ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

I would be first in line for a set of symmetric wings for this plane. Even just a set of cores that would allow me to use the same wing tube location and locating pins. They're the biggest reason I held off buying one of these as long as I did, and the only complaint I have regarding it since I started flying it. This plane could be so much more......

I'm not going to complain about it though. It is what it is, and it's enough fun just like this to warrant a position in my flying stable for a long time?

Regarding the CG, this is so much about personal taste I'm not going to get in to anything but the fact that for those with solid flying experience, especially those that like to clown around with their planes, you owe it to yourself to mess with the CG location. ESPECIALLY those flying Great Planes kits. They are REALLY conservative with that suggested CG location. They even suggest there may be people who prefer to move it back after the test flights are complete. I'm at 1/2" back, and just bought a lightweight spinner to replace that boat anchor that comes with it, hoping to move it back further.... FWIW, -Al

microdon2

My Feedback: (47)

ahicks - I like that idea - symmetrical wings for the Revolver. Maybe on the 84" version, Great Planes?

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

84" might be nice for others. I've been through the progressively bigger planes, and find my newer ones getting smaller? The 20cc size seems perfect for me. They're still plenty big enough for me to see, and handle well enough where the advantages of the bigger plane just aren't there for me. So easy to handle, and very reasonable cost (compared to the 50cc).

So I'd be really pleased with a more refined Revolver V.2 - with symmetric wing. Then again, that affords the powers that be to jack up the price of the plane - again!

microdon2

My Feedback: (47)

Why not have both? GP keeps the very successful 59 and 70" Revolvers and builds an 84" version for those of us still "on the up-swing"? And package that with a DL 55.

neilrether

I've wondered if anyone has sliced up a crashed wing in order to get rib profiles and built a balsa wing. I wonder how much weight could be saved. It would also allow for trying out a symmetrical airfoil. Has anyone considered this or tried it? Of course, this is getting outside the realm of ARFs.

Neil

microdon2

My Feedback: (47)

neilrather - interesting idea. But if you're designing a symmetrical wing you wouldn't need the Rev 70's wing profile, right? Might be better to emulate a 3D plane's symmetrical wing? I wonder how that would affect the flight characteristics of the plane (hopefully make it more responsive, 3D capable?). Would be a cool experiment.

lopflyers

My Feedback: (12)

Sign me in.

Sbach342Guy

I've always thought a 3D plane with the Revolver color scheme would be sweet but no more than 30cc.

lopflyers

My Feedback: (12)

Hey; by your sign line I can tell you like Sbachs also. I just flew my Sbach 342 today. The Goldwing 72 inches with DLE 30cc. It flew awesome. The CG is off where the manufacturers said. I had to add dead weigth to the nose. Great looking plane though.

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

So going back to that symmetric wing idea.....

If someone were to have a set of symmetric wings left over after an unfortunate "arrival" while coming back down to mother earth, that were about the right size, why wouldn't they work? The wing tube will almost always be located right on the CG, just like the fuselage? That means there would be no heavy duty calculations or mods required there. Just get the fuse and wings set up for the same size wing tube? From there, you would have to jig the fuselage up level, then set the correct incidence on the wing, and mark the locating dowel positions. Not that big a deal?

I had a bad day a while back, and have a set of Aeroworks Yak 90-120 wings sitting up in the rafters with just minor damage (fuselage completely destroyed). They're about 950 sq in, but as they would need to be recovered anyway, wouldn't be that hard to remove a couple inches on each side to bring that in closer to the 850 inches we're looking for. That would leave you with a lighter, SYMMETRIC wing, fairly similar to what's on there now (double tapered)? Think I'm going to try that the next time the urge/opportunity to build strikes.

That's just one example of a set of wings. There has to be dozens more that would work just as well or better? A set of wings from a big pattern plane would really let this thing move..... and still be very aerobatic?

microdon2

My Feedback: (47)

ahicks - GO for it!

wjcalhoun

Ortho
What you describe is exactly what one would expect from a book-trimmed CG R70. Two things are in play: one is the CG, which most of us believe should be 1/2" or more AFT of the book, and 2nd is the semi-symmetrical wing which generates lift asymmetrically. At any given angle of attack (AOA) the lift vector of the wing will be more toward the 'top' of the wing than a fully symmetrical wing would be. That is, the wing takes a greater (negative) AOA (i.e. more down elevator) than a symmetrical wing would require for a given amount of lift. So even with an entirely neutral CG, an R70 trimmed for level flight upright WILL require down elevator to hold level flight while inverted. Theoretically with a symmetrical wing, and a neutral CG, the plane would not care whether it was upright or inverted (except for the down-thrust build into most engine installations).

Maybe more than you wanted to know.

microdon2

My Feedback: (47)

wjc - Since with a non-symmetrical wing the airfoil develops lift, would that wing them pull the plane DOWN when inverted? So that the only aspect keeping the plane flying level would be the AOA, controlled by the elevators?

Same question for a symmetrical wing. AOA provides all lift? (which then still sounds like you'd need some down-elevator when going inverted). Thanks.

microdon2

My Feedback: (47)

I just found this article on How Airplanes Fly.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/airflylvl3.htm

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

The bigger piece of flying a semi symmetrical wing for a lot of guys is the fact the amount of lift produced changes with the speed it's flying at? This means the elevator trim required for straight and level flight changes constantly. Trimmed for straight and level flight at 3/4 throttle will require one to add considerable down elevator using the stick for that wide open low pass down the strip, as well as up elevator when slowing down for a landing.

A well balanced (neutral CG) plane with a symmetrical wing will remain neutral - at almost any speed - as well as right side up vs. up side down. They go where they're pointed. That's not known as a very good atrribute for trainers - that are judged by their ability to "self right" if given a chance. That's the purpose of the semi symmetric wing - to be more forgiving. It's a step up from a flat bottomed wing, which displays those same trim required vs. speed change atributes in an even more dramatic fashion than what we're expeirencing with this wing.

FWIW, -Al

AJsToyz

Al,

I like the way you think! I was just thinking about the Revolver but let a little sigh out when I heard about the wings. Would not take much to make a new set though that would probably be a lot more fun. I was just looking at a Pulse 1.25 but same thing with the airfoil .

Btw, my Decathlon went for a van ride, it left the country on me! Lol nice plane, just not for me.

Andy

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

Hi Andy!
This is a REALLY nice flying sport plane. Super neutral on knife edge, it's right up there on my all time favorites list (right behind a 20cc OMP profile). This wing lets it slow WAY down without dropping a wing. Much lower than that stupid (over weight?) Decathlon with 200 more inches of wing area (1050). I really don't mean to knock it at all when suggesting it be equipped with a symmetric wing. That's setting it up closer to MY idea of perfection. Thinking that might be a shade different than the purpose for which it was originally designed - to the needs of way more pilots than might be attracted to my personal list of desirable attributes? (Betting it would be a popular option if offered though....)

The Decathlon was a beautiful plane, drew lots of attention on the flight line, but trying to get the CG straightened out and leave me with something that would land predictably was finally just too much. Too many other planes out there I haven't flown yet that I'd like to. After that experience, can't blame you one bit for sending yours on a van ride!
Later, -Al

wjcalhoun

Guys
Wow - this thread got quiet all of a sudden.

I had not flown my R70 for about 5 weeks, and got to fly today on a gorgeous Texas afternoon. Blue skies, 3 knot winds, etc.

I am beginning to tranform my R70 /DLE20 to more of a speed plane. I had been swinging a 17x6 Xoar prop - very good performance but slow. I switched to a 16x8 Xoar prop for today and it really changed the character of the plane. Instead of being sedate, it was spirited. Rolls were quicker with increased airspeed, and it was really much more fun to fly. I did not lose the unlimited vertical performance, although it does not punch out on a true vertical upline as quickly as with the 6-pitch prop. Flat spins, harriers, avalanches, etc were all great.

For those of you with DLE20, give a 16x8 prop a try. Next time out for me, it will be a 15x10!

weskel

My Buddy used a Waterjet to cut out these mounts I drew in Autocad, they are for my new DLE20 to put on my revolver...

Nice to have friends with cool toys....

orthobird

My Feedback: (1)

that is aluminum? if so, they should be strong enough.  if he did not charge you, even better, then he is a good friend.

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

Holy Smoke! I would say so. Very nice!

afjetmech

Looking forward to your 15x10 results. I had an Xoar 16x8 and liked the way it flew until a nose over broke it. Replaced it with an APC 16x8 and it does seem a little slower. Ialso am looking to get as much speed as possible out of mine. I also had a 15x8 on it for a while (not sure what brand) but I think the DLE20 was really over reving. This was the prop on it when my crankshaft pin broke also. Was kind of afraid to put another one on after that.

weskel

Yup, T-6 Aluminum, 3/8" thick...

Very good friend, no charge at all, not even for the metal. Havent weighed them yet, but they feel lighter than a standard plastic/nylon mount.

Amazing machine, cut it out in a little over 15 minutes, he says it is capable of cutting 6 inchs of stainless steel.

Ill post some pictures when I get it mounted.

microdon2

My Feedback: (47)

wjc - I've been using an APC 16x8 for my Rev 70 \ OS 120 4s and it give me a nice balance of speed and excellent vertical. Have been thinking of trying an APC 15x10 to wring out some more speed. Same with my Rev 70 \ DLE 20 - was using an APC 16x8 (will start rebuilding that soon). I'm just about finished rebuilding my Rev 59 \ OS 91 4s. Thinking I should be able to fly this Friday morning. Can't wait. Love the look of the Rev 59.

Perfect flying weather and some great flying here in NY yesterday. Pic from yesterday attached. btw - that's the Manhattan skyline in the background, behind those trees.

btw - just noticed on Tower that the price of the Rev 70 is not $249 and the Rev 59 is $214. Did that just happen? Isn't that a $30 price jump for each??

lopflyers

My Feedback: (12)

Beautiful pic man