Daniel_M

Hi everyone!

Recently I got an itch to write up a walkthrough for how to design your own aircraft which will examplify a design case. In this walkthrough which will consist of four .PDF documents, I will design my own aircraft from scratch- starting from setting specifications and ending with virtual flight tests in XFLR5 (freeware). For those of you who want to see how you would go about designing your OWN r/c airplane, this is just for you- this walkthrough shows you the steps you go through. In the walkthrough I make decisions, comrpomises, etc. which serve as excellent examples for how to go about designing. By the end of the walkthrough, a new aircraft would be designed which will correspond to the specifications we initially set. The tutorial will be broken up as follows:

Part I: setting specifications and designing the wing
Part II: designing the fuselage and tail
Part III: virtual prototype tests
Part IV: extras on flight mechanics

All parts will be free for everyone, but the content is copyrighted by me.

Part I is attached with this post, with the rest soon to come. Enjoy!

Best of luck and good flying!

Daniel Malyuta,
Malyuta Avionics.

TFF

Nicely done!

kdc

Perhaps the author of this article should tell us how many of his designs have flown successfully before we rely on his text to guide other modellers. What designs are they?

Also perhaps he would explain how he can claim copyright to the article which contains material ( the only part I would rely on ) which seems to be a photocopy of Chuck Cunninghams diagram on design which appeared many years ago in Radio Control Modeler magazine. Did he get permission to use this RCM material in his article which he claims copyright?

Daniel_M

Dear kdc,

Please take notice that I clearly stated the sources that material which isn't mine was taken from. I never claimed Mr. Cunningham's work to be mine either.

I will be honest and say that I did not build many models previously- only one. It flew, and crashed due to pilot's mistake after two months or so. I have read through many of the Airfield Models articles and read mr. Cunningham's work- my work is a compilation of many sources put into my own words with a few exceptions.

Those who do not want to rely on my work have the freedom to ignore it. I put my heart into the tutorial and did not mean to hurt anyone's modelling experience.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

PS. Here is an update which says at the end that I am not the owner of material which I stated isn't mine.

kdc

Frankly I believe you should not be publishing articles on designing if you have so little experience. Other beginners could be mislead into thinking you are a competant designer. We need more action from RCu to weed out the incompetant from the knowledgable.

Anybody wanting guidance in model design should instead read the full articles (5 in all ) by Chuck Cunningham or the one by Ken Willard which you can find still on the RCM website.

www.rcmplans.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=17

Both Cunningham and Willard have numerous successful designs to their name. Believe them. not some jumped up schoolboy mumbo jumbo.

Daniel_M

Dear kdc,

I wrote an article with the best of wishes following guidelines set by the articles you seem to be so fond of. It was not my intention for this good-minded thread to turn into an area for a biased propagandizer to propagandize his views. If you have nothing better to do then downgrade young, motivated, minds- then better not write at all. Did I make myself clear? I would appreciate it if any of the moderators on this forum would remove this set of un-wanted comments.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

kdc

I think the pdf articles links should be removed as misleading and probably infringing other peoples copyright. This may save the writer of the article from being sued by the copyright holder.

You need to fully understand your subject before writing articles to teach other people.

My further advice is to read much more about washout before voicing your opinions on it's desirability.

Daniel_M

Opinions are free. What I wrote is what I know from reading articles, books. I have clearly stated some advantages/disadvantages of washout, and then (as this IS a walkthrough on designing an aircraft, so there are bound to be opinions) I stated my own opinion. As I said, I did not claim to be the owner of some material whose source I mentioned. If anyone thinks it's best best for my article to get deleted, delete my article I will udnerstand- but then I guess I was wrong about the 'community' here, who would stick to designs from the 90s then let someone good-hearted have a voice in this.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

Daniel_M

*UPDATE* Part 1 v1.1 now includes a bibliography of the sources used. It is attached to the first post.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

Lnewqban

Good work, Daniel!!

I would like to learn more about the software that you have mentioned.

Some reference about copyrights, in order to clarify rights and duties of your work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrights

I believe the web publications you give credit to have been and are of "public domain", and any non-commercial reproduction only requires proper credit to the author.
May be contacting the several cited authors, webmasters or magazines for formal authorization would be a good idea.

Information contained in a paper book, like Andy Lennon’s, is another story.

Of course, that is only my humble opinion.
Although I may disagree with some info posted in your work, I have liked the idea, as I found it more useful than misleading.[sm=thumbs_up.gif]

I would suggest adding a disclaimer to each of your parts about using the non-rigorous information with a grain of salt.

Happy New Year!

kdc

It's not good work it is plagiarism and an uninformed re-hash of other peoples work. The author does not understand much about aeromodelling as he proves in his other posting.

Nobody should be guided by his writing, it's 'the blind leading the blind'

flyngfrog

Hi everybody, Happy New Year!
These are my thoughts about this:
I've been building and flying model airplanes since about 1975, free flight, CL and RC models. Have done some own design changes from the original models. Most of "my designs" worked fine. I agree that the esperience is a great value (a most have) to start designing from scratch. The experience shows you some facts that you can't find in books or manuals, and gives you some criteria to know some things will work and some don't.
Since I'm a engineer, I would go to the original sources and beyond that to the aerodinamics principles. I saw a plans sale from a Hellcat in internet and my first question to the seller was if the design has been proven, if it already flew. I don't know for you but for me it is a big investment a new plane, in money and in building time, specially an scale model.
What I think would be a good article from Daniel is a description in how he applies the information he found while making his own design and telling us his goals and mistakes. Even it is a richier article because it leaves a door open to other guys with more experience to give advice in specific points. I've seen many building threads here about building and learned so much that I'm sure Daniel can start a project based in the information he has and make it a reallity with everybody advice.
I leave it to your consideration, just my opinnion.

Hope for all of us happy flying this year.

haikt

My Feedback: (11)

KDC,
Please remove the stick you have in your @@## and leave this person alone.
You seem so jealous of the idea that someone else has done something better then you that you cant live with yourself.
I have been building CL FF and RC for about 20 years now and have very strong opinions about the subject, but can read this project with interest.
I dont agree with all of the info. but dont feel that I need to enforce my opinion on everyone (inferiority complex).
Daniel your doing good job and keep on at it. To calm some of the people that cant seem to live with someone else having a good idea other than them, you may want to post your experience level.

dhal22

it did seem to bit a bit over the top.

kdc

Is there a real company or organisation that exists called "Malyuta Avionics" or is it just a fake title dreamt up to make this info seem to have come from an expert and experienced source.?
I am just very concerned that someone could set themselves up as an expert with a company name and write articles advising other people when they themselves are a pure beginner ( see this persons other postings for evidence.....last week he was asking how to align a tailplane without using sensors! )

We cannot allow RCu to be full of articles that mislead beginners.

This is the second time in just a couple of weeks that some completely inexperienced schoolboy has pretended to be an expert and offer plans or articles advising other people. This other person offered a free plan which had no proper wing spars etc. Again some sycophantic, but also inexperienced people tried to say it was good when it was awful. Very misleading to other beginners. It is up to the more experienced aeromodellers to bring attention to this kind of misleading info. It is a safety matter and this matters even more than the reputation of RCu as a source of good info.

haikt

My Feedback: (11)

KDC,
if you see yourself as an expert builder then please feel free to point out all that is incorrect with the article. I will enjoy reading your points and will learn something in the process, but dont come out so aggressive and call everyone idiots. makes you look very ........

dolanosa

KDC,

   As everyone knows, it would be irresponsible and idiotic to base your knowledge using one source.  Daniel's is just one source.  You seem to be bashing sources you believe is incorrect.  At least Daniel tries...even though avionics is used incorrectly, which would immediately tell me something is wrong.  If you have forgotten, this is the 'net and it's caveat  lector. 

    My suggestion for you is instead of giving negative comments and bashing a relative n00b, make some constructive criticism and help him do the right thing.  There's no need to be a douchebag. 

BMatthews

While I have to agree with some of what KDC has pointed out I would suggest that the manner and feel of his replies so far are not in the good natured and SUPPORTIVE spirit of RCU. KDC, by all means point out issues and your other observations about where the material comes from but please do so in a more polite manner.

Daniel, I do agree with KDC that you've got a long way to go. There's a lot of erronious or misleading material in your writeup in so many spots that it would require almost quoting 1/2 of the article to show them all. Also by adding even a fictitious name to your material it makes it appear to be from a company that has some credentials.

However, as I've often learned for myself writing an article of this sort can often force the author to ask themselves questions and seek answers for a lot of things they took for granted before. You can't properley explain something to someone else if you don't fully understand it yourself. You have obviously come a long way over your short time in this hobby. Anyone that designs their own model and gets it to fly for more than one flight does truly deserve a pat on the back. But doing this doesn't make one a fully fledged expert on all or even some of the aspects of design, construction and finally flying.

While I agree that there's a lot of errors or bad assumptions in the article I also see that you've learned a lot about the topic in many other ways. There's certainly the core of an eventually good resource here. However due to the issues you should be treating your article as a long term work in progress and edit it as you go along and learn more about model building and flying until it is actually the solid reference that you hope for. It'll come but there's a lot of points to iron out at the moment.

The biggest positive I see about this is your process of actually identifying what the model should do, how it should be built and what the final goal for the design really is supposed to be. For many of us that have done this for years a lot of this just happens during the initial concept of a new model or the goals are set by the competition event we'll be using it in. Or perhaps the design is an evolutionary growth of a past design and many of these aspects are already set. But in our own way we each go through that process. But for a beginner it may not be that easy.

I would also suggest that you add a prologue explaining that this is an article about YOUR process in model design and that it is being written by someone that is still learning with a long way to go.

allanflowers

When kdc points out that "Malyuta Avionics" is probably the invention of a school kid, he is undoubtedly correct. When he states that practically all the information in Daniel’s “treatise” is taken from other writers, he is correct.
When he states that a lot of people, beginner and experienced alike, use RCU for information upon which to base their own modeling efforts, he is correct. His opinion that we should be able to rely on this forum is a worthy, if optimistic, goal.

I do not think it is appropriate to describe him as a ‘douchebag’.
He has not described himself as an ‘expert builder’, nor has he called everyone ‘idiots’.

He has pointed out that Daniel Malyuta is not the expert he poses as.
In this, he is correct.

After visiting Paul Johnson’s site http://www.airfieldmodels.com/index.html , I find it is obvious that Daniel has just lifted the concept and much of the content from there. What doesn’t come from there is from Cunningham and others.

haikt

My Feedback: (11)

So lets take everything that everyone on this forums write because no one here is an expert. Or who and what qualifies one as an expert or not?
everyone has the right to write whatever they want and it should be up to the reader to make the choice.
I agree with the points that KDC makes but I dont agree with his tone and aggressive approach...
Please make corrections to the article and help all of us learn instead of saying that all is trash and lets close it, after all that is not constructive.
And what if he took his knowledge from other books and articles as long as the gives the author credit. Last time I checked no one has invented anything new in aerodynamics for 30-40 years if not more.

BMatthews

Quite true. There's not much that is new under the sun. The material from Airfield as well as what Cunningham wrote so many years ago is just paraphrasing of matieral that came from an earlier source and so on back for a few generations. In that light there's nothing at all wrong with Daniel paraphrasing in turn. However what is misleading is that much of the material isn't paraphrased correctly or isn't used in the proper context or some basic assumptions are in error. In its present state it isn't really fair to give it to a new modeller because of these things.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Go for it Daniel!

I have up to now been used the old drafting table routine to design airplanes. I think it will be fun to follow your article and see how things develop. Who knows you may teach this old dog a few tricks and you might give him enough incouragement to learn R/C CAD software.

Mike

Lnewqban

[sm=thumbs_up.gif][sm=thumbs_up.gif][sm=thumbs_up.gif]

Avaiojet

KDC,

The planet is full of individuals that "mislead."

Where does one start?

Charles

Daniel_M

Dear all,

I hope you are all having a fantastic 2010, and thank you for everyone's comments- bad or good. I will undoubtedly make revisions to the article and the parts to come. I will continue writing and updating my articles, and as haikt said,

As to all who oppose me, I will make you a deal. After completing this set of articles, I will build this design of mine. If it doesn't fly- I will suffer from my own mistake and I will admit it, but if it flies well- you who don't agree now can excuse themselves. How does that sound?

Back at the start of the 20th century, how 'mislead' must the Wright Brothers have been? Yet they pulled through and started us ALL off.

Best wishes for 2010,

Daniel.

PS. And KDC, the name IS invented. Just thought it would be fun to make a logo. If you are beyond creativity and 'fun', I feel sorry for you.