RE: Aerobird Swift problems.

RE: Aerobird Swift problems.
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> Electric Aircraft Universe >> Electric Training >> RE: Aerobird Swift problems.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/5/2007 9:09:19 PM

tam popo

Posts: 2923
Joined: 2/6/2007
From: glasgow, , UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

Hiya! I personally wouldn't class the swift as aerobatic but more of an aileron trainer - it doesn't have the power required to perform true aerobatics (snap turns, spiral retrieval, inverted etc) - it will do them but only in the hands of a pro and a pro wouldn't be seen dead using a swift. The power is lacking and the weight is slightly high, a bad combination! Thats the first time I've seen a Beginair and I'll compare it to my swift. Swift ROG not as good, banking not as tight and climb rate similar (couldn't get a sense of wind etc in video). Swift might handle wind extremes better. We don't get Beginair over here but that would have been on my short list. I'm now aileron trained thanks to swift and sim (still make mistakes though!) and moved on to zagi and F27b for the aerobatic stuff and pure speed. Have ME262 with twin 480 brushed (pusher mode) and LiPo ready (still finishing off slowly) but swift always ready to fly. By for now

_____________________________

Born to fly - forced to work!!!

(in reply to Swift427)

Post #: 26

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/6/2007 2:23:25 AM

aeajr

Posts: 5483
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tam popo

Hiya! I personally wouldn't class the swift as aerobatic but more of an aileron trainer - it doesn't have the power required to perform true aerobatics (snap turns, spiral retrieval, inverted etc) - it will do them but only in the hands of a pro and a pro wouldn't be seen dead using a swift. The power is lacking and the weight is slightly high, a bad combination! Thats the first time I've seen a Beginair and I'll compare it to my swift. Swift ROG not as good, banking not as tight and climb rate similar (couldn't get a sense of wind etc in video). Swift might handle wind extremes better. We don't get Beginair over here but that would have been on my short list. I'm now aileron trained thanks to swift and sim (still make mistakes though!) and moved on to zagi and F27b for the aerobatic stuff and pure speed. Have ME262 with twin 480 brushed (pusher mode) and LiPo ready (still finishing off slowly) but swift always ready to fly. By for now

Well said!

_____________________________

Clear Skies and Safe Flying!
Ed Anderson
Moderator
Park Pilot Program Partner

(in reply to tam popo)

Post #: 27

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/7/2007 2:52:12 PM

Swift427

Posts: 482
Joined: 3/15/2007
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Status: offline

aeajr

quote:

It is made to be an aerobatic plane, within the confines of its power envelope.

tam popo

quote:

I personally wouldn't class the swift as aerobatic but more of an aileron trainer - it doesn't have the power required to perform true aerobatics (snap turns, spiral retrieval, inverted etc) - it will do them but only in the hands of a pro and a pro wouldn't be seen dead using a swift. The power is lacking and the weight is slightly high, a bad combination!

A 1 stick--3 channel V-tail aerobatic/aileron trainer that looks more like an electric glider than a 3D Typhoon

Would any "pro" prefer using the Swift to instruct a student in the basics of aileron/aerobatic flying?

< Message edited by Swift427 -- 4/7/2007 9:22:24 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to aeajr)

Post #: 28

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/7/2007 4:17:54 PM

tam popo

Posts: 2923
Joined: 2/6/2007
From: glasgow, , UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

The main consideration of any training is to fly. there are better, lighter more powerful planes out there which are probably better,but the true saving grace of the swift is it will take all the knocks! I can't access the Challenger prop over here (its either swift or swift). LHS can't tell the difference anyway. I went to fave LHS (free, good impartial knowledge from true electric flyers) and they've ordered prop adapter so I can try APC prop, also bought 10.4V 1000MaH battery to try (Bought for F27b but will try on swift) - this should give it a good kick up the backside! Reprogrammed swift to accept LiPo (use info on page 9 Spitfire manual earlier in this thread). And yes, I do agree on all of your counts - the prop certainly was an afterthought by designer!

_____________________________

Born to fly - forced to work!!!

(in reply to Swift427)

Post #: 29

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/7/2007 11:54:01 PM

Swift427

Posts: 482
Joined: 3/15/2007
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Status: offline

The Challenger prop HBZ2004 is the most versatile HZ push prop used on three other HZ planes. It is a 6.5x3; whereas, the Swift prop HBZ7207 is a 6x4 which also happens to be the same length and pitch that is available for use on the new Stryker 27C. But the Swift is no Stryker.

IMO the initial hand launch the thrust-drift ratio of the Swift prop isn't very efficient. My guess is that the give-back or slip during the initial launch/climb may be reduced by as much as 30 percent from the theoretical/ideal pitch/screw angle. The thrust of the Swift propeller during hand launch leaves something to be desired. Any increase in rpms beyond a certain speed with the 6x4 does not increase the thrust; whereas the same rpm with the 6.5x3 produces more thrust then the 6x4.

Ideally, an airplane uses a low pitch(flat blade angle or smaller angle of attack) to provide a higher number of rpms and a higher pitch for cruising with a lower number of rpms. I believe the design of the Challenger 6.5x3 prop is better suited for my flying interest with the Swift. I am going to do some more comparison testing tomorrow using these two props on both the Challenger and Swift to ascertain any noteable difference in thrust during the initial launch/climb. Designing a fixed prop for any given aircraft is always a compromise. I'm certainly no expert, but I believe HZ put too much emphasis on the angle of attack for aerobatics and compromised the proportion of thrust-drift ratio efficiency during takeoff.

I recently saw a short film segment of Howard Hughes XH-17 Sky Crane with its two-bladed main rotor having a 134' diameter capable of lifting 50,000 lbs. What amazed me was the slow rpm of the massive rotor while lifting so much weight. It still holds the record as the flying machine with the world's largest rotor system. Designing the right propeller for the Swift was a tradeoff of efficiencies depending on whether the pilot is more interested in swift combat aerobatics or ease of hand launching for the initial climb thrust.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to tam popo)

Post #: 30

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/8/2007 12:39:36 AM

tam popo

Posts: 2923
Joined: 2/6/2007
From: glasgow, , UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

Thanks for the info on prop size, that will explain most of the problems with lack of thrust - basically, its better to spend the cash on better prop and (maybe) slightly more power. Power alone won't cure this design issue. Power to the educated people, brother!! I know its not a swift issue but CC Lee sold a ME262 with twin 180 brushed motors powered by 7.4v 800MaH pack and weighing about 25+ oz. Now thats criminal, unjust and just gives themselves a bad name, and it was £85 (swift here is £100). Needless to say no-one could get it airborne but a recent mag said it was excellet. Who do they think they are kidding? I was naive and a newbie, I fell for it. The swift does fly but it has its constraints. We'll get there yet.

There's a thread you might like to visit for Australians - very knowledgeable crowd, good laugh and their planes are Multiplex Easystar etc - odd stryker. Lots of video footage from Ez* planes, can't see a swift carrying the camera like that. Take a peek when you put your slide rule down, but don't tell them I sent you.javascript

l('http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5680391');

_____________________________

Born to fly - forced to work!!!

(in reply to Swift427)

Post #: 31

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/8/2007 12:41:59 AM

tam popo

Posts: 2923
Joined: 2/6/2007
From: glasgow, , UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

Sorry, wrong thread, here's the correct one javascript

l('http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5677658');

_____________________________

Born to fly - forced to work!!!

(in reply to Swift427)

Post #: 32

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/8/2007 12:43:41 AM

tam popo

Posts: 2923
Joined: 2/6/2007
From: glasgow, , UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

('http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5677658');

< Message edited by tam popo -- 4/8/2007 12:46:00 AM >

_____________________________

Born to fly - forced to work!!!

(in reply to tam popo)

Post #: 33

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/8/2007 7:33:31 PM

headlessagain

Posts: 6
Joined: 10/16/2006
From: Bristol, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

I had the Firebird Freedom which I think the Swift replaced. It was my first proper RC plane and I found it needed a large open space and was quite a handful as it needed to be flown fast and suffered from the dreaded tip stall. I ended up buying a Slo-V for under £50 from Antics (http://www.rcaircraftmodels.co.uk/644_1_1014020.html)
and this has proved to be a super 3 ch trainer as it can be flown slowly enough to fly over my local park and you have plenty of time to recover from "incorrect inputs" It's now brushless and can handle the wind much better.
If you want to progress to a more aerobatic trainer I suggest you look at the Telnik Bendy Sport available in the UK at Robotbirds. Loops,rolls,bunts & inverts are all possible (& done on my third flight!) and it can fly at 1/2 throttle so not much faster than Slo-V. It flys great on a cheap Tower Pro 2408 & 30 amp ESC combo, 7.4v li-po and £2.50 9 gm servos. I reckon for c.£75 you could buy the plane & electrics and then pick up cheap transmitter from ebay. It's very stable and not at all twitchy so you can fly on full rates without expo if your budget doesn't allow for computer radio.

(in reply to tam popo)

Post #: 34

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/8/2007 11:38:11 PM

tam popo

Posts: 2923
Joined: 2/6/2007
From: glasgow, , UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

Welcome cous! Its nice not to have to shout over the pond!! Haven't seen that plane but will give it a whirl! Wife has banned me from buying any other planes till October, but she didn't mention motors, esc or LiPo's

Have fitted swift with flat tailplane (no dihedral) and a non-operating rudder. Turning/banking by ailerons and climbing using larger elevator flaps. Everything can be put back to original if needed or beefed up if it works. Tried a different prop I found in toolchest with 10.8v 1000MaH NicH and blew all the furniture around the living room, it was that powerful - I think this is the way to go cos this bird feels heavy. Forecast for Glasgow is rain next few days so will wait. Flew stock stryker today in 15-20mph wind and nearly lost it downwind - crashed to miss a pigeon loft and broke nose off again - now fixed. F27b is one tough cookie, I luv it. Still to get best flights from Zagi even though it too has Tower Pro b/less like yours and matching esc from Brc store - good service. Its nice to converse with someone from the west coast (and I don't mean States or Aus).
--------------------------------------------------
Byeee for now, this insomniac has repairs to do - keep in touch - wot do you fly etc.

_____________________________

Born to fly - forced to work!!!

(in reply to headlessagain)

Post #: 35

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/10/2007 7:55:43 PM

Swift427

Posts: 482
Joined: 3/15/2007
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Status: offline

Everything being constant/ideal the Prop Load Factor of a 2-blade 6x4 "tractor"("pusher" might be same) is 864 compared to about 839 for a 6.5x3 and 1029 for a 7x3. I didn't have the necessary instrumentation to determine if the 6.5x3 "pusher" produces more thrust then the 6x4, but the blade area of the HBZ2004--6.5x3 is greater then the blade area of the Swift 6x4, and it did seem to have a tad more thrust during launch for climbing without using as much elevator assist.

What I don't get is that the Swift replaced the Xtreme as HZs aerobatic/ailerone "cream of the crop" and yet they down-sized the 540 "can" motor in the Xtreme to a 480 in the Swift. Don't understand the logic of that move in that the Swift is marketed/designed for swift aerobatics ("within the confines of its power envelope"

). Why confine its power envelope by down-sizing to a 480 can motor instead of a 540???

A 7x3 prop appears to be the standard size "tractor" prop for your 400 and 480 motor like that found in the Cessna 182 RTF with its 8.4v 1000mAh battery http://www.flyzoneplanes.com/airplanes/hcaa23-main-2.jpg. I've found a supplier for a push-on 7x3 pusher prop that is recommended for 400 & 480 motors. http://www.flyin21days.com.au/Products/propsnfans.htm#7x3_Pusher_Prop
Will have to reduce the length a tad to make sure it doesn't strike the beam. I've already adapted a little spinner to the shaft so may also try the Graupner 7x4 pusher--GP07040C. I'm tempted to buy a replacement 540 Xtreme motor and adapt it to my Swift. A 540 at 12,000 rpm with a Graupner 7x4(6.75x4) should make for a swifter Swift.

I made some modifications in each wing end that inserts into the fuselage socket--major strengthening improvement! Also shortened the wing spar about 3/8" so the wings squeeze into the fuselage for a tighter/snuggy fit. Also devised a way to tightened the clamping grip on the spar after it has been inserted into each wing(and loosening again when removing). Can make it so tight that wings won't even separate, but need to allow for some separation so I don't break a wing--just in case of a crash

.

For the time being I've renamed my Swift the "Yellow Buzzard", but am giving myself 30 days to improve my fractured flying before deciding if I should likewise change my own handle. If my Yellow Buzzard flys and soars even half as good as our local turkey buzzards I'll be tickled pink. Maybe, this summer they'll even let me glide on the thermals with them. "Oh happy days... ."
http://www.pbase.com/airlinerphotos/image/56464555

< Message edited by Swift427 -- 4/10/2007 9:04:24 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to tam popo)

Post #: 36

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/10/2007 9:02:11 PM

tam popo

Posts: 2923
Joined: 2/6/2007
From: glasgow, , UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline

Hiya! Thanks for the info - it explains one or two things. Tried to order prop adapter for 480 motor (same as swift) but e-mail hobby shop didn't know the diameter of shaft - I do now! Will re-order tomorrow. Went out today and flew swift but too windy, sometimes its best to preserve dignity and integrity of plane so I backed off. Speak to you soon!

_____________________________

Born to fly - forced to work!!!

(in reply to Swift427)

Post #: 37

RE: Aerobird Swift problems. - 4/11/2007 12:22:27 AM

aeajr

Posts: 5483
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Status: offline

What I don't get is that the Swift replaced the Xtreme as HZs aerobatic/ailerone "cream of the crop" and yet they down-sized the 540 "can" motor in the Xtreme to a 480 in the Swift. Don't understand the logic of that move in that the Swift is marketed/designed for swift aerobatics ("within the confines of its power envelope" ). Why confine its power envelope by down-sizing to a 480 can motor instead of a 540???

Let me help here.

The Swift did not replace the Xtreme as the Xtreme was NOT an aerobatic aileron plane. The Xtreme was a R/E bigger, faster, heavier Aerobird Challenger. The 540 motor requires a lot more power than a 400 or a 480, so they had to use larger, heavier battery packs to feed that motor.

The Xtreme, being similar in weight to the Challenger but with a bigger motor, can be more powerful to support the kind of aileron flying that it was made for. Rolls and the like, benefit from more power. Fortunately the 2/3A size cells can now deliver enough oomp to feed a 480 so the plane can be in that very popular "under 20 oz" class and still have the power to perform.

The Xtreme's only advantage over the Challenger was it could handle more wind due to its greater weight.

If you put the 540 motor in the Swift, I think you will need battery packs that can handle 18-20 amps. At that point you might want to consider 3 cell lipos.

_____________________________

Clear Skies and Safe Flying!
Ed Anderson
Moderator
Park Pilot Program Partner

(in reply to tam popo)

Post #: 38