RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       


Premier Pilot 1/4 scale full body pilot
Seller:  Ren DiLeo
Details:   $99.00   |  9/21/2008   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Aerodynamics >> RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/16/2005 2:49:28 PM   
Johng



Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/24/2002
From: Deland, FL, USA
Status: offline
Full scale STOL demo - Pilatus Porter, did not land:



Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

John

(in reply to Johng)
       Post #: 101

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/16/2005 2:53:38 PM   
Johng



Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/24/2002
From: Deland, FL, USA
Status: offline
Winning Brazilian entry in flight. Look at the flex!

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

John

(in reply to Johng)
       Post #: 102

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/16/2005 2:55:15 PM   
Johng



Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/24/2002
From: Deland, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Cedarville

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

John

(in reply to Johng)
       Post #: 103

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/16/2005 2:58:40 PM   
Johng



Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/24/2002
From: Deland, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Micro class - Puerto Rico

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

John

(in reply to Johng)
       Post #: 104

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/16/2005 5:26:59 PM   
Tall Paul



Posts: 4661
Joined: 6/23/2002
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Status: offline 		The rules permit a broken prop, but nothing else, not even one stick of structure.
Akron lost out here because one balsa stick fell off after an "arrival".
There's always a near-certain chance of a sideways skid during landing, so every precaution to keep the wheels intact and on the plane must be taken.

_____________________________

Sparky Paul
http://www.angelfire.com/indie/aerostuff

(in reply to Johng)
       Post #: 105

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/16/2005 5:33:04 PM   
Tall Paul



Posts: 4661
Joined: 6/23/2002
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Status: offline 		John, did "wierdest" nose over every time on takeoff attempts?
Poor thing, just so many things wrong...

_____________________________

Sparky Paul
http://www.angelfire.com/indie/aerostuff

(in reply to Tall Paul)
       Post #: 106

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/16/2005 5:35:36 PM   
Tall Paul



Posts: 4661
Joined: 6/23/2002
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Status: offline 		The winner in flight, looks more like sag than flex.. all the strings are tight.
They should have talked to Jack Aubrey about rigging...

_____________________________

Sparky Paul
http://www.angelfire.com/indie/aerostuff

(in reply to Tall Paul)
       Post #: 107

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/16/2005 7:05:10 PM   
Johng



Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/24/2002
From: Deland, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tall Paul

John, did "wierdest" nose over every time on takeoff attempts?
Poor thing, just so many things wrong...


Not only wasn't that thing an airplane, it wasn't even a ground vehicle. So many basics missing. It would move maybe a few feet then ground loop around itself a couple times, then yes, a nose over with prop-splintering goodness. They came to tech inspection and the kid was holding a wind tunnel model of the wings. I thought it was the tail and he was going to bolt it on.

_____________________________

John

(in reply to Tall Paul)
       Post #: 108

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/16/2005 7:08:59 PM   
Johng



Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/24/2002
From: Deland, FL, USA
Status: offline 		THe micro entry from Puerto Rico was hilarious - and successfull in low wind conditions. It was all EPP foam with fiber-tabe reinforcement. Their highest weight flight was concluded by a nose first landing & cartwheel. Nothing came off, the cartwheel was within the runway, so it was a legal flight. Ha!

_____________________________

John

(in reply to Johng)
       Post #: 109

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/16/2005 10:44:51 PM   
MikeSell



Posts: 801
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: Flushing, MI, USA
Status: offline 		Those milled wheels were on last years plane and withstood landings of a 52# gross weight craft. They have provisions for brakes because with a flick of your finger they spun for over five minutes(actually timed). They are thin to also work as a control surface they were covered with clear covering to fair them for less wind resistance. The are lighter than any similar sized commercial wheel. The wheels themselves have never failed which cannot be said of the second guessing of the participants.
This year the advisor did come up with some commercial wheels that weren't bad. I thought they were going to use them. The team or at least someone on the team decided to go with those milled wheels again.

_____________________________

Straighten up and fly right!

(in reply to Johng)
       Post #: 110

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/17/2005 12:13:53 AM   
MikeSell



Posts: 801
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: Flushing, MI, USA
Status: offline 		I just took a good look at the cedarville plane picture...the ailerons are in air brake position and the elevator is in a major down position to maintain level flight. It must have been an early run with very little weight in it.
Speaking of nose overs the cedarville plane did a doosie breaking in half the first day. The pilot thought it was on the runway but was a couple of feet to the side of the runway in sand. Those narrow wheels were a bad choice at that time.
My son wants to keep the plane as it was "the most stable plane he has ever flown". I have last years practice plane and will probably have this years plane by next year. What do you do with an aerodesign plane after the competition?

< Message edited by MikeSell -- 4/17/2005 9:25:40 PM >

_____________________________

Straighten up and fly right!

(in reply to Tall Paul)
       Post #: 111

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/17/2005 3:45:54 AM   
taylorcraft1947


 

Posts: 22
Joined: 12/20/2003
From: Flushing, MI, USA
Status: offline 		The above picture of the Cedarville plane was taken during the first flight. It was balanced at the rear CG limit and was quite tail heavy, yet it was still controllable. The spoilers were half-way up because, with that weight, it was supposed to be off of the runway at ~6mph! This was way too slow for the tail, as the plane would have been impossible to control. This was done on both of the first two flights. Also, yes, it is the most stable aircraft that I have ever flown, except, well, maybe a telemaster. The stability is no doubt mostly due to the end plates and decently sized horizontal (although, not too big). However, that much stability is not so good in a heavy wind, especially when the plane is lightly loaded. By the way, if the university does not let me have it, I will build another.

taylorcraft1947

(in reply to MikeSell)
       Post #: 112

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/23/2005 5:43:41 PM   
NFOOTE


 

Posts: 37
Joined: 7/6/2004
From: Issaquah, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Of course your wheels spun for 5 minutes, since they weigh so much their moment of inertia is huge, which also means it takes a ton of energy to spin them up on takeoff. Make the Diameter smaller which also decreases your moment of inertia. I was wondering why on earth you guys... aren't using our old wheels from our Winning competition plane that weighs less than half as much and use greaseless precision jewler bearings, true they probably have to be cleaned but that is all. Or Remake them so that the Aluminum rings if they possibly pop off due to hard landings breaking the epoxy glue joint, that they have a lip so they fall inside the bearing housing. By the way our wheels that were made from Kevlar and Carbon are lighter than anything u can buy to withstand that much weight. Oh yea, why on earth DOES ANYONE use O-Rings on their wheels??? All it does is add drag when you are trying to takeoff. Not to mention that aluminum on Concrete creates Plenty of friction. The only wheel that you want any kind of extra friction is possibly the front wheel. This is easily done with a light spraying on of rubber cement glue. Not to mention you only have steering for the first 10 feet, afterwards the rudder kicks in and you don't even need a nose wheel. Oh yea take off diagonally, you gain a bit extra on the take-off distance... Just don't take out the judge, they are rather particular about that!

Totally agree with John drop the o-rings. Whatever creates the least friction and energy on take-off from the wheels is the way to go.

7.5lbs eh for a biplane with only a 60" wingspan? Good Feat From your previous plane of 17lbs!
With only 60 wingspan those wings should have been 1/4 balsa spars with tissue covering or light mylar. You possibly might need some vertical shear webbing where you attach the wings together, but that is about it. The stress induced by such a span is practically nothing. Heck such wings you could build in a couple of hours if you were worried about their durability. Bet this Biplane/triplane would weigh ~5lbs.

Go Brazil, Good Job! I thought when they mentioned a 60" span limit that a triplane would be a good option... Or a super wide chord Biplane with huge winglets... Kinda like a double lifting body. Haven't done the equations for the lifting body, but thought it would be a great option. And a hilarious one, if it actually flew!

I loved the monologue about the Micro Puerto Rican EPP foam cartwheel! Awesome, wish I was there.

Cheers

(in reply to taylorcraft1947)
       Post #: 113

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/23/2005 6:01:00 PM   
natoquick


 

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/24/2004
From: Federal Way, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Our entry from Gonzaga weighed in at 6.25 pounds, and of all the teams we talked to, we didn't hear of anybody who had a lighter plane. We were shooting for a 5.5 pound empty weight, but ended up falling a ways short of that goal, but we wanted to make sure our plane was durable. Oh, and here's a pic of our plane as well:


(in reply to NFOOTE)
       Post #: 114

RE: SAE Aerodesign pics & discussion - 4/23/2005 7:33:29 PM