RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Search This Thread

Printable Version

All Forums >> Electric Aircraft Universe >> Park Flyers & Backyard Flyers >> RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread Page: << < prev 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 [45]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/6/2010 8:01 PM

Swift427

Posts: 522
Score: 100
Joined: 3/15/2007
Last Login: 2/28/2010
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Status: offline

The idea of a fairly inexpensive RTF 3-channel aileron parkflyer held so much promise … for tighter turns in a smaller park while learning basic aerobatic maneuvers(and X-port). However, overtime the marketing success of the HZ Swift possibly turned out to be the most disappointing RTF plane ever sold in the $100-$200 price range. Is there any intermediate or advanced pilot out there still flying their Swift that has anything good to say about it?

Has any diehard Swift owner ever owned a better plane than the Swift when it comes to learning the SIGNIFICANCE (cause & effect) of the: (1) Center of Gravity Along the Wing Chord; (2) Angle of Attack; (3) Pusher Motor Thrust Angle; (4) Prop Design (Blade Size, Prop Pitch, Prop Thrust); (5) V-tail versus Traditional Rudder & Elevator; (6) Wing Load, Wing Dihedral, etc; (7) Molded Plastic versus Foamy; and (8) Etc, Etc. The greatest plus for me and my Swift was learning … via the school of hard knocks … what constitutes good aeronautical design. Was there ever a better RTF plane ($100-$200) then the Swift when it comes to learning about profit margin marketing versus how NOT to design a plane? Was there ever a better plane than the Swift to so demonstratively teach us the advantages of a foamy twin boom pusher aileron design over that of the HZ Swift?

Critterhunter’s 1/22 post on page 19 of Here's A Simple & FREE First Foam Build Plan! (33,643 views) … http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6910714/tm.htm ... sums up the feeling of many when it comes to a more practical KIS beginner aileron plane design. The basic twin boom pusher design throughout this thread is posted again in critterhunter’s latest post of 1/22 … http://www.foamflyer.info/plane.html

The irony is that even if a company like Multiplex had marketed a 3-channel aileron version of a twin boom pusher design over the same time period as the HZ Swift … the Swift probably would’ve by far still attracted more buyers. Enthusiasts (like myself) thought we were saving money by buying the colorful, sleek looking Swift (w/ailerons). What does that say about us; even more so if we gave up on the Swift before ever learning why the Swift was so temperamental?

Happier Trails

< Message edited by Swift427 -- 2/7/2010 12:35 AM >

_____________________________

Never Give Up, Never Slow Down, Never Grow Old, and Never Ever Die Young

Hide Signatures

(in reply to tam popo)

Post #: 1101

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/7/2010 1:44 PM

tam popo

Posts: 3341
Score: 100
Joined: 2/6/2007
Last Login: 3/14/2010
From: glasgow, , UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

Swift my pal, how are you - OK I hope!!! What you have just said is spot on. The point I want to make and add is that the Newbie needs to see his plane fly at some time, even if its just for a quick loop of the filed. The Swift was very hard (impossible?) to get it to do this for all the reasons you stated.
I've owned and flown most of the usual Trainers since the Swift and ALL of them flew, some better than others. The EZ* was the best, followed by GWS , Pico Tiger Moth, Slow Stick (brushless), plus the Stryker in verious forms. Ok, so you needed to build them but it wasn't that difficult, and the parts could all be transferred in case of a wipeout. I'm now flying a Liteflite Bug sort of plane (Bongo) 'cos I need to fly from my wheelchair in tennis court-size areas - no problem. We've moved on, right??
If there's anyone in the UK who wants an EasyCub, a plan-built gasser, or a SlowStick cheap or free PM me. Even you Dunkelman. I'm downsizing and need the funds for a new micro 4-Site!!!!
See ya guys, always look forward......

_____________________________

Born to fly and loose my postings on RCU......

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Swift427)

Post #: 1102

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/8/2010 1:20 PM

Dunkelmann

Posts: 13
Score: 100
Joined: 6/25/2009
Last Login: 3/16/2010
From: LIVINGSTONScotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

Yes the Swift wasn't a success, however there were some positives:

Simplicity - The plastic body and boom meant there was less to break. However it meant the electrics were difficult to get at.
Ailerons - for me this was important; I simply didn't want a Mickey Mouse rudder only trainer

The AXN Clouds Fly looks like (still haven't flown it) a better trainer. It's 4 channel, all foam and a pusher. One bad design feature is that it has the servos on the underside of the wing. There are a couple more in this style (Hawks Fly, EZ*)

Now if Hobbyzone copied that (servos on top though) and provided it as a RTF with at least 35MHz (better 2.4GHz) radio, or as an ARTF without radio and receiver then I think they'd have a hot candidate to rival the EZ*. You could fly it without ailerons if you wanted.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything they replace it with. Seems to me the market is missing something here, for those who don't want to be Cub rudder pussies.

< Message edited by Dunkelmann -- 2/8/2010 8:54 PM >

Hide Signatures

(in reply to tam popo)

Post #: 1103

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/8/2010 2:30 PM

tam popo

Posts: 3341
Score: 100
Joined: 2/6/2007
Last Login: 3/14/2010
From: glasgow, , UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

Dunkelman....I take your point about ailerons etc, but the EZ* doesn't have any, just rud/elev. But it is still one of the best planes IF the rudder size is increased slightly. Same with the sCub, Slowstick, etc. The Swift has to be tough as old boots to take all the knocks it gets, whereas the real flyers don't crash as often (I hope!!). Anyway, keep your eyes on RCME magazine (March) to see what I'm selling off - EasyCub, 3 S-Sticks, i.c. plan-built Plane and lots of goodies......'cos I'm going 'indoor' and small now.
Bye guys......

_____________________________

Born to fly and loose my postings on RCU......

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Dunkelmann)

Post #: 1104

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/8/2010 11:52 PM

Swift427

Posts: 522
Score: 100
Joined: 3/15/2007
Last Login: 2/28/2010
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Simplicity - The plastic body and boom meant there was less to break.

Compared to what … balsa? Certainly not compared to the advantages of a stronger foamy. The Multiplex MiniMag could be outfitted/flown as a 3-channel aileron trainer requiring fewer replacement parts and fewer repairs. As could the EZ* with one aileron mod ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCBbLVJpa1U or GWS slow stick or any 3-channel plane. The only definite Swift positive was it’s cash flow to Horizon Hobby. It’s looking like HZ maybe phasing out all of their V-tail boomers leaving only the PZ Slo-V.

quote:

Ailerons - for me this was important; I simply didn't want a Mickey Mouse rudder only trainer

The aileron feature and price was the reason all of us bought a Swift. The AMA/club beginning instruction(non-parkflyer) is that you first learn aileron control for turning and only use the rudder control (throttle/rudder toggle) for (wheel steering) lining up the plane on the runway for takeoff. Then later you advance to using the rudder control in combination with aileron. So as opposed to a parkflyer with the elevator/rudder on the same toggle it made sense to many of us to learn the right way … with the elevator/aileron on the same right toggle as with any 4-channel TX.

The only advanced/elite pilot exception might be for 3-channel slope soaring with a glider and riding thermals with an electric glider/sailplane. So, it would seem to be that the control you use the most for making turns (rudder or ailerons) should be on the same toggle as the elevator control.

I’d like to see HobbyZone market a little RTF pitcheron foamy similar to the Multiplex Fox glider with a 20 gram brushless outrunner in the snoot with a folding prop. Maybe even in two sizes (20” WS and larger more powerful for taking on some wind … slope soaring). Afterall isn't that what all parkflyers want ... tighter turns for flying in parks.

Maybe, the HZ engineers need to retake Mr. Herbert's Science Class ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=optpPyqNCsE&feature=related ... and think about all the HZ parkflyers having an interest in combat flying and pylon racing. Oh and Yes, true zippy aerobatic maneuvers with aileron, not some imagnative marketing lingo.

< Message edited by Swift427 -- 2/9/2010 2:18 AM >

_____________________________

Never Give Up, Never Slow Down, Never Grow Old, and Never Ever Die Young

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Dunkelmann)

Post #: 1105

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/9/2010 7:57 AM

Dunkelmann

Posts: 13
Score: 100
Joined: 6/25/2009
Last Login: 3/16/2010
From: LIVINGSTONScotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swift427

quote:

Simplicity - The plastic body and boom meant there was less to break.

Compared to what … balsa? Certainly not compared to the advantages of a stronger foamy.

No I didn't consider balsa for a beginner electric RTF. Perhaps there are some but not that I know of. I compared it to foam. Bear in mind this was my first ever RC plane. I've crashed it several times and all I've had to repair/replace was foam. The rubber nose and plastic body probably protected things and stood up to my crashes as well as foam would have. Yes the foam would have dented or broken and would have been repairable with glue, but it was one less complication for a beginner.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the use of ailerons in training as the first step. When I flew for real as a boy on air experience flights, I used no rudder. Similarly when I spent more time than I care on live internet dogfight simulators, the rudder was rarely used with a vengeance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Swift427)

Post #: 1106

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/11/2010 1:49 AM

Swift427

Posts: 522
Score: 100
Joined: 3/15/2007
Last Login: 2/28/2010
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Status: offline

The rudder is useful when learning at a club field for keeping it straight going down the runway and again for landing. But for a hand launching, belly landing parkflyer aileron control is more important than rudder control; especially in a restricted park surrounded by trees and rooftops.

I'll go so far as to say that 3-channel planes with the rudder and elevator on the right stick are toys.

_____________________________

Never Give Up, Never Slow Down, Never Grow Old, and Never Ever Die Young

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Dunkelmann)

Post #: 1107

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/11/2010 6:58 PM

kenstogie

Posts: 32
Score: 100
Joined: 6/23/2007
Last Login: 2/23/2010
From: Albany, NY, USA
Status: offline

I had one of these after flying the Aerobird 3 and was not that impressed either. It flew but....

Now the Aerobird 3 I LOVE!!!!! not the electronics they suck but the airframe with a 3s Lipo (1300 works great), a 30 A esc, stock motor and a suitable tx/rx that thing SCREAMS!! Love that bird basically goes vertical. But that brushed motor won't last that long. (i have 5 spares

)

Hide Signatures

(in reply to SUPERGONZO)

Post #: 1108

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/11/2010 8:58 PM

Dunkelmann

Posts: 13
Score: 100
Joined: 6/25/2009
Last Login: 3/16/2010
From: LIVINGSTONScotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

Aerobird 3 - no ailerons, no skill, no fun (in my very humble opinion).

How tightly does it turn? Apart from the power what else does it offer over the Swift?

Hide Signatures

(in reply to kenstogie)

Post #: 1109

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/17/2010 9:33 PM

Swift427

Posts: 522
Score: 100
Joined: 3/15/2007
Last Login: 2/28/2010
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Status: offline

The Aerobird 3 incorporates what could be called evelon control on the V-tail for tighter turns; whereas, the Challenger's(predecessor to the A3) V-tail used ruddervator control. Some of the more experienced Challenger pilots modified the ruddervator V-Tail to a ProTail(see photo). It about doubled the V-Tail control surface, making the plane much more responsive to your control inputs.

Parkflyers might find the A3 too responsive(squirrely) if they likewise doubled the surface area of its evelon V-Tail.

Attachments

Click to see fullsize image.

Click for fullsize

_____________________________

Never Give Up, Never Slow Down, Never Grow Old, and Never Ever Die Young

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Dunkelmann)

Post #: 1110

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/18/2010 7:45 AM

Dunkelmann

Posts: 13
Score: 100
Joined: 6/25/2009
Last Login: 3/16/2010
From: LIVINGSTONScotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

I'm not sure I follow the difference Swift.

If the only control surfaces are on the tail section then they are rudervators aren't they?

Elevon = elevator and aileron and ailerons are on the wings. Don't elevons only apply to wing aircraft where there is no tail section?

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Swift427)

Post #: 1111

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/23/2010 1:12 AM

Swift427

Posts: 522
Score: 100
Joined: 3/15/2007
Last Login: 2/28/2010
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Status: offline

The main wing on the Aerobird 3 is fixed (no ailerons) with the 40-45 degree V-tail mixed so that: (1) both V-tail flaps move either up or down together (same throw rate) affecting pitch; and (2) its flaps can swing independently or together (albeit in opposite directions and at different Pro Mode throw rates) causing the bird to both yaw and some roll with yaw being more pronounced (ruddervator).

Page 11 of Aerobird 3 manual shows V-tail mixing and difference in throw rates from Sport Mode to Pro Mode. http://www.hobbyzonesports.com/ProdInfo/Files/HBZ3600_Aerobird3_manual_LoRes.pdf
In the Sport Mode only one flap of the V-tail is used for turning with a moderate throw rate.
In the Pro Mode both V-tail flaps are moved for turning, but the throw is now greater on the opposite flap thus putting the A3 into more of a dive when turning than a climb when turning in the Sport Mode. Also, there would be some roll; however, minor.

With combat flying there are times where a quick dive maneuver while simultaneously turning(Pro Mode) is more evasive than a moderate climb while turning(Sport Mode). This is the way the A3 is setup. With a more powerful outrunner a combat pilot might at times want to use an evasive climb/turn maneuver and not always rely on an evasive dive/turn. So for example with an evasive climb/right turn in Pro Mode the left V-tail flap would now have the greater upward throw; while the right flap would now have a moderate downward throw. As it is now in Pro Mode the right V-tail flap has the greater downward throw; while the left flap has a moderate upward throw for dive/right turn. Thus, the reason many advanced pilots convert some of these brushed parkflyers to outrunner using DX6i / AR6200 for more mixing options.

With V-tail flaps moving opposite each other(with same throw rate) they’re serving as both a dual rudder with respect to a planes yaw and as ailerons with respect to a planes roll. Because they are so far rear/behind the planes CG wing load the yaw is more pronounced than any roll with a V-tail. If the V-tail is more vertical then any single flap function would affect yaw considerably more than roll. On the other hand if the V-tail is opened/spread then when its two flaps are swung in opposite direction (same throw rate) it would be more of an elevon V-tail than a ruddervator V-tail. When I googled "V-tail aileron" there are some hits with fixed wing parkflyers that only have control surfaces on the V-tail which we normally call "ruddervator" however, depending on the flap surface area (ProTail) and angle of the V-tail it's conceivable that a low V-tail could effect a roll/bank as much as a yaw turn.

Rudderon (rudder+aileron), Elevon (elevator+aileron)
Rudderonvator (rudder+aileron+elevator)

However, because the A3 V-tail is about 45-40 degrees from horizontal (or 90-100 degree spread), and because the mixing throw rate of the A3 (Pro Mode) is greater on one flap than the other opposite flap … one can conclude that the A3 V-tail in Pro Mode is definitely more ruddervator(yaw) than aileronvator(roll/bank). And because the opposing throw rates are different the A3s pitch is also affected when applying either left rudder and right rudder in Pro Mode. If you want to be really picky I suppose someone could argue that all three (yaw,pitch,roll) are affected to some degree with either left or right rudder even in Sport Mode.

Would it be incorrect to refer to the A3 V-tail (Pro Mode action) as “rudderonvator” even though any noticeable roll/bank(snap) is nothing to brag about. Afterall, the A3 main wing is fixed (no flaps), so any change in the A3s pitch, yaw and roll has to be the result of V-tail flap mixing action.

_____________________________

Never Give Up, Never Slow Down, Never Grow Old, and Never Ever Die Young

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Dunkelmann)

Post #: 1112

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/23/2010 1:14 PM

Dunkelmann

Posts: 13
Score: 100
Joined: 6/25/2009
Last Login: 3/16/2010
From: LIVINGSTONScotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

Thanks for a very comprehensive explanation Swift427. It is an interesting way of doing things. The roll effect will obviously be a lot less than with ailerons. The Swift is probably not bad at shallow turns (<45 degrees) because the lower elevator acts as an elevator and the upper acts as a rudder. On steep turns you need a lot of elevator input just to keep level since it tends to drop without it.

I must say I find the Aerobird 3 a curious design. The Swift isnt good at rolling but I guess it is better than the AB3. It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall at the meeting that said "let's ditch the Swift" (perhaps in favour of the AB3).

It would be good to see a fly-off (combat) between the two.

I'm going to have to search for some AB3 video to see it at its best.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Swift427)

Post #: 1113

RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread - 2/26/2010 9:11 PM

Swift427

Posts: 522
Score: 100
Joined: 3/15/2007
Last Login: 2/28/2010
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Status: offline

quote:

It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall at the meeting that said "let's ditch the Swift" (perhaps in favour of the AB3). It would be good to see a fly-off (combat) between the two.

Neither are being produced any more and most LHS are out of stock. They were two different birds with pilot experience determining the winner(with respect to fly-off/combat). Real commercial planes with ailerons on the main wing have no need for V-tail elevons. However, there are some exceptions in special situations as described below.

Aileron/elevators and body flap for roll, pitch, and yaw control ~ Patent 5707029
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5707029.html

The present invention discloses an aircraft control system having simultaneously controllable rear aileron/elevators and a retractable body flap for longitudinal stabilization. The aileron/elevators are airfoils comprising the complete horizontal tail plane. Control arms for the rear aileron/elevators are capable of pivotal movement about the longitudinal axis of the aircraft while the aileron/elevators are secured to the control arms by axles pivotal about the lateral axis of the airfoil, for directional control. With two degrees of rotational movement, the aileron/elevators are capable of maneuvering the aircraft in all three axes, providing a much simpler mechanism than the conventional control surfaces. Added safety is accomplished by removing lateral control from the wings. Weight savings and reduced drag also result from eliminating the vertical stabilizer and rudder and consolidating the controls for both ailerons and elevators of conventional aircraft.

The control system of the present invention provides a single control mechanism, eliminating the need for wing mounted ailerons or the vertical stabilizer and rudder of conventional aircraft.

Split span vee tail control arrangement for air vehicle ~ Patent 5224665
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5224665.html

An active flight control arrangement for an air vehicle that includes a split span vee fin tail control arrangement whereby inner and outer spans of each fin are independently operable to provide yaw, roll, and pitch control for an air vehicle in flight. The inner and outer spans of each fin are preferably not, but may be, in the same plane. An intermediate controllable span may also be provided between the inner and outer spans of each fin.

Can you think of a specific flying style where a fixed main wing and a kind of rudderonvator V-tail is sufficient? Why is it that birds don't have a vertical stabilizer and rudder?

Mix Vtail from elevon ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GChoUwVaUc8&feature=related
Cermark Victor Rudder ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KawBSeR3M&feature=related
V tail flutter ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU7c0XgfqKE&feature=related

_____________________________

Never Give Up, Never Slow Down, Never Grow Old, and Never Ever Die Young

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Dunkelmann)

Post #: 1114

Page: << < prev 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 [45]

All Forums >> Electric Aircraft Universe >> Park Flyers & Backyard Flyers >> RE: Official Aerobird Swift Thread
Page: << < prev 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 [45]

Jump to:

Google

Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP! : : FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America

1.438RCU1