DonStegall

My Feedback: (1)

What would you guys think about a new shoulder wing Q-500 ARF with a conventional stab and fin?

I believe that part of the popularity of Club 40 is the conventional tail and the use of standard size servos.

A lot of these guys are now moving into 424, and there is also a Quickie 25 movement.

I'm thinking of using the R140 or NACA 64-012 airfoil.

(Randy, can you send me the R140 polars or CompuFoil file?)

Randy Etken

My Feedback: (10)

My airoil is very fast up to 140mph. See link for polors under R140 Q-500.
Good Luck!!http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/c...atabase.html#R

DonStegall

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks Randy.

This ARF will be targeted at 424 and Quickie 25. So the speed range is good.

What is the best chord size?

Randy Etken

My Feedback: (10)

I all ways used 10".

Super Splatter

Make sure you pick the R140 , the one above it .. it's different , to say the least

But the cruise missle airfoil 5 spots up looks promising..

Anyways, when the R140 hit the fan in Minnesota it killed the Scat Cat. Randy sold lots of R-140's. Flew fast

DonStegall

My Feedback: (1)

I did not realize that the R140 is not fully symmetrical. I may wind up using the NACA 65-012 for ease of production. They are reasonably close.

But if someone comes up with a good name for a R140 based ARF with a conventional tail, it might sway me.

Randy, do you have molds for tips for an R140 wing? Do you have any old, used, or bargain basement R140 wings that I could use during prototyping?

Jim Duda

Something like this...? HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

DonStegall

My Feedback: (1)

Yes ... Something like that.

My major goals are sturdy construction, conventional tail, standard servo compatible with easy balance, and the servos in the wing compartment. I may have to shorten up the nose a half an inch or so to do that, but I don't think it will hurt peformance.

I do most of my designing in Visio with export to AutoCAD files. I did a big thread on the development of the Smasher. Would anyone like to see this thing in development and possibly collaborate with me on it?

fizzwater2

My Feedback: (61)

Admirable goals, I like the standard tail and standard servos approach. I believe it's a way to overcome one of the stumbling blocks with getting people to try racing. Some folks think that V-tails are somehow mysterious, and others wouldn't want to buy small servos just to try something.

You might make a secondary mounting plate or something that could be dropped in (with glue) on top of the existing mounts if someone did want to run smaller servos, like Hitec 225's or something. They aren't terribly expensive, some guys might go that way.

It would also be good if a standard flat AA 4 cell battery pack fit, instead of building it such that you need a 270-350 pack or small NIMH pack. Just one more expense that could be eliminated in order to get folks to try it.

Neat idea, Don!

Jim Duda

Put me on the waiting list to test fly a prototype! I promise I'll give you an unbiased report.

fizzwater2

My Feedback: (61)

Don - tried to send you a PM, not sure it worked. Let me know if it doesn't show up, and I'll try again..

vicman

My Feedback: (10)

Jim,
Thank you for such a serene photo. That looks like a beutiful place.

Don,
I like Fizz's servo plate idea for versatility. Dunno about the battery sitch, a flat pack gets a bit wide. My freind Bob H is working on scaling up his Quick Shot 1/2a job for Q500 also after hearing about how much fun we are having. His plan will allow for T-tail, conventional, and V-tail. You saw my yellow one at the last race party.

fizzwater2

My Feedback: (61)

Vicman - I like the t-tail idea. A couple of the sweetest flying Q500 planes I ever had were what I called a "lower case T" - the horizontal stab was 2" above the fuse top, and there was about another 2" of vertical fin above that. The rudder was all in the lower 2" part - and was plenty big enough for racing to help with takeoffs.

neat ideas here!

vicman

My Feedback: (10)

Do a search for the Quick Shot in the 1/2a forum and you will see what the plane looks like. Bob, is still working on the Q500 design and I don't have his permission to share the rough drafts at the moment. I have high hopes for the "Buck Shot" especially for .25.

fizzwater2

My Feedback: (61)

OK, I give... I tried searching for quick shot in the 1/2A forum, and got scads of "quick shots" of various airplanes, but didn't ever see a pic of the "quick shot" - any chance you could point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

gunfighter

My Feedback: (1)

I think a standard or "T" tail ARF would be a big seller, especially for new pilots in 424 and Q-25.
Put me down as a test pilot too!!
Chuck

vicman

My Feedback: (10)

Well da-gum, you are right! I even googled it and came up dry. Well, here are a few pics of mine with the V-tail. I will email Bob with a link to this thread and ask him to post some pics too.

fizzwater2

My Feedback: (61)

Thanks for the pics, Vicman! that's a pretty slick little 1/2A plane. Looks like fun! I haven't built a 1/2A in a MANY years, have a hankerin' to do something about that this winter.

Fxrs_tim

It sounds like a great idea!! Standard servos shouldn't be a problem w/ balance. I'm currently flying a Viper w/ standard servos for the v-tail and a mini for the throttle and it balanced perfectly.

Plz put me on the test-fly list too!! It looks like you have several volunteers here in CenTex - we'll give ya good evals in some actual racing. Plus, we're all a bunch of cheapos who will try anything that's free.

Good luck w/ the project!!

Tim

Randy Etken

My Feedback: (10)

Don, a semi symmetrical airfoil is faster than a symmetrical one most planes. Q-40 and F 5D use semi symmetrical airfoil as do all real planes. When deciding on an airfoil for the R-200, I tested 4 different airfoils on same fuse and engine with radar for speed. The R-140 airfoil and the NACA 66X012, the one used on the Vortex, were with in a mile a hour of each other with a OS 46. But when tested with a Nelson the 66X012 was 10 to 15 mph faster. This is what I used to have the wing mold cut for the R-200.

The R-140 was all balsa and foam, no fiberglass or carbon fiber, so I have no molds. I have not made a R-140 wing since 1998. The polars used for the R-140 were copyed from a P-51 and then traced around my #10 shoe.

DonStegall

My Feedback: (1)

Here is the first draft of the new design. It is a wide body with the wide point at the rear of the wing. Some people may not understand the advantages of this and I may switch to the wide point being more toward the middle of the wing saddle. The wing may be moved back 1/4" to 1/2" if needed for balance.

After looking at different configurations, I just can't come up with a design that has the rudder and elevator servo in the wing compartment. So there will have to be a hatch behind the wing.

I'm going to use Viper wings for the early prototypes because I have some and can easily buy more. I'll be able to compare directly to a V-tail Viper, also.

The wing on this drawing is a NACA 65-012. But I have gotten some really good advice about what would work better for the type of construction that will be used for the wing. So that likely will change.

BobHH

My Feedback: (18)

Hello to all the Q500 racing guys! My buddy and fellow Reedie racer Vic asked me to drop by and post a picture of the QuikShot so here it is!! Basically a Q500 scaled down to run the Cox .049 reed valve engine. It is using a modified NACA 65-012 airfoil. The goal was to have an inexpensive model we could race and have fun doing it. I need to get a really good radar gun but preliminary testing shows about 100+ MPH with a stock reed engine with Galbreath head and 35% nitro. Not bad for a $7.00 engine!!

Vic and I have been talking over the racing Don's have down in Monroe. I think its great!! I want to try to make a few and get back into the action!! I have even been enlarging the QuiKShot to the BuckShot which should be Q500 legal. Again the goal is to have a competitive model that will run standard gear and give the builder the opportunity to have either standard, "T" tail or "V" tail configuration. I applaud Don for his persistence in getting some racing back in this area. I flew Q500 many years ago in the Charlotte area where at that time was a hot bed for some good racing!!


Don, My Dad and your Dad go way back in RC!! I believe we've met many years ago as kids!! Hope you Dad is doing well. I can remember he had a very successful F1 racing design that was a true dominator!! So it must be in your blood!!

We've been having the 1/2A Reedie races over in Burlington for the last few years as formal get togethers joined with a fun flyin. Maybe we can get together and have a day of racing down your way with 1/2A and Q500!! I hear it a great course!!!

Bob Harris

Left_Turn

Don,
For years there were NO small servo's and it all fit under the wing saddle. I used to put my servo's all in line back to front, instead of side by side. A standard size servo will fit in the fuse sideways and the receiver fits forward of that with the battery right behind the tank. It's alot easier to do it on a shoulder wing than a low wing plane, you don't have to worry about the battery and receiver shifting down on the Aileron servo or linkage in a shoulder wing plane.

DonStegall

My Feedback: (1)

Bob,

Good to hear from you. You're welcome to get the 1/2A guys together for the 11-17-07 event at my field.

All,

Based on input from a variety of people, I'm going to redo the top profile. While the thick waist may have peformance benefits, it may turn some people off. So I'm going to use a more conventional shape.

vicman

My Feedback: (10)

When looking at profiles I find that I am more turned on by a thicker top than waist.[sm=tongue_smile.gif]

I don't have a problem with a bay aft of the saddle similar to the Viper. In fact I kind of prefer it since there isn't a worry of the ailerons getting jumbled up in the same tight area at the rear of the saddle area. Just my humble comment.