So, I have my plans done, and am waiting to hear back on laser cutting prices, so I was playing around a little bit and I can't decide which I like better.

Tell me what you think. I can see the argument of it doesn't look like the original and I can see the argument the second one looks sexier. LOL I might have to do one of each.

#2 certainly "looks" better, at least to my eye. Your choice depends on whether you want it to look like a Deception or an Atlas. I wonder if the folks at SPA would take issue with the change as far as SPA "legality" goes.

ChiefK

I am thinking piped 61 and retracts either way. So I think this is more of a BPA bird anyway, LOL.

If BPA is what you're interested in, I'd go with the "Atlas" look. I'm interested in SPA... simple planes for retarded reflexes, but I would definitely choose the modified look, without retracts and pipe, if SPA was OK with it.

ChiefK

I have to admit, I liked the shape, but it drove me to biting my desk when I saw the "lightening holes" all through the tail.

How much weight do you think it'll save? In my experiece small holes like that do little to reduce weight, and just make things harder finishing wise, if you'd stuck with full sheet sides and fin you could paint it, but now you're relogated to monokote, which unlike the plane, isn't as good as it used to be.

As regards SPA, if it looks like a duck, (meaning it has the same proportions, wing area, moments and airfoils ) and quacks like a duck.

It must be a deception....

I like the contemporary look of #2. I would turn off the lightening hole layer.

-Robert

I've heard of the "...looks like a duck" rule, but now it would look like an Atlas duck, not a Deception duck. As to Monokote, it may or may not be what it once was ( I haven't used it in many years ), but I did recently use Coverite. It went on very nicely, doesn't seem to wrinkle, and takes paint well for color trim.

ChiefK

Heresy, Heresy. Comparing a Deception and an Atlas to a duck.

Paternguy
I like the 2nd as much as the first, but I have to agree with Chiefk the second is not a Deception. The different canopy darn near makes it a new airplane. Why not give the second a new name?

I have to admit that these two planes, Deception and Atlas, were the reason I got back into RC two years ago. Have an Atlas kit waiting to be built. Have the plans for the Deception but no kit. Any chance of getting a copy of your plans and laser cut files?

Bryan

Several things............ First loose the lightning holes your not going to to save that much weight and also laser cutting goes by inches cut usually.. that is alot of cutting... get a good foam source , I use the same foam that Carden aircraft uses .76 virgin pound foam... Contest grade would is also key and as we do here in the shop when the wood arrives we sit down and weight it all... we don't go over board with glue either.. We are working on 3 electric version Deceptions right now and should be well under 7 pounds.

As far as the Duck rule, you changed it to the point it does look like a Deception.... In SPA the most changes are a stretch of the fuse or widening it a bit to hold a OS 91 4-stroke.

I have done wings for Rusty Dose and we did put in retracts so he can fly both BPA or SPA by leaving them down... http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7888157/tm.htm

Anyhow, the PMA Deception planes are done from the Original deception plans and a new canopy plug and mold where made... See http://www.rcfoamy.com/page5.html

Our new CAD drawings about done and will be offering another version of a kit shortly...

As a side note we also have the Peppermint Pattie II and the 40 size PP also...

Scott
Performance Model Aviation
www.rcfoamy.com

The dimensions are exactly as shown on the original plan, no changes were made to the airframe other than the built up wing and stab. The intent with the tail is the lightening holes will be in 1/4" balsa sheeted with 1/8" contest grade on either side, so it could still be done in either iron on or paint if you so choose.

My last two deceptions came out around 8.5 lbs, so what I am aiming for is an all up weight of around 7 lbs here, if it’s a tad heavier it should still be a great flying bird.

The only real difference between the two drawings is the canopy.

I prefer to build all balsa wings these days, I am not saying one is better than the other; it’s just my personal preference.

I am leaning towards the second drawing at the moment. Although I could see giving it a new name, I have a hard time justifying that, as the airframe is identical to the original.

I would be glad to give anyone a copy of the plans, just shoot me a PM and let me know what format you want them in and what e-mail address to send them too.

I take it you've added a spine down the back of the fuse between the canopy and fin right? Even though it's not shown on the sections.

That's a bit of a mach one trait is it not?

How about the decept-one

Yes I did add one. Not a bad idea on the name.

Hey Paternguy,
I really like the looks of the second version. Back in the early '80s I built a couple of modified Deceptions with an upright mounted, rear exhaust engine. I enclosed the tuned pipe and ran the top 'turtle' deck back to the fin. Flew great with excellent knife edge authority. I did rename it to the 'Misconception'
Could you send a copy of your plans to: [email protected]
Thanks and happy building - let us know how it flies!!
-Will Bartlett

Doug,

my feeling is that the general idea of lightening the wood is a good one but using single layer sheets (e.g., for the fuse sides and top) with several small lightening holes might not amount to considerable weight savings and might actually weaken the structure a fair amount. On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in laminates and their strengthening properties are well known to all of us. It's sufficient just to consider a skinned foam core wing or a sheeted lite ply fuse frame as examples.

With the above in mind, rather than drilling out the fuse sides in a "gun shot" fashion, another idea would be to laminate the sides and do much like you planned for the fin. A three layer laminate using contest balsa (if desired) skins with a considerably lighter medium balsa frame core. In other words, one would cut three sheets per surface using perhaps a 1/16" skin on the outside, a 1/8" frame core and a 1/32" inner skin. That would produce a fuse side thickness of slightly more than the 3/16" indicated on the plans (by 1/32") but the overall structure might be considerably lighter provided the core is designed properly and glue is used very sparingly.

Another option would be to consider a composite fuse structure much simplified compared to the concepts used in 2m pattern. For example, rather than using an inner skin, it could be omitted and instead, the frame core could be laminated with the outer 1/16" skin using CF mat in between wherever the core has surface contact with the skin. Again, this is much akin to how wings are sometimes built. Another variation yet would be simply to laminate the skin completely with CF mat (very light) and bond that laminate to the fuse core.

If one is familiar with the way that Precision Aerobatics builds their airframes, it gives and idea of what I'm thinking of. I'd say the only issue with this approach is that one has to factor in the shaping required to the side and top surfaces. Using CF in areas that will be removed due to shaping is somewhat wasteful and also requires shaping the fuse at glue joints where CF is present - not ideal. With that in mind, I'd think of using CF selectively in areas that reinforce the structure but otherwise use it sparingly in the construction. Here again, there are parallels with how 2m fuses are built either in molds or even when built up.

Come to think of it, Mike Hester might have some suggestions on the best way to approach the composite idea and if it makes sense on a design such as the Deception. With that said, I've found CF mat layered under foam core wing skins to produce wings of amazing strength. Undoubtedly it would do the same for fuse laminates - even on classic designs!

David.

Will,

Misconception - good name! Unfortunately, Re-ception isn't quite as good...

I don't suppose you ever took any pictures of it by any chance? Did you modify the fin to be airfoiled and integral to the pipe deck rear? It almost sounds like a Deception with a Tiporare or Magic type fuse top.

David.

Goal number 1 is stay light, goal number 2 keep it simple.

I don't want to over complicate this, as the Deception is a relatively simple airframe to begin with. Once I send out the final plans, you can do yours however you want to. LOL

I would love to hear about anyone who goes the composite route and saves a ton of weight.

Hi David,
There are pictures, but they are at my parent's house (600+ miles from here). I would say it looked more like the Magic, but the 'canopy' apex was a bit higher. The Misconception had a lot of lateral area for the time. Maybe I'll build another
-Will

Patternguy,

7 pounds is a very easy to reach....the 1st deception I did with old foam wing( by old foam- mean 1pound virgin) and watching the wood using all contest grade my plane came out at 7.0 pounds RTF - fuel... I know there is another 7 oz to take out of the plane with new foam .76 pound foam and a lighter fiberglass canopy layup and a few other tricks.. So we are hoping the electrics come out at 6.5 to 7 pounds RTF with battery.

The spine on the fuse from the canopy to tail is a trait of the Mach One..

Good luck with the project.....


scott

okay guys...

Is there interest in a composite Deception kit ????? what are you willing to pay ??????? Remember plug and mold making is time and money.....


scott

Scott,

what would it consist of. I don't think it makes much sense to make a full composite fuse but maybe I'm mistaken. If I am, I would think that it probably ought to be re-designed on the inside to accomodate a RE engine setup. In other words, we might be talking about a modified Deception much like Will was talking about - a Misconception. On the other hand, using modern techniques for building a wood laminate fuse might be interesting.

What do you have in mind?

David.

Since I'm in favor to stay with the SPA and BPA original idea... I was NOT in favor for the duck rule, that ruined alot of good planes, but keeping to a 3% rule like prior... The plane would be as it is now but in composit... if you want a rear exhaust you should there is a T2A...

Are you talking about a CF/FG/wood fuse layup?

Where would that put the cost of a short kit?

Do a fiberglass fuse with carbon in the wing saddle area and in the nose.. like to good old days of the fiberglass kits..... LA1 , LA2, SL1 etc...

Then sell a kit = fuse/wing and plans.... not sure of price depends on tooling cost....

It is not worth doing just for a few planes... Unless I get bored and do it for myself...


scott

Scott,

I think the question remains: How many kits would it require to make the process worth undertaking (i.e., for it to be worth your time and expertise)? I would imagine that it might not be too hard to find 10-20 interested parties - initially. Typically though, the profit margin (for little that it may be) happens over the course of time. If you are able to estimate the cost (within 10% say) of such a composite kit based on what you believe the market to be, then it might be easier to stir up some interest.

I believe that the cost of such a kit is fairly standard though - on the order of ~$250-300 - is that possible?

David.

Doug,

nice layout for the laser cut file. If I understand correctly you did layout the fuse sheeting as a laminate - is that so? It appears that you have some 1/4" frame sheets as well as intact 1/8" sheet to go on the outer surfaces.

It will make for an interesting kit!

David.