RE: slightly slower  
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
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing >> Q-500 Racing >> RE: slightly slower
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: slightly slower - 6/18/2004 4:05:07 AM   
HighPlains


 

Posts: 2715
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: offline
Dave,

It’s quite simple really. Chord of any wing is a line from the leading edge to the trailing edge perpendicular to the center line of the aircraft. This wing’s chord is 10 1/8” all along it’s span, until it reaches past the 47 ½” of the rules. Conventional refers to having the engine in the front, wing in the middle, and the tail at the back. I should know, I was on the rule’s committee when the AMA rules were last rewritten.

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 76

Chord - 6/18/2004 3:39:29 PM   
Stand



Posts: 94
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Austin, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Chord of any wing is a line from the leading edge to the trailing edge perpendicular to the center line of the aircraft.


A line perpendicular to the center line would be a line representing the span not the cord. A line perpendicular to another line is at right angles to that line. I think you meant to say "parallel" to the center line. The center line would be one that runs through the center of the aircraft from nose to tail.

< Message edited by Stand -- 6/19/2004 2:14:56 PM >

(in reply to HighPlains)
       Post #: 77

RE: Chord - 6/18/2004 3:51:37 PM   
js3



Posts: 1145
Joined: 1/30/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline
Bob,

Perhaps you could tell us how you construct your wings. For example, you've said that the choice of airfoil for our racers doesn't really matter very much (that statement ought to stir thing up! ) You've also said that it's important that the wing be sanded correctly with no flat spots or waves along the surface of the airfoil and that it is important that the leading edge not be "too high". Could you explain these statements some please? Maybe you could hit on some of your building techniques too.

Oh yeah, I think I remember you saying that when building the NACA duct fuselage, the degree of taper shouldn't exceed seven degrees. Can you explain more about this?

Much appreciated!

_____________________________

John
I feel a lot more like I do now than I did earlier!

(in reply to Stand)
       Post #: 78

RE: Future of Composites - 6/18/2004 4:01:02 PM   
ChuckE


 

Posts: 7
Joined: 9/19/2002
From: Bloomington, MN, USA
Status: offline
In reply to DMeyer I agree with your comments on the composite impact completely. The humorous (or sad) part of the local 428 scene is that regardless of how high performance the equipment is, a significant number of local racers cut to keep up. This tends to maximize the carnage. A couple weeks ago we pounded over $3,000 of aircraft into each other or the ground wracking up a nice collection of "CO's". Some heats were all zero's. My points are that not only can we not sustain that level of carnage but the end result is that the money invested reduces your cut from 30 feet to 15 feet.

(in reply to DMyer)
       Post #: 79

RE: Future of Composites - 6/18/2004 5:42:52 PM   
DHG


 

Posts: 896
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline
Dave,

The chord is constant; it's the sweep angle that changes. I assume you wouldn't have any problem with a constant-chord, constant-sweep planform like that little Ace "GLH" 1/2A racer from years past ... the only difference being that on the GLH, the 1" sweepback at the tip happens gradually, in a straight line from root to tip, instead of happening all in the last 6 inches of span like it does on Bob's "Havoc".

That's an appropriate name, by the way ... it describes what could result if he wins the Nats with it or something.

Once upon a time, Jerry Small designed a model of the Wild Turkey for QM40. It had an extreme change in taper at about 1/3 of the way out, and the wing thickness (as viewed from the front) changed as well. It was a radical design and Jerry had problems with the first few prototypes, snap-rolling on takeoff and such, so nobody paid any attention to it. Then he got it sorted out, Dub Jett and Norm Johnson started ripping 1:03s with it, and the whining started: "It doesn't have a 'straight line taper'! Everybody knows they have to have a 'straight line taper'! That airplane's illegal!"

Well, yuh, except the "straight line taper" is an old Formula 1 rule, not a QM40 rule. QM40 simply requires the model to resemble the full-scale prototype in all 3 views, and this one did. By coincidence every full-scale prototype EXCEPT the Wild Turkey has a straight line taper. So until somebody built a model of the Wild Turkey and went fast with it, the issue never came up.

It's easy enough to write rules that head off situations like this, but it takes some imagination and forethought -- and of course more words. Nobody likes more words. We all want our rules to be "simple". Reminds me of all those ads for "No money down!" on a new S.U.V. -- so easy to get into, so much harder to get out of.

(in reply to ChuckE)
       Post #: 80

RE: Future of Composites - 6/18/2004 5:57:22 PM   
Freeman Jr.


 

Posts: 84
Joined: 4/11/2002
From: Donny , FL, USA
Status: offline
Well if it is legal I WANT ONE. That thing is cool a SH!!. Bob will you be selling any???

Thanks
Gary Freeman Jr
Team JR.

(in reply to DHG)
       Post #: 81

RE: Future of Composites - 6/18/2004 6:16:55 PM   
HighPlains


 

Posts: 2715
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: offline
John,

It used to be said, ‘walk gently and carry a big stick’ or something to that effect. But I guess for web forums it should be “stir gently with a big stick” ;-) Anyway, anything to keep it interesting, eh? Well this is way long but then I realize that a lot of readers are new to building. This only concerns general construction, another post will take up the other questions…

I build wings the old fashion way, circa 1980’s, of balsa and foam. I usually use common white foam, though I got a hold of “spider foam” from aerospace composites and plan on trying it soon. It is a directional white foam that has about 5 times the compression strength in the vertical direction as in other directions. It is slightly heavier than white foam.

Anyway, I have a set of wing core templates that are built into a nail bed table. The lower core templates are mounted directly to the table, while the upper core templates are cleco’ed to the lower core templates for the upper cut. The reason for the cleco (a temporary aerospace fastener) is because I have a large series of holes drilled in both templates (upper and lower on each end). These holes were spaced in regular intervals on both templates, but different spacing on the top template vs. the lower. What this does is allow me to alter the thickness of the cores precisely so that for a 424 wing it could be sheeted with 1/16” balsa and for 428, as heavy as I feel necessary.

After the cutting of the cores, a bit of sanding with 320 paper and cleaning with the vacuum. I then prepare the sheeting skins by joining them with model airplane cement. I don’t use white glue or ca, because they are a lot harder and difficult to sand. After they are joined, I do most of the sanding while they are on a flat surface, both inside surface (not so good), and the outer surface (this shows). Since I like to use carbon on the bottom of the wing inside the skins, I figure out where to place it, and sand a slight groove into the bottom skin for the thickness of the carbon and glue it to the balsa with Ca. Again I vacuum the skins. Then I apply 3M tape (the tape is 3M 465 acrylic transfer tape) on the skins. This tape is a contact cement with a backing paper that come on a roll. I use the 2 inch wide rolls that are 60 yards long. Enough for about 5 quickie wings. This tape is only 0.002” thick and adds about ¾ oz. to a quickie wing. I put the tape directly onto the balsa in strips and then burnish it into the wood with the backside of a 3M sanding block (while the backing is still on the tape).

After skinning the top and bottom of the wing in the core shucks, I’ll weight the assembly for a day or two if I got time, otherwise, I just sand the leading edge down to the foam and glue on the balsa LE with white glue and masking tape. Later I do the same with the trailing edge. I don’t use shaped stock for either, preferring to carve both to shape. That gives me greater control of the firmness and weight of the balsa used. For skins I like 6-8 pound balsa, though I like 8-10 pound wood for the leading edge. The trailing edge is 1¼” wide, and the ailerons are cut out later at 1” wide.

If you are serious about building, I highly recommend that you buy a triple beam balance. I have an Ohaus gram scale. There are 28.35 grams to every oz. This balance’s scale reads to the tenth of a gram. I can place a freshly glued (white glue) assembly on the scale and watch the weight change as it dries.

So much for the easy stuff, shaping the wing is where the rubber hits the road. Quickie wings are relatively easy, because the airfoil is the same down the length. The first thing is to make a very accurate template of the front of the airfoil. Mine only gauges the first inch or so of the top and bottom and the leading edge radius. Draw the leading edge and the trailing edge lines on the balsa. Start carving and using a razor plane until you are close. This isn’t a race, so take your time. I usually break up the sessions over several days, so that I have a critical eye to look at where I am at in the process. As you keep getting closer to the final shape, use you leading edge guide. I have found that if the leading edge is done correctly, the wing will usually be pretty fast. I once sanded without using much of a guide, got the LE too high on the airfoil, and the plane was a complete dog.

Now sanding the rest of the wing, you must be concerned with having the trailing edge located right for the airfoil, and building it straight with no unintended wash-in or wash-out. For me, this is the hardest thing, so I block the wing on a flat surface and do a lot of measurements. For a lot of the sanding, I cover the skins with masking tape so that I can sand to the surface without changing it.

I bury the wing hold down blocks so that the flat head bolts are flush with the wing surface. For the front of the wing, I use ¼-20 nylon bolts, and for the rear I use 10-24 nylon bolts. The front bolts go through ¾ hardwood dowels that are drilled and countersunk. The rear bolts go though a 1/8 plywood strip that is sunk into the trailing edge balsa. It too is drilled and countersunk for the flat head bolts.

I glass the center section with multiple layers of medium weight glass, usually about 2 oz. cloth. I usually use two or three layers, depending on how fast I want to go. Actually, a 424 quickie can use two layers, while a 428 might need three. You make the glass wider at the leading edge, and narrower at the trailing edge. The load on the wing is greatest at the leading edge which is why I can use less glass and smaller bolts at the trailing edge. I use polyester resin for bonding the glass. I know it stinks, and the catalyst is dangerous (the drops of catalyst cause nearly instant blindness if it gets into your eyes). Be careful. The reason I use it is because polyester cure very hard and rigid. It also sands well, though I avoid sanding the center glass with a trick that I developed. Once the glass is on (widest layers first) and wetted out with the resin, I take a sheet of wax paper and place the shiny (waxy) side down onto the wet resin. I just smooth out the bubbles under the paper until they are gone in all directions. The wax paper is globally flexible, but locally stiff. Surface tension will attract the resin to the surface of the wax paper and the results when you remove it are a smooth surface, even to the edge of the glass were it meet bare balsa. Throw the wax paper away, it is only good once, or you will find out what tedious sand really is!

Cover the wing, place on the airframe, go race…

(in reply to Freeman Jr.)
       Post #: 82

RE: Future of Composites - 6/18/2004 6:18:48 PM   
HighPlains


 

Posts: 2715
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: offline
John,

Now I will attempt to answer some of the other questions.

From what I have observed, the choice of airfoil doesn’t seem to be too important. I like lifting sections, but I saw symmetrical go about as fast. Regardless of what you select, it only works well when made well.

Unfortunately, not much research has been done with airfoils that are 12% thick at our Reynolds numbers. At speed, our 428 Quickie wings are working with a Reynolds number of around 1.3 million. There is much talk about using “laminar” airfoil sections as well. This is somewhat difficult for our applications since we routinely load and unload the wing with either high lift and a medium CL of around 0.6 to 0.7 or low lift with the coefficient of lift near zero. Moving through this range at the low Reynolds numbers a Quickie operates at makes maintaining laminar flow on the wing’s section a fantasy. This is because laminar flow occurs over a fairly narrow range of CL, failure to maintain the correct angle of attack and the airfoil section “falls out of the bucket” with increased drag. One way to prevent or delay this effect is with camber change of the airfoil, or more specifically, by raising and lowering the entire trailing edge of the wing. We are only talking of a few degrees up (reflex) during the straight-a-way, or a few degrees down in the turns. Of course, this adds to the complexity of the wing as well as the weight. The other thing to consider is that any movement of the ailerons will also drop a significant section of the wing out of laminar flow. So I guess that I remain skeptical when I hear of the laminar wing sections used on some airplanes.

All airfoils have laminar regions. What a builder needs to worry about besides the shape of the leading edge, is surface waviness. What this means is that the surface has flat spots sanded into the surface. The best way to see the wing surface is in the early morning or late evening. Hold the wing between you and the sun and slowly rotate the wing while looking at the shadow move across the wing. It should move evenly with no skips. This can also be done with a set of blocks and a dial indicator, but the shadow works well enough is costs nothing. Getting the wing’s leading edge correct and having no skips in the shadow is 95% of making a fast wing. Wingtips and trailing edge is the rest.

NACA did a bunch of work back in the 30’s when all of this was new. Much of what I have arrived at is from mining old research for new truths. 7 degrees is a rather interesting number. For instance, the difference in length of a line that is 7 degree off axis is nearly the same as one that moves right to a point when the endpoints are on top of each other. For air flow, not having to go further means that the pressure gradients are not changed much when the angle is 7 degrees or less. If you examine most airfoils, you will find the trailing edge slopes at about that 7 degrees on the upper surface. Of course, this is a really gross generalization.

The reason that I think that this matters, is because the wing is only about 30% of the total drag when flying in the straight-a-ways. Since we do that about 2/3rds of the time on a course, then worrying about the wing doesn’t make much sense. However, in the turns, the wing contributes about 70% of the drag, so maybe we shouldn’t completely forget it. If we flew a short course, then the wing would start to dominate everything. But since we don’t, I tend to do a pretty fair wing, and have concentrated on the aerodynamics of the fuselage. That simple box makes a huge difference in top speed.

John, did you take a picture of the bottom side of my Havoc? That has a lot of the details that interest me, increasing the width fuselage from the nose to the trailing edge of the wing, then the pressure recovery NACA tail. The side view includes the 7% angle which in this airplane means that the bottom of the fuselage parallels the bottom of the wing from the thick part of the wing to the trailing edge. Not much room remains for the receiver or wing servos, but they do fit with a bit of work. All of this helps the air flow, and prevents separation that causes drag. I am pretty happy with the platform (top view) but am not quite finished with the side view.

Regardless, this fuse seems to work well, since I had good speed with a very sick engine. Your Jett engine really bothers me though, because I think it was way more powerful than the Nelsons there last week. This is not what someone with boxes of Nelsons wants to hear (or say). Dubby, don’t let it go to your head, keep working!

(in reply to HighPlains)
       Post #: 83

RE: Future of Composites - 6/18/2004 6:39:25 PM   
HighPlains


 

Posts: 2715
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: offline
Gary,

Thanks for your enthusiasm for this unseen design. I have one or two small issues to work out with it before I would want to let it go. This one needed weight on the tail to balance, so I may need to shorten the nose slightly or move the servos back or buy a lighter engine. It needs more test flights to determine. But I might consider doing a few short kits and/or planes. The fuselage would be a **** to build without the jigs that I constructed to hold it in alignment. And people in the past have said my fuselages are the ugliest things they have ever seen, although the air likes them just fine.

Bob

(in reply to Freeman Jr.)
       Post #: 84

RE: Future of Composites - 6/18/2004 6:52:36 PM   
daven



Posts: 7011
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline
Great posts Bob. Very good info.

I would like to mention something about your wax paper trick mentioned above. I have been doing the same thing for a while and it really does work good. I told Pete Reed about it, and he gave it a try and found out that some epoxies will stick to the coated side of wax paper. Pete had sent me a sample of his wax paper, and it was the same that I use and sure enough his glue stuck and made a heck of a mess. So I caution people to test their epoxy on the wax and make sure it doesn't stick first.

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com

(in reply to HighPlains)
       Post #: 85

RE: Future of Composites - 6/18/2004 11:21:20 PM   
js3



Posts: 1145
Joined: 1/30/2002
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline
Bob,

Sorry, no. I did not snap any pics of the underside. Those pics will have to wait.

Thanks for the very informative replies!

_____________________________

John
I feel a lot more like I do now than I did earlier!

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 86

RE: Future of Composites - 6/19/2004 2:43:16 PM   
Stand



Posts: 94
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Austin, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

It seems that this issue comes up every year, but no one ever bucks up and shows up at the nats or any big race with a competitive balsa racer GEE I wonder why... THEORY NO WORKEY....LOL


What NATS are you refering to? Last year Darrol Cady flew a woodie designed by Jim Allen and Gary Schmidt and built by me that placed 9th with a fast time of 1:07.98. The fastest time was Randy Bridge at 1:06.35. I don't remember what Jim and Gary flew but Jim placed 2nd and Gary 5th. I believe Jim has won several major events flying his Quik-V design.

Darrol did quite well with that airplane at several contests until a mid air removed it from service.

Theory is not a theory,
Stan Douglas

< Message edited by Stand -- 6/19/2004 2:43:50 PM >

(in reply to js3)
       Post #: 87

RE: Future of Composites - 6/19/2004 10:34:59 PM   
Stand



Posts: 94
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Austin, TX, USA
Status: offline
Watch the "Force" designed and built by Lee Ulinger he will be flying it at the NATS and it' a woodie. Rumer has it he turned a 1:04 at Speedworld today.


Theory; indeed

Stan

(in reply to Stand)
       Post #: 88

RE: slightly slower - 6/19/2004 11:13:12 PM   
leeul