dem45133

OK...Im convinced the at the Ultamate 42 I got is too high perf and unstable for my needs. So it will hang from the ceiling a tease me for a while.

Ok that being said... Here is the challage. I have fell in love with the Celebrity by Fisher. Its absolute beautiful and flys well. These specs are at the 65 hp end... but can go to 125hp. I'm planning on a 100-110hp Corvair conversion. Photos are at the bottom of the post.

Specifications
Wingspan	22’
Wing Area	176 sq. ft.
Wing Gap	38”
Aileron Area	20 sq. ft.
Length	17’6”
Height	6’
Tail Span	7’
Engine HP	65-125 hp
Seats	2/Tandem dual controls
Design Loads	+4 -2.5g
Gross Weight	1,230 lbs
Empty Weight	600 lbs
Fuel Capacity	13 gallons
Field Assembly Time	30 min

Flight Performance
Velocity-Never Exceed	120 mph
Top Level Speed	95 mph
Cruise Speed	80-85 mph
Stall Speed	40 mph
Climb Rate	800-900 fpm
Take-off Run	300’
Landing Roll	300’

But.... if its going to live at home and fly out of my small hay field... I need to shorten the takeoff and landing roll to at least half of this. The only way to do that is to STOL it WITHOUT giving up its cruise...or even bettering it if possible. Dreaming?... probably.... convention says these two extremes are mutually exclusive. BUT, I have designed things in the past to have my cake and eat it too... so I started designing a morphing STOLwing.... in all honesty the basics of that was easier than this RC stuff. Conceptual design and basic engineering calcs are done. No, I won't say what all that encompasses except that it does not retain a fixed base aspect ratio... and no it does not conform to the KISS principle for obvious reasons... but when not in STOL mode it will look and fly almost Identical to its original design. When morphed, well it wont be pretty but if it stays true to the rest of the extreme STOLs it will take off and land in about 75ft climb at 800-900 fpm and clear my obsticales.... which are my home and buildings, surrounding trees here and there and a four foot fence all the way around the 400x500 ft field (it doubles as a pasture and is bordered by neiboring pastures which are not mine). I need to clear these in about 500ft lateral from roll start into our normal prevailing winds It can always land conventionally at our local airport if conditions are not condusive for STOLwhen I return to the home place. That all being said... I am not asking for concept opinions... so don't bother I'd likely not listen anyway at this point. When I do prove it out, I'll tell the doubting Thomas's "I told you so" or I'll cuss and just go with a Zenith 701. I do however need to model it first... so thats where you all come in. See this is the kind of stuff I entertain myself with...and I have several buildings of finished ideas, and yes a few unfinished (usually due to deminished interest or lack of funds) for which I was once told couldn't be done too. Told you all, I don't do the idiot box.

So here is the question... which biwing model kit out there would come close to what this Celebrity is, to use as a base RC plane both to learn RC, apply the mods to, and be easy to repair? I had hoped the little Ultimate would do so but not having any prior knowledge of the RC world, I was wrong....its evidently designed with a very narrow flight window. I need something that will emulate the above in so as much as a model airplane can anyway.

Yep, it could be a tall order... but nothing ventured nothing gained. So... let your synapses start firing... maybe it will grab you by the short hairs too.


Thanks.
Dave

Charlie P.

I am missing the purpose.

Do you hope to gain any advantage in making an r/c model of an unproven experimental full-size in hopes of designing and learning how to fly both at the same time?

Sounds fatal.

Models can prove some concepts but what works for one may not translate to the other. The air density doesn't change when you scale up or down. Monokote is more like stressed aluminum than doped fabric when scaled up, etc.

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

An EAA biplane...or maybe a Acro Sport...or perhaps a Skybolt (Sky Bolt? )

Problem is, there don't seem to be many of those kits available nowdays...but if you ever check ebay, you might find one there.

I had a nice .60 sized EAA biplane kit (never built it ) back in the 70's...I traded it for something, don't recall what...I believe it was a Stafford kit? That gold head O.S. .60 of yours would fly it...if you could find one of those kits....

dem45133

Charley... all of this is to be able to show FFA experimental inspectors (can't think of the official name at the minute) the concept, both in a flying demonstration model as well as a full sized wing section say 3 ft long, clear covered to show the mechanicals) and all the engineering calcs to get buy in BEFORE I build the real thing. This IS my purpose. I can fly any conventional single engine.

Proptop... yea saw one of them on ebay and missed it.

Dave

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

There's a Sig Skybolt kit there (epay ) now...51" span...for .45 to .60 size engines...starting bid is 99 bucks. Maybe it could be modified to suit your purpose?

TFF

SIG Hog bipe kit and a bunch of extra wood. No off the shelf ARF will you be happy with. Just like the real thing you want to build, you are just going to have to build it.

guille2006

It's called "reynolds number"; i.e.: ratio between viscosity forces (of the air) and inertia forces. If you keep all the shape of the plane that number will screw you to the point of making it un-fly-able (check the word I invented here... hehehe).
You can test MANY thinks on a RC plane in order to investigate certain facts and to scale up later, BUT (a big but) we engineers always keep in mind all the numbers that characterizes the plane and use several conversion factor before scaling something.
As Charlie P. said; if you go straight to a scaling can cause a crash... I advice you to check some books before attemping the scaling down.
Take care
G.

jester_s1

We'll be reading about this guy in the newspaper soon if he actually attempts this.

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

The SIG Smith Mini Plane was a one off EAA bipe. SIG bought it so they could model it. The Mini kit is still made.

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

Just for grins I googled Balsa USA and they still have the EAA bipe kit, 1/4 scale and the prices haven't gone up very much. That may be as close to what the OP is looking for as he is going to get.

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

That's probably a better way of doing it...a 1/4 scale would give you a better indication than a small .40-.60 size ship.

Charlie P.

Amateur technologists have brought us things like the airplane, submarine, revolver, semi-auto and full auto firearms, motor car, etc., etc. I don't discount the effort, but I do advise caution. Langley was smart enough to hire a test pilot so he could learn from the failures of his Aerodrome flyer instead of die in it.

The patent office used to require models. I don't know if the FAA does. Just don't wear an aluminum foil hat at the first meeting with them.

dem45133

Trust me Charley and Jester... FAA knows all about proving out a homebuilt. There is a lot of work involved before you ever get your cert. All of us in the homebuilt side of aviation are well aware of taking baby steps before ever letting a new bird leave ground effect. First flight will not be STOL, and will involve the local airport... but long term it has to fly from home. It will also have ballistic parachute recovery system... a $3500 deal... but it will soften the blow if ever needed. Although I'm not afraid of death, I'm also not real interested meeting my Maker before its my time either. Flying any plane is an inherently hazardous undertaking... but then so is rush hour. I'm also a long long way from that point... even if I can get buy in at the start... it will be a two year build. Being odd like this it will likely have at least an 100 hour fly off... if not a lot more before they issue a full flight cert.

I think going 1//4 or so scale would be better... miniturizing my morph mechanicals to the .40 size was becoming problematic anyway.

Well I have homework to do tonight yet for my 9 oclock meeting tomorrow... I'll talk with you all later.

Thanks,
Dave

dem45133

Hello again all...

Haven't worked this much the past couple weeks due to being brain-dead after work and 50+ hour weeks...

But I did get a set of 1/4 scale EAA Bipe plans off ebay... and I also have a EAA Bipe full kit on its way too. Believe at this point I'll use the OS80 on it... with a three blade unless I change my mind and go the 60 (minimum according to the plan) .

I did manage to get the flight sim to work on this computer... well sort of. Only a few birds to choose from... interesting results... crashed a few pixels. If you use the fixed observation point it gets so small so quick (in the screen, on this portable) you can't see what attitude it is.... and you also loose perspective with the ground quick too... we'll play with it more... think there is some more settings to play with too. Its an E-sky and its controller doesn't work, but it does work of the sim port on my 4ch RC unit.

To learn first RC flight... I'm now wondering now about building a detuned less symetrical set of wings for the Chinese Ultimate 42 ARF I have and use a used Saito .45 4 stroke. It would be easier and less costly than building a whole new bird to learn with. Thinking on the airfoil the EAA Bips uses... still swept though due to its cg. (Down the road I'll use the symmetrical airfoil wings it came with If I get good...)... what do you all think of this idea? (you might have to review the Vintage OS 60 Gold Head thread to get this history if your not already familiar with our previous discussions)

Later,
Dave

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

Have you ever flown an RC plane before?? Even a trainer on a buddy box??? Have you ever been to a club field and talked to the club instructor?? There is a learning curve to these little toy airplanes and all the sim work you do isn't going to prepare you for really flying other then getting your brain and stick direction working. You may really be over your head on this.

dem45133

Hello Gray Beard.

Yea mine is gray too... as is most of the rest.

In answer to your comment... Didn't you learn it? If you can ... than so can I !!!!! God bless I'm tired of the doubters... Yea I may crash the RC... I'd bet money that most of you have too.. likely several.

DON"TEVERTELL METHATANYTHING ISOVERMYHEAD!!!!! YOUDON"TKNOWMEFROMADAM! I am so tired of this crap... a 136 IQ , 3 degrees, common sense, and a farm raising is a CURSE when dealing with almost everybody!

So...
Did you actually have any real comments... How about which airfoil I should replace the Ultimate's with to tame it out and make a trainer out of it?! NEVERMIND... I'll figure it out myself! Then I'll KNOWit will right.

mikegordon10

I don't know about you learning to fly RC but you have learning to be an arrogant know it all covered very well. There is no airfoil that will turn an Ultimate bipe into a trainer. I don't know what my IQ is but I have 40 years experience flying RC as I'm sure Gray Beard does also. Some people just can't be reasoned with so why don't you quit talking here about how cool you are and go ahead and do what your determined to do.
Let us know how it turns out or on second thought I pretty sure we all know how you'll say it turned out.

Lnewqban

Please Dave, don't get upset or feel offended; that is nobody's intention here in RCU.

We discuss RC model airplanes here, and our advices and recommendations are related to those flying machines only.
Most of us don't have experience with full scale, ultralights or certification of experimental aircraft.

Nobody here has a good reason to doubt about your talent or capacity to design and build your ultralight; actually, I find admirable that semebody can.
As you have stated it, we don't know your IQ and your achievements in life.

But we do know that you don't have experience with RC model airplanes, for which our best recommendation is that a regular trainer is a better model to learn on than any biplane, modified or not.
It is also good advice to find a person, or even better, a local RC club, to teach you how to set your model up and to fly safely.

That advice comes from experience and many crashed models.
You are free to do it your way; we only wanted you to know that there is a faster and less painful and costly way to learn RC piloting.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

So you taught yourself how to fly full scale by reading, and flying microsoft flight sim? Of course not you spent a minimum of 30 hours with someone like me, 10 more alone, and had to show an examiner your ability before you were considered legally competent. I can't tell you how many times I've offered help to a full scale pilot only to be told that they are a REAL pilot and don't need some guy off the street to teach them how to fly a toy plane. None have made it past the first 20 seconds. Anyone that has been doing this as long as GreyBeard has also seen it far to often to not at least offer a little concern for your success. You came here asking for advice and offered the fact that you had not flown models before, and then insulted the very people you wanted advice from for having the nerve to offer additional advice. I would think that with your vast knowledge base that you would know it takes more than mere knowledge and a sim to be successful. You have to develop muscle memory and the visual cues required by something as complex as remote flight, all of which takes more time than your first flight will last. You didn't appreciate the term "over your head", but if you plan to teach yourself to fly with a 1/4 scale biplane then yes you are "over your head". I don't care how smart you are or how good a full scale pilot you are, without help you are "over your head". I'm sorry for you if you felt that was a personal attack, but no one questioned your intelligence. They only offered something to think about. Get help learning to fly models.

JollyPopper

My Feedback: (6)

dem45133, you've been a member of this site for less than a month, you come on and ask for advice, and then you insult one of our most respected members when he gave that advice. Get over yourself. You're over your head.

Charlie P.

Well, I don't know my IQ either - possibly so high or so low someone decided it was better I didn't know - but I'm pretty confident in looking around that it's above average. No, I don't mean here. Just in general.

I'm pretty good on my own limitations but I respect folks who take the optimistic view. I'm generally a happy cuss. But you, dem, should understand a few strangers are trying to save you some bucks and aggrivation. We've seen your story or others like it dozens of times and most end badly. "I just bought a P-40 and have never flown R/C . . ." Don't get mad at them/us. Besides, if you tell the story to your grand kids and you have to say: "Everyone said I could do it and I did" it just doesn't sound very heroic.

You want to make a trainer out of an Ultimate? I own two. Lengthen the fuselage 20% (it is a bear to taxi and keep from nosing over). Balance it nose heavy. Make the airfoils semi-symmetrical (NACA 2013 - I don't know if that existrs but it sounds good and doesn't really matter as by the time you sand it and cover it it won't be what you started out with). Fly it on low rates and only after you have 20 hours with a R/C trainer and have flown a low wing R/C model.

Tarasdad

There is no worse RC student pilot than a licensed full-scale pilot, at least that I have met. Nor are there any RC neophytes more ready to blame anything and everything but themselves when they find they don't know it all already and crash. RC and full-scale share nothing in common except the basic forces of flight.

To the OP, do yourself a huge favor and come down off your high horse, humble yourself enough to take advice from those with experience in RC flight and find yourself a good instructor. Youand those around youwill be better off for it.

jester_s1

More gently, I second the motion to get some basic instruction in RC flight, preferably on a trainer or at least a basic sport model. You may know alot about airplane design which will certainly help, but no degrees will put skill into your thumbs. This hobby has a very beaten path and I read threads from guys every week on this forum who have decided not to travel it. The vast majority take their new toy home in a trash bag and we find their engine and radio gear for sale in the marketplace. If you insist on starting right off with a biplane, you might consider at least getting an experienced flyer to pilot it for you so that you can focus on design.

dem45133

I'm sorry, and I don't try to be arrogant... all I asked what I can do to tame a ARF I already have... If too much had to be done to it... then fine, say so, but also say what and why. But thats not what I got.... I got the same old crap I always get.... "Over your head", "You can't do it", "It cant be done".... etc. etc. Just had my fill today, not just from here, but you got the brunt of it and for that I do appologize. Sorry Gray Beard your over the head comment was the straw that broke the camel's back. I've said nothing on here about my life and my past endeavors that wasn't fact... I also did not embellish them either. I'll not embellish the RC either mikegordon10, but apparently you don't believe a word of my history. But I just get tired of... "you couldn't have built that - you bought it" or "you can't teach yourself to [fill in the blank], "what makes you think you can rebuild an engine"... "you can't operate a [fill in the blank]".... "You couldn't have driven a semi.".. "No one can drive 1500 miles of snow and ice" yet I ran the north route to CA every week. You can fly (with that unbelieving tone)? You can't, you can't, you can't. Yes I do intend to design a better stol wing system... one that doesn't carry all the inherent drag at cruise (and yes of course its inherent in STOL mode).

Even when I do try RC for the first time and likely for many times... it will be baby steps... just off idle... take off a few inches cut the throttle and land.... and keep doing that until I have 100% initial non areobatic control in my thumbs. I imagine some hit full throttle and get out of control quick... I'd expect real quick. Thats also why I'd rather go with a used 4 stroke as I believe they have better low rpm performance/control than the 2 cycle. If I were at home where I have 4 ft tall green hay (not the short dried out fire tinder they have here) I'd learn RC next to it... so it would cushion any crashes and minimize the damage. But that's not an option here in NM. I also never said once I wouldn't crash it... and thought of how to make it come apart in a controlled manner when it does happen.

I did intend to seek out our local club and get some advice and do a bit a watching and learning... but I missed their last meeting... so I asked here. I'll go to their gathering in two weeks.

The 1/4 scale is to model and demonstrate a concept later... NOT to learn on... some how you all missed that or I misstated. The mechanicals I need to incorporate and demonstrate will need the size... but that will be after I've got a handle on the RC... and again it will be in baby steps to feel it out.

I don't think I'm even going to bother mentioning the real purpose of this endevor at the RC club... I'll just get the "look"....... again. My wife keeps telling me that I don't recognize the gifts God gave me... and that most don't have them and can't relate especially the engineering and mechanicals... maybe she's right. I didn't know the IQ thing until late in life... kinda wish I didn't.

You all have a good night.

Dave

Tarasdad

Ambition is a good thing and I applaud you for what you're trying to do. Seeking the advice and counsel of a local club is a good start. I bet you'll find a lot of kindred spirits as well. I have some background in mechanical engineering and design. Not much, but enough to understand what I don't understand! Your project is very much in that category. Aeronautical engineering is a bit beyond my comfort zone, I'm afraid.

BTW, I'm with you on the IQ dilemma. I've been rated at anywhere between 134 and 141, depending on the test, time of day, what I ate for breakfast, the weather or any of a million other factors.