garydog

My Feedback: (1)

Any word on when its available??? THnaks Dan

s. wallace

My Feedback: (24)

Lanier scr*wed me on a defective Predator kit so bad I will never buy another of their products.

Luckily through this forum I found some excellent Q-500 kits! Currently flying a Bill Vargas Racer ll, and
I am building a Seeker right now. Great products at very fair prices. ARF's have their place, just saying
there are some very nice alternatives out there.

pylonracer2

My Feedback: (12)

They are on order, no date time but they have new colors available this time. and they are 104.99

Wully

My Feedback: (26)

Sounds like I got a good taste of your same medicine. Maidened my Predator today and she wanted to climb to the moon. Everyone said the incidence was off making it climb. Sounds about right to me. Please share with me your experiences with your Lanier Predator.
Thanks,
Frank

Wully

My Feedback: (26)

In your opinion, what's the best Pylon racer for the price. Keep in mind, I'm a novice at Pylon.
Frank

s. wallace

My Feedback: (24)

Frank,
My issue was simpler- the wing as received was severly twisted and warped. No way acceptable.
Had a difficult time getting Lanier to do anything, after shipping back the old wing (at my expense)
they sent out a new wing, of the wrong color several weeks later. Their reply to my asking why
send a different color was "that was what we have left, basically take it or leave it"

Since you already have one, learn from it. Use the search function-there are a ton of usable suggestions
on improving the Predator. Get it straight and the incidence correct it will fly ok. What engine are you using?

I have been in the hobby 30 years but just racing 2 years so there are many more folks who can comment
on what works best for what application. Are you going to race or just wanting a fast sport flyer?

I have built these:
Predator
Viper
Dominator
Racer II
and am working on a Seeker.
I like the Viper over the Predator, and the Racer II / Seeker will be an improvement over the others. Lighter and
a competitive airfoil.

Scott

Ed Smith

Get a plan and build your own. Then you know it is put together properly.

Ed S

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Better yet, is to design your own. Copy something (after all, you would think by now everything has been tried) and make your own modifications. Evolve the design (this happens faster with tight racing). After all, the general consensus is that all the ARF quickies are crap. What could be easier to design and build than a 5 sided box with wing and tail?

Ed Smith

SRpropTwister,

I agree with High Plains!!!....Did I really say that?? The airframe rule pretty much designs the airplane for you. If you want a basic outline to start with I will gladly send you a copy of my plan. It is full size, however I use a glass fuselage and foam wing so there is very little construction detail to show.

Ed S

daven

My Feedback: (1)

I agree with Ed and Highplains (Wow, did I say that too?)

That is basically the background on why I started the Seeker. I was not happy with the available options and decided to start my own. I basically just took the moments off the Vortex and designed something similar and it flew great.

Ed Smith

This is getting too sickly. We need something more controversial

Ed S

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Agree with me and be right 98% of the time.

DHG

My Feedback: (7)

If only he didn't change his mind 71% of the time.

smokingwreckage

The rules pretty much design the plane.

Fuselage shape and size: build to minimums for lowest weight and drag.

Wing area and span, chord thickness, and plan: build to maximum span and minimum wing area (determines chord) to minimum thickness. Some choice allowed with airfoil and aileron placement and configuration. Also, a 4-screw mount is now required for a single aileron servo, though a 2-screw mount is okay for dual servos. For all the debate about low vs. mid vs. high wing placement, all have been successful.

Choose between conventional and V-tail, but I expect more conventional tails to pop up considering the new rule requiring rudder-like control.

Ed Smith

Is there a new rule regarding rudder control? Did I miss a rule change?

We have rudder control on Vee tails anyway with transmitter mixing.

Ed S

kane

I haven't seen anything with "rudder-like control" rule proposal come across the AMA board. I don't know where this one is coming from.

V-Tails do have "rudder-like" controls. I am confused by this statement.


DK

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Not really. Although the rules provide certain limitations, Quickie 500 has the most design freedom of any of the current racing events.

There is far more to consider about the fuselage shape than just minimum size. The fuselage aerodynamics is a significant source of drag if poorly designed in both the profile and platform views. The fuselage design for Quickie was changed after a speed secret was published in the April 1998 issue of Model Aviation on Pylon.

No debate here. The high wing is clearly the lowest drag configuration in the turns. In level flight, wing placement doesn't matter.


The only remaining difficultly is providing the strength to survive the rigors of racing, while still making weight. This is an area that many are unsuccessful, with firewalls breaking out on landing bumps, landing gear mounts ripping out, or even wing hold downs failing. On top of that, a poor design will also have problems with the lack of torsional strength absorbing power from the engine that should be turning the prop.

Wully

My Feedback: (26)

I have an OS 46FX with a tuned pipe. I believe she will haul the mail once I get things trued.
I eventually want to race b/c it's in my blood. I just want to get a little experience under my belt before going racing.

Stand

Actually the high wing has the lowest drag in level flight as well. As does the V-tail vs conventional tail. It has to do with # of angles formed where the wing joins the fuse or the tail, the angle formed (87 degrees causes more drag then 90) and the the pressure area over the top of the wing vs the pressure under the wing. It's been discussed in length in other places. There is no reason that the drag factor at a higher AOL, as in a turn, would suddenly appear. It is present in all flight modes. It just becomes more significant and can and is modified by the airfoils AOL characteristics. Which is why most of the top Q500's now have an airfoil that is close to the NACA 65-012 tweaked by various methods. (One exception being the NEMEQ).

That being said, the most important factor is the thumbs. That's why the same pilots can be expected to come out on top consistently, it's also why they tend to stick to the same design.

smokingwreckage

Very true.

There is only so much one can do to a rectangular box-section fuselage. Keep the firewall as small as possible, build cross-section area to the minimum allowed, somewhere between the CG and mid-chord, and taper in a French curve to minimum possible cross-section at the tail. Keep the corners at maximum radius allowed. Balance the curves in your panels side-to-side and top-to-bottom. Some designers like to maintain a rather tail fuselage all the way back, reasoning that doing so will add to yaw stability. It's really not difficult to dream up a box fuselage that will work.

Spend your time making things as smooth and aerodynamic as possible. Anything sticking out in the wind will slow you down. For instance, if your engine has a remote needle valve, remove it from the engine, slot the knob, and install it behind the firewall, with the end of the knob flush with the fuselage covering. Adjust with a screwdriver. Put your receiver switch in the fuselge under the wing. It's a hassle to remove the wing to turn the receiver on and off, but you gain from not having the airflow disrupted. Configure your V-tail control horns like torque rods and hide them from the slipstream inside the fuselage. Mount the aileron servo(s) on the wing so they are inside the fuselage, again hiding from the wind. Keep fuel lines as short and direct as possible--a large loop of fuel line is an air brake. Also, use fuel line with the smallest outside diameter--some are fatter than others. Cut down your wheel collars, make them no wider than you have to to hold the set screw. Cut your axles to match. Mount the tail wheel behind the end of the fuselage instead of under it, or, better yet, run a skid, or a small round-head screw to keep the covering off the pavement. Don't forget to fill the slots. Experiment with spinners--different sizes and shapes do make a difference.

From http://www.modelaircraft.org/comp/05...k/rc-pylon.pdf page 114:

"7.3.1. Steering: Except in 1/2A, every aircraft shall be equipped with a positive means of steering on the ground using a dedicated, operable servo(s). Aerodynamic yaw control by means of a movable rudder or “V� tail fulfills this requirement."

You guys who are using computer mixing on your V-tails are already doing this. Some people in our club forego the second servo on the tail in the interest of less weight and try to ROG start without rudder control. You'd think they'd figure out that might be the reason there are so many air-to-airs at the starts (ground-to-grounds and air-to-grounds, too)?!?!?!?

TIA

Where are they $104.99? Their website says $129.99 My local hobby shop says he'll call Monday to see what the lag time will be.[]

Behind the firewall? Do you mean inside the plane itself? And run the fuel lines through the firewall? If not, I can't quite picture what you mean. Do you have a picture somewhere? Sounds like some great ideas tho....

smokingwreckage

Tower Hobbies, $104.99.

http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...EARCH=PREDATOR

***Reno***, that is correct, the needle valve is inside the fuselage usually screwed to the firewall, but can be anywhere between the tank and firewall. An access hatch allows pulling the line off the valve for filling the tank. (Fuel dots are unnecessary drag and weight.)

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

We don't have a cross-section requirement in Quickie rules. We have a minimum height and width within the chord of the wing. They don't have to be at the same point on the fuselage.

This was the conventional thinking on Quickie design (and a lot of GA and experimental airplanes as well). Countless designs over the years generally placed the widest point of the fuselage at or near the thickest point of the fuselage. While this helps reduce surface area of the fuselage behind the wing (good), it also causes flow separation to form at the junction of the wing and fuselage where both surfaces are contracting. Since the rules in Quickie do not allow fillets on the wing / fuselage junction, the way to prevent the separation is to expand the width of the fuselage as you move toward the trailing edge. This technique was finally written about in the Wind Tunnel column of Kitplanes (May 2005), which was the first time author Wainfan had covered the method in 20+ years. Interference drag had been discussed by Wainfan many times before, albeit with other solutions described.

This would be desirable if we were just flying a fuselage and could ignore the effects on airflow of the wing, tail, and landing gear. What we actually want to do is be aware of the flow of the air as it moves around the wing and tail, and shape the side view of the fuselage to correspond with the natural flow.

Stand

Not so, for AMA 424 and 428:
The nose is dictated by:
And the area around the cord:


Stan D.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

You did see the word "area"?