Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s)  
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
       


25%Yak54 with SPE26 COMBO - ARF
Seller:  peakmodel
Details:   $499.00   |  10/9/2008   |  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 >> Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s)
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/19/2002 11:11:30 AM   
BMatthews



Posts: 8949
Joined: 10/4/2002
From: Burnaby, BC, CANADA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by john_89
....
I should also incorporate an ejection seat or bomb bay for message drops over a friend home. Wa da ya think? [/QUOTE]

Just write the note on that roll of toilet paper......


_____________________________

Bruce-
Proudly wasting balsa since 1965.

Free Flighters go that extra mile........

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 76

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/19/2002 11:52:00 AM   
William Robison



Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Bruce:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BMatthews


Just write the note on that roll of toilet paper...... [/QUOTE]
Emulate the WW-2 British bomber pilots and do a "Bumpf" run.

John:

Li-ion and Li-Poly are both possible, as is NiMh. Of these three I would prefer the NiMh because it is the more proven. But all three have current limits lower than NiCd batteries.

This thing is going to be expensive enough without trusting an $8-$10k airplane to unproven technology. Have you filed your request for funding?

That's not as frivolous as it sounds. Talk to Elson, the world of academe has been assisting him in his expenses for years. You might even work out a deal with him to extend his bug hunts to the "Northern Territories." I've already asked him to come here and get all our mosquitos.

He is using 3w engines, the one he mentioned was the 24cc single. And I thought you had dismissed a sailplane, can't count on thermals. You could investigate powered sailplane, but they fly sssooooo ssssllllllllllooooooooowwwwwww.

You might carry a rotten egg in your bomb bay, see if you could hit yourself on the head. Haw.

Li-Ion, Li-Poly and no Nicad? NiMh is bad, but EGAD!

Bill.

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 77

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/19/2002 12:20:54 PM   
IMCub


 

Posts: 85
Joined: 12/5/2002
From: Corvallis, OR, USA
Status: offline 		Evening Bill ... now I see why you like twins so much ... it looks like you need both engines just to fly your battry packs!

Elson,

Any place online or in a library I can read more about your project. Do you remember the issue of Model Airplane News you were in?

Cheers!

Cub

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 78

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/19/2002 1:24:07 PM   
William Robison



Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline 		C'mon, Cub,

That 4400 mah pack only weighs a little over 1 1/4 pound! And I needed the weight for balance anyway! It has a Saito 120 (Old heavy version), MAS 14x9 three blade prop, a big 3.25 Spin-Rite aluminum spinner, and I still needed the weight with all the radio gear shoved as far forward as I could get it.

I bought an 1100 pack for it, (seven servos) but when I needed the weight I just used the big battery cells. I could save at most a half pound by putting lead all the way up front, but I'll probably work the CG back and end up with the 1100 pack. We'll see.

HEY JOHN! WAKE UP! IT"S NOT EVEN 2:30 AM! WE'RE WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWERS!

Make your twin fly good, use big batteries and light wood!

Bill.

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 79

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/19/2002 2:56:43 PM   
john_89


 

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/2/2002
From: New Lisbon, WI, USA
Status: offline 		You mean these these exotic new batteries have less energy storing density than the Nicad? Thought the Li-ion was being used because it packed so much punch! Just idle wandering about sailplane flyers Being RPVers since they fly at such high elevations, how can they see their litte birdie? 3W must the engine company. Actually I've been thinking of loading the bombbay w/ birdie guano. I could drop some of that around so's folks wouldn't think I was Superman or something!

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 80

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/19/2002 3:02:10 PM   
john_89


 

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/2/2002
From: New Lisbon, WI, USA
Status: offline 		A sort of camoflauge. Sounds a capability our military would pay millions for. Maybe a stealth guano enhancement.

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 81

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/19/2002 10:32:06 PM   
BMatthews



Posts: 8949
Joined: 10/4/2002
From: Burnaby, BC, CANADA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by john_89
....
Just idle wandering about sailplane flyers Being RPVers since they fly at such high elevations, how can they see their litte birdie?
.... [/QUOTE]


We (sailplane flyers) eat lots of carrots. It's good for the eyesight don'cha know. I keep a bushel sitting by my computer just for these intolerably long sessions here on RCU......


Seriously, all the better sailplane fliers have gotten to know their model's flying charactaristics so well that they can fly the model reasonably well even when it's just a dot just by using the direction the dot is moving, it's apparent speed and trust....... a LOT of trust. This is why it's quite a jump to go from the free flight inspired poly ships to the flat winged aileron birds. Many pilots take hours of flying time to regain that trust and comfort level to fly when it's specked out.

And I'd just like to add that this thread is sure going down the potty..... Humour wise that is..... Having higher standards than the rest of you I won't sink so low as to relate what my father and the rest of his crew used to do while over Germany in their Lancaster....... LOL


_____________________________

Bruce-
Proudly wasting balsa since 1965.

Free Flighters go that extra mile........

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 82

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/19/2002 10:50:07 PM   
john_89


 

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/2/2002
From: New Lisbon, WI, USA
Status: offline 		Bombs away, all I can say! Roger that on the sailplane drivers. Someone recommended doing a sailplane for its inherent long duration but I doubt it would want to turn on 1 wing while getting a good look at 1 of my wild neighbors. (Possibly a 600+ lb blackie. Don't how many kilos that is in Canadain.) Probably not a very low stall speed either. Do you agree w/ the All-Seeing, All-Knowing I love livin' in the swamp-Bill that this project needs to have several grand invested. Not the way I like to do things I build myself-expense wise, that is.

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 83

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/20/2002 4:28:28 AM   
BMatthews



Posts: 8949
Joined: 10/4/2002
From: Burnaby, BC, CANADA
Status: offline 		I think you can keep the budget down to less than a grand if you do a lot of it yourself and cut back on what it's capabilities are going to be. But there's going to be a lot of testing and version inbetween. The $ per version wouldn't be all that high but the cost of the program would be up there after a couple of years.

I'd start with the basic trainer like the Telemaster and learn to fly and then start modding that with elements of the UAV project. Get the GPS board and couple that into the airborne controls and get it working at first within visual range so you can hit the panic switch and take back control at any time. You can easily see the model at 1/4 mile range and that gives you a total of 1/2 mile between way points for testing to check stability and autonomous control. After that the camera goes into the model and you work out THOSE bugs. Then you start boosting the signal strength of the equipment and you're ready to range out further. These are just the basics as they are coming to me at the keyboard but I think you can get my drift. Ya gotta start with the crawling before you try for the Olympic high jump gold, eh? (That last bit is Canadian, eh? )

Oh and something that just popped to mind. A routine that monitors the ground link at the model and automatically climbs for altitude in event of a signal lose wouldn't be a bad idea. Nice to stay in contact I would think. Might make all the difference around hills or wet trees that like to suck up the Hertz.


_____________________________

Bruce-
Proudly wasting balsa since 1965.

Free Flighters go that extra mile........

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 84

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/20/2002 4:37:35 AM   
john_89


 

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/2/2002
From: New Lisbon, WI, USA
Status: offline 		Another great idea from the Canadian "Brain" Bruce Matthews. My thinking had been along the lines of engine kill &chute deployment 10 seconds after loss of radio contact. Your idea seems better, but my 1 concern is of having a mid-air collosion when she goes up. Keep on wasting that balsa because a tree is truly beautiful once you make something of it.

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 85

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/20/2002 9:52:05 AM   
BMatthews



Posts: 8949
Joined: 10/4/2002
From: Burnaby, BC, CANADA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by john_89
.... but my 1 concern is of having a mid-air collosion when she goes up...... [/QUOTE]

With what? You'd better start imagining a bigger clearing in that mind of your's..... LOL

This is where the learning to fly and getting familiar with the model FIRST comes into the picture.

Ya know after learning to fly you may find that you're having so much fun that the idea of giving up control to some onboard Silicon won't seem like such a good idea. The rest of us don't do this out of some altruistic love of science.....

It's a long winter ahead. Get some radio gear and a kit and start building dooood.


_____________________________

Bruce-
Proudly wasting balsa since 1965.

Free Flighters go that extra mile........

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 86

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/21/2002 12:09:39 AM   
William Robison



Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Bruce:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BMatthews
I think you can keep the budget down to less than a grand if you do a lot of it yourself[/QUOTE]
You're right. John doesn't have to do anything himself except open the box and fly.

There are several planes on the market that come complete with the radio and etc. in the box. The fuel/batteries/so forth can be had for less than $150, he's flying for less than $600. If he goes in cold, without an instructor, his first flight might even last 5 seconds. Remember, it's easy to fall off that column of air when you're new to flying.

But Bruce, you're wrong at the same time. The airplane we've been talking about is not a $1k plane. The Micro Pilot, GPS, and video systems alone are going to cost $5k to $6k, and the plane is more yet. And John still doesn't know how to fly it.

So, John, my strong suggestion (Something that I think hasn't been yet mentined here) is get a good simulator as a very first step. My favorite is "Real Flight Generation 2."

Here are a couple threads concerning sims: (they look the same, but they are not)

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/tm.asp?m=92209+Flight

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/tm.asp?m=94146+Flight

Not only is the RFG2 excellent, it will keep you inside when you could be outside catching pneumonia. Maybe your health insurance will pay for it? Haw!

Fly your twin on a sim, the cold wont sap your vigor and vim.

Bill.

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 87

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/21/2002 1:18:49 AM   
BMatthews



Posts: 8949
Joined: 10/4/2002
From: Burnaby, BC, CANADA
Status: offline 		Will, that $1000 was what I was guessing the budget on the UAV project would be after his first "first learn to fly" efforts.

The 1 grand would be just for things like an OEM GPS board and other components for making up the onboard brain and RF signal boosters and such. But only if he did ALL the development work himself.

As soon as you turn it into a "black box" operation then all budgetary bets are off.

Yeah, the first trainer model and accessories will run about 6 bills.... depending on his resistance to the "shiny object syndrome"....


_____________________________

Bruce-
Proudly wasting balsa since 1965.

Free Flighters go that extra mile........

(in reply to john_89)
       Post #: 88

Long-range, Slow Low Flight Design(s) - 12/22/2002 2:25:59 PM   
IMCub


 

Posts: 85
Joined: 12/5/2002
From: Corvallis, OR, USA
Status: offline 		Bruce,

The "shiny object syndrome" ... ??? ... is that looking at the plane flying in amazment, forgetting to control it?

Maybe this should go in a different thread, but how about a list for the first trainer and accessories ...

H9 alpha plane, radio, and engine $309, fuel $15, starter $25, starter bat $25, glow plug bat/clip $20, spare props $5, flight/tool box $25, buddy box cord $20, glow plug wrench -- approx. $450 to get off the ground.

Am I missing anything?

Two disadvantages to this totally prebuilt setup.
1. The radio is limited - only 4 channels, limited trim/range of motion adjustments and limiting its usefulness for more advance planes
2. No building experience acquired.

The advantages to this totally prebuilt setup.
1. The radio is limited - only 4 channels to worry about being setup correctly.
2. No building experience required.

My advice is buy your first plane ready to fly, and start building your second. If the ARF trainer survives relatively intact, sell the plane, radio, and engine for half price and consider it $150 well spent.

I also think the flight simulator is a great idea. I was ok up high with lots of room for error, but coming at me close to the ground ... I was not. Between my first landing (which broke my prop and bent my gear) and my second landing, I bought Real Flight G2 and put in 5 or 6 hours of stress free low level flying. On my second day of real landings I took it off on my second flight of the day, landed on the third, and soloed on the 4th.

I just sent Real flight G2 to my nephew and hope I can solo him and his dad at spring break.

Cub

(in reply to john_89)