 4 inches. He replaced the lite ply sides with balsa, and had a Y.S. 91 in it, at around 7.5 pounds. More wing aera, and less weight, it was pretty awesome.
Chip
03-18-2003, 04:11 PM
#9
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Let me also state that while kit bashing can be lots of fun, it can also take a proven design and ruin it. Chip Hyde is flying VERY big planes that have totally different flying characteristics than do 40 size planes.
If there's one bad feature of the GP Ultimate, it's the landing gear, which tend to splay out on anything but a perfect landing. Do you really want to increase your stall speed which would make the Ultimate land faster?
Many years ago I built a SeaMaster. I decided to cut a foam wing instead of using the built-up wing. I thought it would look "Cooler" with a sharper leading edge (The original wing used a 1" diameter cardboard tube as a LE). The plane flew fine, but you couldn't land it. it either skipped like a stone on the water, or stalled and splashed. Eventually, I cut off the sharp LE and replaced it with a blunt one. The plane is now one of my hangar favorites.
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying consider the consequences. That's a terriffic airplane as-is, you could really screw it up.
If there's one bad feature of the GP Ultimate, it's the landing gear, which tend to splay out on anything but a perfect landing. Do you really want to increase your stall speed which would make the Ultimate land faster?
Many years ago I built a SeaMaster. I decided to cut a foam wing instead of using the built-up wing. I thought it would look "Cooler" with a sharper leading edge (The original wing used a 1" diameter cardboard tube as a LE). The plane flew fine, but you couldn't land it. it either skipped like a stone on the water, or stalled and splashed. Eventually, I cut off the sharp LE and replaced it with a blunt one. The plane is now one of my hangar favorites.
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying consider the consequences. That's a terriffic airplane as-is, you could really screw it up.
03-18-2003, 07:10 PM
#10
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Se, AK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MinnFlyer
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying consider the consequences. That's a terriffic airplane as-is, you could really screw it up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point well taken "MinnFlyer" Thank you, I will keep that in mind. I have decide to go ahead and build the stack wings and then build a second set with mu modifications. I am however going to reduce the weight of the fuse by changeing diffrent stick sizes to smaller ones where the structure wont be compromised.
I will keep you all posted along with some pictures here in the near future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MinnFlyer
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying consider the consequences. That's a terriffic airplane as-is, you could really screw it up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point well taken "MinnFlyer" Thank you, I will keep that in mind. I have decide to go ahead and build the stack wings and then build a second set with mu modifications. I am however going to reduce the weight of the fuse by changeing diffrent stick sizes to smaller ones where the structure wont be compromised.
I will keep you all posted along with some pictures here in the near future.
03-19-2003, 12:02 AM
#11
My Feedback: (8)
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Not sure what minnflyer is talking about with the whole kit bashing thing, so that will conclude my surfing for another few years at least.
I was not bashing anyone, just saying how I thought it was a good idea, and wanted to offer my support to the guy that was willing to try something out of the norm. I thought it was great.
As for me only flying large planes, air is air, and wing loading is wing loading weather you have a 50 inch wingspan or a 100 inch wingspan. Secondly, I rarely fly the big airplanes because of all the work it requires to do it on a daily basis, but what I do fly a lot of are the planes that range from Flip 3D's, to 74 inch wing span Cap's Ultimates and Extras.
Sorry for the intrusion, I would never encourage screwing up a perfectly good plane.
Chip
I was not bashing anyone, just saying how I thought it was a good idea, and wanted to offer my support to the guy that was willing to try something out of the norm. I thought it was great.
As for me only flying large planes, air is air, and wing loading is wing loading weather you have a 50 inch wingspan or a 100 inch wingspan. Secondly, I rarely fly the big airplanes because of all the work it requires to do it on a daily basis, but what I do fly a lot of are the planes that range from Flip 3D's, to 74 inch wing span Cap's Ultimates and Extras.
Sorry for the intrusion, I would never encourage screwing up a perfectly good plane.
Chip
03-19-2003, 01:34 AM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Chip:
Don't go away mad, just....stay around and enjoy.
If you have a question, ask, if you think you can assist have at it, if you think you can prevent an error chime in.
RCU is here for all of us, it is intended to be educational as well as enjoyable; a place to share good ideas and, once in a while, to shoot a bad idea down.
But on your comment "Air is air," no sir, it is not. From around the 30% size and up, it's pretty constant. But when you go into the smaller planes the aerodynamic characteristics change rapidly.
That's why the wing that works well on Chip Hyde's Ultimate makes Minnflyer and me cringe when Gordon talks about using it on his much smaller plane.
If you're interested, do a little research on "Reynolds Number." Doesn't cover everything, but it will lead you towards, maybe, a greater understanding.
Repeating myself: Stay. Enjoy. You're always welcome here.
Don't want to post, just want to lurk?
. Hey, if that's your bag, who cares? It'll work.
Bill.
Don't go away mad, just....stay around and enjoy.
If you have a question, ask, if you think you can assist have at it, if you think you can prevent an error chime in.
RCU is here for all of us, it is intended to be educational as well as enjoyable; a place to share good ideas and, once in a while, to shoot a bad idea down.
But on your comment "Air is air," no sir, it is not. From around the 30% size and up, it's pretty constant. But when you go into the smaller planes the aerodynamic characteristics change rapidly.
That's why the wing that works well on Chip Hyde's Ultimate makes Minnflyer and me cringe when Gordon talks about using it on his much smaller plane.
If you're interested, do a little research on "Reynolds Number." Doesn't cover everything, but it will lead you towards, maybe, a greater understanding.
Repeating myself: Stay. Enjoy. You're always welcome here.
Don't want to post, just want to lurk?
. Hey, if that's your bag, who cares? It'll work.
Bill.
03-19-2003, 02:18 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ontario, ON, CANADA
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Originally posted by Double-vision
snip
I was not bashing anyone...
snip
Chip [/B]
snip
I was not bashing anyone...
snip
Chip [/B]
Hope you stick around.
03-19-2003, 05:36 AM
#14
My Feedback: (8)
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
I guess I just don't get the lingo, I always thought bashing was badmouthing someone elses stuff. The next thing is how come William Robinson sounds like he is talking to me in the beginning of his post, but then says it makes them cringe when minnflyer talks about using Chip Hydes wing on his little ultimate. (I am the same person)
I cannot debate reynolds #s because I have no idea what they are or do. All of the planes that I design just come from experience, and because it looks right to me.
My first real design was the Jekyll series, 88-96, and everyone told us the wing was too thin, the stab was to thin, the tail moment was to long, half exposed pipes were no good, and so on. We sold well over 1200 of those planes world wide not because of the #'s, but because it worked. When I design an airfoil, I hand draw half of it on a piece of paper, then just fold it in half and trace the other side so it is Sym.
Jekyll's, Ultimates, hydeouts, hydeaway, and now the double vision all have airfoils that I came up with. The way the 42% came about was like this. Enlarge the 30% wing we had to 42%, but keep the thickness the same. That just made since to me because of the way the 30% flew. I do not know why I felt that way, I just did.
I didn't want to do anything but let minnflyer know I read his post, and I agreed with him completely. I know for a fact it will make that plane fly better if done properly. I am not saying there is a problem, but there is always room for improvement. I had it done to a goldberg Ultimate, and it made it a plane good enough to compete with in FAI, but I lost it in practice before the contest.
Anyway guys, sorry again..........................
Minnflyer IMO you were on the right track , and if you decide to proceed some day, let me know, I would be happy to pass on what have we learned from flying them for the past 15 years.
Chip Hyde
I cannot debate reynolds #s because I have no idea what they are or do. All of the planes that I design just come from experience, and because it looks right to me.
My first real design was the Jekyll series, 88-96, and everyone told us the wing was too thin, the stab was to thin, the tail moment was to long, half exposed pipes were no good, and so on. We sold well over 1200 of those planes world wide not because of the #'s, but because it worked. When I design an airfoil, I hand draw half of it on a piece of paper, then just fold it in half and trace the other side so it is Sym.
Jekyll's, Ultimates, hydeouts, hydeaway, and now the double vision all have airfoils that I came up with. The way the 42% came about was like this. Enlarge the 30% wing we had to 42%, but keep the thickness the same. That just made since to me because of the way the 30% flew. I do not know why I felt that way, I just did.
I didn't want to do anything but let minnflyer know I read his post, and I agreed with him completely. I know for a fact it will make that plane fly better if done properly. I am not saying there is a problem, but there is always room for improvement. I had it done to a goldberg Ultimate, and it made it a plane good enough to compete with in FAI, but I lost it in practice before the contest.
Anyway guys, sorry again..........................
Minnflyer IMO you were on the right track , and if you decide to proceed some day, let me know, I would be happy to pass on what have we learned from flying them for the past 15 years.
Chip Hyde
03-19-2003, 05:48 AM
#15
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Chip:
Had I known you were the one flying Chip Hyde's airplanes I might have phrased my sentences a little differently, but regardless of who any of us are, I still don't think the thin wing will work as well on the .40 Ultimate as the thicker one.
And yes, I was talking to you in that earlier post.
Now, with that out of the way, let me kiss your feet. Your accomplishments have my great admiration. And congratulatins on your latest win.
Now will you give me that beautiful little four cylinder 200?
And I still say stay around and enjoy.
How about good old Chip Hyde?
. He really is at our side!
Bill.
Had I known you were the one flying Chip Hyde's airplanes I might have phrased my sentences a little differently, but regardless of who any of us are, I still don't think the thin wing will work as well on the .40 Ultimate as the thicker one.
And yes, I was talking to you in that earlier post.
Now, with that out of the way, let me kiss your feet. Your accomplishments have my great admiration. And congratulatins on your latest win.
Now will you give me that beautiful little four cylinder 200?
And I still say stay around and enjoy.
How about good old Chip Hyde?
. He really is at our side!
Bill.
03-19-2003, 06:01 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ontario, ON, CANADA
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Chip, I didn't realize exactly to whom I had responded. Welcome!
If you have any more details about the modified Goldberg Ultimate I know I'd love to hear them. As would several thousand other people around here, I'm sure.
Thanks for dropping by this place.
If you have any more details about the modified Goldberg Ultimate I know I'd love to hear them. As would several thousand other people around here, I'm sure.
Thanks for dropping by this place.
03-19-2003, 02:43 PM
#17
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ruston, LA
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Chip
I just wanted to add my voice and say thanks for the input Chip. I like the attitude that if it works use it. If it don't change it.
I am building a CG Ultimate now. At the same time I have enlarged the plans by making a xerox copy 15% larger. This gives me a CG Ultimate with a 62 inch span. Just the right size for a Moki 180. The fuse is stick built for weight and guess what the wings have been made a little thinner, and a tad wider. Why? Because some where I read that is how Chip does it. If it works for him it should work for me.
Stick around Chip, we all benefit from real life experience.
tonyc
I am building a CG Ultimate now. At the same time I have enlarged the plans by making a xerox copy 15% larger. This gives me a CG Ultimate with a 62 inch span. Just the right size for a Moki 180. The fuse is stick built for weight and guess what the wings have been made a little thinner, and a tad wider. Why? Because some where I read that is how Chip does it. If it works for him it should work for me.
Stick around Chip, we all benefit from real life experience.
tonyc
03-19-2003, 04:02 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ontario, ON, CANADA
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GP 10-300 Ultimate Wing's
Most excellent info here. I've wanted a scratch building project, so now I'm one step closer to the ultimate formula. Pun intended.
Start with a Golderg Ultimate, widen chord 1 inch, same thickness on the airfoil, stretch fuse 4 inches, about 7.5 pounds max wieght, YS 91 minimum power... but I'd use an OS91FX I think. Thanks for the info Double-vision, and those who triggered the discussion.
Goldberg does not sell plans. Is there another good source for Ultimate plans?
Start with a Golderg Ultimate, widen chord 1 inch, same thickness on the airfoil, stretch fuse 4 inches, about 7.5 pounds max wieght, YS 91 minimum power... but I'd use an OS91FX I think. Thanks for the info Double-vision, and those who triggered the discussion.
Goldberg does not sell plans. Is there another good source for Ultimate plans?
03-20-2003, 12:57 AM
#20
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Se, AK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am honored!
I would of never thought that when I posted my question and asking for advice on my intentions, that it would of turned out this way.
First and for most let me thank you all for your wonderful ideas suggestions and experience. Second a great big thank you and congratulations on a TOC win to Mr. Chip Hyde, it is my pleasure that after a couple years on a sabbatical from RC. Universe you chose my post. Wow for me it is a great honor for many reasons. I have been following your progress with your 10-300 and the wonderful and amazing things you can make that airplane do.
Personally I have always felt that bipes can perform as well or if not even better than traditional aircraft in the realm of 3-D. When I saw you win TOC with the 10-300 I was aw struck and here I am. Looking for a way to make the smaller ones sing to me.
I have been moderately successful but I keep pushing the envelope never satisfied because I know it can be better.
"LIGHTER AIRFRAME + THINNER WINGS = OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE" One of these days I will bite the bullet and purchase the Artworks 42% Ultimate. I need to convince my wife so wish me luck!
Well not wanting to sound long winded my last thought was that RcUniverse is a place for modelers by modelers so lets not forget that we all have different flying styles and personality's. We are not here to insult or alienate anyone we are here to learn from others and like wise share in our knowledge and love for the sport.
Thank you, Gordon
First and for most let me thank you all for your wonderful ideas suggestions and experience. Second a great big thank you and congratulations on a TOC win to Mr. Chip Hyde, it is my pleasure that after a couple years on a sabbatical from RC. Universe you chose my post. Wow for me it is a great honor for many reasons. I have been following your progress with your 10-300 and the wonderful and amazing things you can make that airplane do.
Personally I have always felt that bipes can perform as well or if not even better than traditional aircraft in the realm of 3-D. When I saw you win TOC with the 10-300 I was aw struck and here I am. Looking for a way to make the smaller ones sing to me.
I have been moderately successful but I keep pushing the envelope never satisfied because I know it can be better.
"LIGHTER AIRFRAME + THINNER WINGS = OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE" One of these days I will bite the bullet and purchase the Artworks 42% Ultimate. I need to convince my wife so wish me luck!
Well not wanting to sound long winded my last thought was that RcUniverse is a place for modelers by modelers so lets not forget that we all have different flying styles and personality's. We are not here to insult or alienate anyone we are here to learn from others and like wise share in our knowledge and love for the sport.
Thank you, Gordon
