dfturnock

David, (and Andy)

First Very nice looking Tipo. Definitely 'Eye Candy'!! Nice covering job. Yours and Andy's Tsunami sure set the barpretty high for the ones that follow. I'll try to not let you down on the Eyelash &Baby Banshee (2nd in line)

Ithink a FLEET is starting to sound like the right wording.. Igot into the .10-.25 sized planes my self for a few years, back in the mid 90's or so. Flew a lot of them for a while, then graduated up to the big birds for a long time. Everyhting goes in cycles. Ialso am going to the the Lazy Bee series, since Global discontinued them. Not Pattern by any means, but fits in the same 'little fun plane' category.

Andy, throttle response is a major part of my picking the OS10's.. That and Ihave a few of them sitting here gathering dust, so to speak.

To all of you... This is going tobe a undertaking to do this many kits.. Ifany if you have the parts in CADalready for any of these, I'm sure Ican trade that for a cut kit or something to get more of them ready quicker.Cutting the kits is the easy part, just baby-sitting the CNCrouter.The time consuming part is the CADwork to get ready to cut them. PM or email me if you can help theproject.

Speaking ofbaby-sitting the router, that's where I'll be the rest of the afternoon.

Don

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Don,

thanks for the appreciating comments on the little Tipo. I'm sure you won't let us down with the kit proto's.

Yup! Fleet is right. I'd be happy to help with CAD if I could - unfortunately not my forte. In fact, others will be helping a 20 size MK kit conservation project via their assistance with CAD. But there are plenty of great CAD guys on the forum. Hopefully some will get back to you if they can spare some time.

What is the list of kits that you would like to do?

Speaking of routers. I'm working on tracing assorted 20 size MK kit blocks. I'm doing the best job I can in terms of rendering the different views in my drawings but it's difficult to convey exactly what these parts looks like in the absence of 3D drawings or photos. Fortunately, the MK plans are quite graphic in their 3D construction drawings. Is there something specific that helps or that is needed in CAD in order to feed these blocks into the router and get the correctly carved piece? What software is used by your router for 3D blocks? Does in understand extruded 2D plans in AutoCAD for example or does it need a 3D model in something like Solidworks?

TIA, David.

Free Bird

David,

You're so right about the MN canopy! I had totally forgot about the rear part. It's the Pacer that didn't come with a clear canopy.

Don: Keith already has a mold of the MN front and rear canopy provided by you know who!

FB

dfturnock

David, If you mean actually shaping the 3D blocks so you don't have to sand, It can be done, but it takes too long during the cut process to be cost effective. It takes a lot of small width passes to turn out good 3D objects. What you can do in a few minutes takes it hours, but the results are perfect.

I've got a couple canopies in 3D i'd like to cut from maple to make plugs. Need to find a time to tie up the router for a full day and then some doing them.

If you mean 3D as flat pieces counting the thickness of the wood as the 3D,the software doesn't care, it just uses the 2D 'top' view of the part. During theCAMproces you tell it how thick the material is,so it knows how deep to cut while going around the part, offset bt the bit radius..

I'm pretty open on which planes to do. You guys control what I make much more than Ido

For the balistic guys, Iwant to do a .10 size TroubleMaker, but maybe not with the Ace wings. Hold on to your hat...

Don

Back to more cutting....

Free Bird

PM replied to....

And a mini Troublemaker!! [X(] You're killing me Don!!!

AndyW

My Feedback: (1)

Don,

Bringing back the Ace foam wings and the designs built around them will make a lot of 1/2A guys really, really happy. We are a creative, co-operative bunch that seem to get no respect. Your efforts will revive something that may prove very worthwhile, all around.

Attached is the Tsunami plans, I'm hoping that the original designer and kitter will be pleased and not upset. This really is a tribute to the excellence of the design. I should make another and build it to 15 ounces. This I can do by eliminating all sheeting. This would allow the use of the .06 for the thousands still out there waiting for a good home. The Tsunami, you will note, has a low thrustline. The engine has no downthrust or right thrust. This conspires to make an airplane that is neutral in all flight modes. Put her on her back and she just sits there, no tweak of down elevator required. Knife edges need just a tad of rudder correction. I'm not a pattern pilot, just a sport flyer so I'm sure the guys with the trimming skills could take her all the way.

If I were to build her for the wonderful OS .10, I'd do it bigger, so that the wing loading was some 7 ounces per square foot.

Damn, now this is getting me juiced. I think I can rework the Brodak to a rear exhaust and add a pipe. These came from CS, the maker of the Brodak and on the VA, added an easy 1.5K. If I could add that to the current, 20K on the Brodak,,,,

Just great, ANOTHER neat project in the roundtoit file.

PS

Don't read anything into what I said about her, we 1/2Aers talk like that cause we don't get no respect from the war department.

AndyW

My Feedback: (1)

As I look at the plans again, I see that there are many places where the structure could have been lighter without compromising the strength required for 1/2A. Originally, I just wanted to see what I'd get if I followed the plans exactly. In fact, I sized the plans to suit the spinner available. That worked out well, even the wood sizes came out to 1/16th ribs, 3/32" fuse sides and like that.

But sheeting adds lots of weight. Stringers and formers are the way to go. With such a small wing, sheeting is not needed for adding stiffness. In fact, if I did it again, I'd use LiteSpan which is what helped make the Stik stay light. The wing on the Stik has never suffered flutter or such nonsenses, despite dives at full bore at 20K on the Brodak hybrid. I'm just guessing but I'm speculating that the engine picked up some 2K in a full on, power dive. What it would do in a pipe,,, [X(]

Geez, good thing I've got a couple of Cox, heavy duty cranks.

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Andy,

a pipe on a 1/2A engine! That's something I have to see. The smallest pipe I have is for a .10 and it's 10" long! The muffled one is 12" long. How long is a pipe for a 1/2A engine - 7-8"?

David.

AndyW

My Feedback: (1)

David,

The CS pipe is 8 3/4" long, from one end to the other. The first picture is the pipe as tested on the VA .049. This was a posed shot, the coupler's somewhere in the pipe/muffler/coupler box.


The second and third pictures show the CS .049, ball bearinged engine it was made for. I got that engine from one of the guys who was thoroughly disgusted with it. While he COULD have re-built it, he was just to busy to have to mess around with a piece of slag metal, as I seem to recall him saying. Well, he wasn't far off, I did rebuild it, new bearings, head re-machined square to the cylinder etc. etc. It was STILL a piece of slag. I ran it without the pipe and WITH the pipe and my stock VA with a muffler did better,, FAR better. But that was with the glow head that came with it. Years later, someone was making new heads to take Nelson plugs and that's what you see there. But despite having a new head some three years ago, I fell in love with stinky power and have had no time for it. MAYBE this fall.

After the disappointment with the engine, I installed it on to the VA .049 MK1 that was flying my Ugly Stik, the shoulder wing version. Well, you have not had goose bumps till you hear an .049 come on the pipe and just BLAST that Stik forward. About a minute into THAT excitement, the engine slowed and got real loud. After landing, I found that the back end had parted company. I didn't find it till some 2 or 3 years later.

The fourth picture shows what happened. What I thought was a neat, cleanly machined, middle weld, was actually a thin walled NUT that held the two halves together. Not knowing this, I never ventured to make sure the assembly was tight. I've been tempted to use blue Loctite but not till I have it in an airplane, fully tested.

I've ordered a new batch of roundtoits but it's been held up at customs. When a fresh supply comes in, I hope to re-acquaint myself with piped 1/2As. Including how well a diesel conversion responds to a pipe. [8D]

Back to the CS. The VA and Norvel that responded to the pipe with a 1.5K boost, were stock. No timing changes were made to maximize the pipe's potential. I hope the picture shows it, the CS has BAGS of exhaust lead. Is this normal? Would the other engines respond better if the exhaust timing were changed?

dfturnock

No time to work on the Eyelash build, 11 sets of wings to cut today.

Did a quick set of scaled plans for the baby TroubleMaker last night, JPG of them attached... No way for the Ace wing to look right on this one, sweep gets the right length, but root chord is way too short be right Only deviation is in the 'cockpit' area, red shows original. Much easier build this way, and if someone wants to be accurate, they can trim the top of the nose on the fuse sides a bit. Will probably offer the choice of a flat stab and the proper foam ailrfoil shaped stab.

This has lead me to decide to use a scaled down wing from the original on most of these planes, instead of the ACE wing. The Tsunami and Tipo lookedSO good with the right wing, and flying will be more like original also, plus in most cases, the wing wil be slightly longer root chord, giving lower wing loading. Added to the fact that I have to cut them anyway, might as well cut the right ones, just as easy. The Mach None would Kick As% with the right wing!

Hopefully more tomorow.

Don

AndyKunz

Don,

If you're looking for REALLY affordable power, I have a handful (5?) Graupner Speed 400's and some ESCs sitting unused. They are roughly equivalent to a Cox .049. And you can't beat the price - just pay the postage.

Andy

AndyW

My Feedback: (1)

Don,

Brilliant minds think alike. YES, if you're cutting the wings anyway, make them like the original. I thought that you had stumbled on a warehouse full of the things, (Ace) and were going to put them to good use. That would be great but this new direction is even better. Neat.

Andy,

I'll take one or two, I have Paypal.

dfturnock

Actually, I was shipping out a couple sets of MachNone (Ace) wings, and ran across the Eyelash article the same day.. Needless to say the 'lightbulb' starting glowing very brightly Ididn't know what the response would be, but it looks like people are getting tired of the same old (B)arf park flyers, and smaller planes fit well in the current economy.

Don

dfturnock

AndyK

Iwasn't trying to be cheap for my sake, since Ialready have a few OS10's ready to install. But it's better to get people into the idea of the small electric pattern planes without scaring them off with the price of very high end propulsion. Let them them ease into that as they get comfortable. That is what scares people off about electrics, as it seems that the hard core electric guys who already went through the growing cycle, forget that theywere at the beginning point at one time also.We need to make entry into these as inexpensive as possible, IMHO. Ihopethis explanation comes across right.

Thanks for the offer, I already PM'd you. Iwas thinking along this size range, since it is better to design for the low end power, (keep it light) , knowing that the planeswill perform that much better with the good stuff.

Don

AndyW

My Feedback: (1)

Don,

There's something about building it yourself that makes the flying just that much sweeter.

dfturnock

AndyW,

Ain't that the Truth ! Hard to explain to an 'Arfie' how cool that feeling is.

Don

AndyKunz

Don,

If you don't mind, I think I have enough to share some with AndyW too.

AndyW - send me a PM with your e-mail and shipping address or e-mail me [email protected]

Andy

AndyW

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks Andy, PM sent.

Don,

The thing about ARFs is that they can introduce newcomers to our hobby with the least amount of troubleation. Electrics make it all even soooo much easier. And these days, you know, with the Chinese making them, they're not that expensive. Once the flying bug is bit though, many ARFers begin to wonder, what's it like to build one of these things. Familiarity with their ARF can help a lot when they come to build their own kit. I've just started to dabble in the "lekkie" world and it's beginning to make me nervous. Nervous because, like MIKEY,,, I LIKE IT. I'm just doing the buy and fly, plug and play thing to start but I'd bet that with the exceptional, (and getting cheaper) equipment out there, even for small aircraft, you may find a broader audience for your kits.

All the buzz about how dangerous LiPos are, kept me away, but as I work with them, it's clear that you really have to try hard to screw up. I had a small, toy heli pack swell up on me so just to see, I punctured it with a nail and stood back. Nothing happened.

Electric and glow options, I think, are the way these days. No need to exclude one or the other. Some "nitro" fans sneer at electrics and some "lekkie" guys snicker at us slimers but hey, if it flys, it's GOOD.

Just some ideas,, it's the coffee talking. Jack Daniels comes later,, MUCH later.

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Don,

nicely concluded! Bring on the purebreds!

'nough said,

David.

dfturnock

Been busy with custom kits for the las week, so no new pics on the Eyelash, but while in CAD anyway, been working on scaling a few planes.

This has brought up a few questions, I'd like to see what you folks think:

1)  Do I need to do built up wings also, or just stay with foam? I think thses will open to a much wider builder/flyer than just the pattern fliers. 

2)  What about STABS?  Is it worth the weight penalty & higher cost to have foam airfoil stabs at this size, if the original had them?  Seems to me that at the smaller size, balsa sheet stabs would be fine, and a bit lighter. I don't want to do 2 version of each.

3)  Scaling....   Should I pick a percentage and scale that way, or should I scale by wingspan?  I would think to stay around 40" wingspan would be best, to keep power plant needs as close as possible, the same way they were scaled to the Ace wings. The wingspans are pretty close on most of these, the fuse is what varies the most between designs..   Scaling by wing span would keep thesmaller birds in the same power plant range. What do you all think?

Should be able to get some more eyelash stuff done this weekend, we'll see.....  Have a good weekend.

Don @ Eureka Aircraft.com

BTerry

My Feedback: (8)

Here are my two cents:

1) Down the road you would be wise to offer a builtup wing design.

2) sheet balsa or builtup stabs are entirely sufficient. Foam "airfoiled" stabs are not at all necessary, and will be more work than they are worth.

3) For scaling purposes, it would make good sense to plan to use as many wing "similarities" on all the planes as is possible. For instance, if you make builtup wings try to use the same ribs on several different planes or use the same foam cores.

Size doesn't make a difference at all to those of us who will fly these planes on electric power, but the virtual non-existence of viable glow engine options requires that you scale the planes around a set size, say the Norvel .061. A better option MAY be to enlarge the plane slightly to accept the OS/Enya/TT/Magnum .10 to .15 size engines, which would give us a workable throttle and a limitless supply of very good engines.

**edit** I just re-read the first post and realize you are already planning to use the OS .10 engine. I had my mind stuck on the Ace wings, so I thought of the smaller engines.

p.s. how about doing a model of the EU-1A? The original model was HUGE for its day (BARELY had enough power on a piped .60) and would work out quite well on a .15 to .20 I believe.

AndyW

My Feedback: (1)

I agree with BTerry on points 1 and 2. But if you can scale down EXACTLY per the original, all you have to do is try to keep the wing loading down to 7 or 8 ounces per squares. If you have CAD and can input the laser cutter to any scale, it should be easy to offer exact scale models to suit the engine. Offer kits for the MANY .06 engines out there. Offer kits for the popular, OS .10 and even Enya 11s. There are a lot of small diesels that would also power either of these sizes. As you approach .15 engines though, that's getting "up there" for the small airplane crowd. Some will disagree but there are a lot more .06s around than .15s.

I've never been a fan of foam wings, too much glue to hold the sheeting on. And lots of sheeting means weight. Weight is a killer in small models. The Stik has a very simple, planked fuse. The Tsunami, far more complicated. I also sheeted the Tsunami wing to the main spar. Mistake. The next one will have no sheeting on the wing and I'd even eliminate as much sheet on the fuse as well. AND, I'd use a lightweight covering.

Wood selection is also a large factor. I've seen small kits tha used rock hard wood everywhere. Instead of the advertised weight of 20 ounces, they came in at 30,,, all just because of heavy wood.

I wouldn't try to standardize on any wing or airfoil platform. Airfoils can be a big factor in how well a plane flys. As with the Ugly Stik and the Tsunami, exact scale, smaller versions, with no deviation from scale, as long as the wing loading is low, will fly as well or better than the originals.

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

I'd agree with Andy and BTerry however, as far as point 3 is concerned, I would aim for scales that produce an average AUW and wing loading. If the power plants are to be standardized (whether electric or glow at say 250W ~= 0.33hp) then ideally the wing loading of the models would be kept appropriate for such plants. Since the planform changes from one design to another, then the wing span can be scaled to result in a MAC that produces something on the order of 200 squares (~1.38 sq ft).

In other words, I'd reverse engineer it as they say. Figure out what wing loading you want for the models, obtain the number of squares required for the AUW you're aiming for (I'd think something on the order of 25-30 oz) and then see what scaling results in order to produce a wing of that many squares. In all likelihood you'll see the spans ranging from 38" to as mcuh as 45" I'd Imagine but that's cool. As long as they all end up weighing the same, have the same area and same plants, then the rest just adjusts.

One good example of this sort of design approach was Fred Reese's 1/2A HOB stand-off scale series. They all weighed around 22-25 oz and had 36" spans. In fact, the wings for all 5-6 models are essentially the same with subtle differences to the planform to make them more scale like. In this case, I like Andy's concept of keeping them as exact fractional scale models and just have the size fall where it may.

Regarding foam/built-up, I think that's entirely up to you Don. I think (pattern) builders are accustomed to both but your average new builder might be more at ease with a built-up if their experience is with ARF's (or none at all). Personally, I like the end result of foam core wings and they can be built to be light (My Pico's at a fully sheeted finished weight of 7 oz weighed perhaps an ounce more than Raindave's built up UFO wing at similar scales/loadings) and truer. However, it's possible that on models this size, built-up might go a tad faster and might be lighter if ribs are appropriately re-selected.

Stabs, again up to you. I'd say go with whatever is easiest from a kitting stand point. I think the weight of finished foam core surfaces is likely to be more constant assuming you select the sheeting. With built up, the weight may vary a tad more depending on how much care is put into the wood selection - something which is time consuming when kitting.

All said and done, I really like the look of authentic reduced scale pattern bullets - mini versions of their big siblings with all the details that are practical and sensible to include (i.e., retracts, anhedral stabs, airfoiled empennage, etc.)

I look forward to the continuation of the Eyelash!

David.

dfturnock

Now that I have a few comments back, here was what I was thinking...

1)   I will have to offer both foam & built up wings. That definitely enlarges the target market, as having both on the SPA planes does. There are as many people won't build with foam wings, as there are people who won't buold built up wings.  Was just interested in comments.  I will not modify the wing planforms or airfoils from the originals, as I mentioned earlier.  The planforms and airfoils affect flying greatly, or they would be the same on all planes.  I really want to maintain the original's integrity on these as much as possible. 

2)   Stabs...  The big question    Being a guy who really likes foam, and has been building with nothing else for 20 years (when possible) , the foam stabs are my choice, with built up versions to match the built up wings.  There is very little weight difference between the two when done right.  If there is, you are using too much adhesive, or too heavy sheeting.   I also tend to believe that the airfoil stabs DO affect performance, or we wouldn't have them on the big brothers...  My problem with the flat stabs has always been rigidity. If you try to save weight on the stabs, they will not maintain shape during flight, and these will be baby pattern planes.  I'm not trying to make generic park fliers...  To maintain rigidity, they have to be stiffer, hence more weight, in line with airfoil foam or built up weight, with 1/32" sheeting, and the slab version will still not be even close to as strong and true.  I will probably use the original design, what ever it may be.  We'll see.  I don't want to make multiple versions of each, to accomodate flat and airfoil stabs.

3)  It isn't as simple as 'just scale it' to make more sizes.  Simply scaling doesn't take into account the wood thickness, which affects how a lot of pieces fit together, so there will be one size of each plane. I will make thes with tabs & slots for the formers, so that also leads to one size.  The more I think about it, from my end, staying with as close to 40" span as possible make my life much easier, for a variety of kitting reasons, packaging being one of them, unfortuately.  I did some quick experiments, and once scaled down, there really isn't much difference between the different planes anyway.  so weight should be fairly consistent, if WS is same. They don't need to be exactly the same , any more than the originals were..  I will be simplifying construction greatly, they will all be built pretty much the same.  i.e: firewall, former in front of wing and former behind wing. no other formers. Fin resting on stab between fuse sides, sides shaped as needed to maintain accurate shape.  Tri stock top and bottom as needed for accurate fuse rounding. Hatches to suite will be the responsibilty of the builder.  If canopies are available, or can be made, great.  

That said, not considerig kitting reasons, I would prefer to pick a scale % and use it. That way they are more 'consistent in their differences', just like their bigger siblings. A few test builds will let me know. After all, a Curare isn't the same size as a Compensator, or a Banshee, etc.

All in all, I can't wait to build a few and test them out.  that will answer a lot of questions.  The electric part is what needs testing, since I know they will kick as* on the .10's (or .15's for crazy people). I would tend to think there are far more .10/.15's than the smaller ones from all the clubs I've been in, I've seen very few of the cox/norvel, etc in my 25 years of flying, unless you hang around with the 1/2A crowd.  I will be designing for the .10 and electric equivilant of .10's+ ....

Don 

  

AndyKunz

Don,

I agree with you on just using the same per cent for all of them. I think it would be more fun. The .10 size is small enough to keep together in the car, but big enough that retracts are easily available (for those of us who like them) without a significant weight penalty. 40" is about right.

FWIW, those Speed 400's are only 100W motors - .049 tops. Best prop is 4.75x4.75, but they'll take up to about 6x3. The .10-.15 equivalent is the 2000 kv E-Flite inrunner I mentioned earlier, which will like a 6x3 to 7x6.

I can't wait to see them available.

Andy