Allure by Bryan Hebert
07-10-2014, 08:11 AM
#51
Hi Brian
Moving the wing forward on a pattern model to keep the airplane stable is the wrong direction to go, and a big old time pattern Myth and the wrong correction to fix the problem. The airplane has to snap, to do this the c/g needs to be forward unless you fake it
To get the cg at the right percentage of MAC with the wing forward is almost impossible to do and if you do what have you really accomplished? . Wing position is regulated by one thing , the ability to place the gear and make the CG right , nothing else (within reason). The reason for all the double fences ,and extensions is the placement of the cg no other reason. This "placement" is limited or controlled by the inc in the wing verses the thrust line set up. The Inc. setup is regulated by what the wing can tolerate. The smaller the area the less it can tolerate. and so on. where we want to run the cg verses where it tolerates the CG is where the problems show up.
I have adjusted a few of these models correctly and removed the need for these devises. the airframe is solid. its just a matter of adjustment.
Like I said earlier, the factory is only responsible for ball park settings, it`s up to us to get it perfect for our needs depending on what class we fly , most Add on`s are usually a shortcut and with a little bit of effort can be removed or reduced. Not all are for fixes though, some actually are good additions and enhancements.
my 2c
Bryan
Moving the wing forward on a pattern model to keep the airplane stable is the wrong direction to go, and a big old time pattern Myth and the wrong correction to fix the problem. The airplane has to snap, to do this the c/g needs to be forward unless you fake it
To get the cg at the right percentage of MAC with the wing forward is almost impossible to do and if you do what have you really accomplished? . Wing position is regulated by one thing , the ability to place the gear and make the CG right , nothing else (within reason). The reason for all the double fences ,and extensions is the placement of the cg no other reason. This "placement" is limited or controlled by the inc in the wing verses the thrust line set up. The Inc. setup is regulated by what the wing can tolerate. The smaller the area the less it can tolerate. and so on. where we want to run the cg verses where it tolerates the CG is where the problems show up.I have adjusted a few of these models correctly and removed the need for these devises. the airframe is solid. its just a matter of adjustment.
Like I said earlier, the factory is only responsible for ball park settings, it`s up to us to get it perfect for our needs depending on what class we fly , most Add on`s are usually a shortcut and with a little bit of effort can be removed or reduced. Not all are for fixes though, some actually are good additions and enhancements.
my 2c
Bryan
Last edited by flyncajun; 07-10-2014 at 08:14 AM.
07-10-2014, 09:10 AM
#52
' Moving the wing forward on a pattern model to keep the airplane stable is the wrong direction to go, and a big old time pattern Myth and the wrong correction to fix the problem. '
Hi Bryan,
At the risk of been seen as argumentative ;
Take the example of a pre-existing design that is, for the sake of this conversation, E powered with single prop drive and is already borderline in yaw damping/stability for F3A purposes.
Replace the single prop with a contra.
Two things result immediately;
- The CG is moved forward.
- The effective side area is increased by the extra prop - but this increase is at the front - thus adversely affecting yaw damping/stability.
In this scenario moving the wing forward to re-establish CG as % of MAC and or to re-establish relative side areas would seem reasonable to me.
Brian
Hi Bryan,
At the risk of been seen as argumentative ;
Take the example of a pre-existing design that is, for the sake of this conversation, E powered with single prop drive and is already borderline in yaw damping/stability for F3A purposes.
Replace the single prop with a contra.
Two things result immediately;
- The CG is moved forward.
- The effective side area is increased by the extra prop - but this increase is at the front - thus adversely affecting yaw damping/stability.
In this scenario moving the wing forward to re-establish CG as % of MAC and or to re-establish relative side areas would seem reasonable to me.
Brian
07-10-2014, 10:40 AM
#53
Hi Brian I here ya,
Those are reasonable arguments, and in theory they are correct. and it`s easy to loose the Forest for the Trees. I think practical examples work better here.
My argument is ,To make the cg work with the wing position on the fuse for equipment placement is the biggest criteria to be concerned with. Trying to add stability with tail moment or more area in the rear has quick diminishing returns for maneuverability and the ability to snap and recover for f3a.For other classes they would be ok and may be a benefit. But hard to overcome as they move up in class difficulty because of developed habits learning to deal with the ease of flying the model through rolls and loops.
The vast majority of stability comes from the front of the model on a decent design , the fine stability comes from the rear as demonstrated by my k/e Valiant video. The model is super stable in all conditions yet extremely maneuverable in knife edge Snap recovery and yaw without detracting from precision, duplication, and application of rudder anywhere.
To move the c/g from 23% to 27% on a average wing is about one inch of movement. this should be the target within reason on a Bipe or Mono. That`s only a 4-5 % margin and to get the equipment moved to compensate 1" takes tremendous effort and rearranging. Most models offered today are set to run the CG from 30-35% that`s another inch. so if you move the wing forward you will never be able to fly the airplane correctly or, get the cg right to fly in all conditions.
Putting three servo`s in the rear of a airplane is common these days, and with this setup, there is no way to get the c/g to the proper position. So, you see single double fences added to the rear , rudder elevator flares, strakes, double t-cans mini bipe t-cans Ect. this is all to overcome a setup problem ,or running the cg too far back. 6 ounces on the tail is like taking 18 Ounces off the nose! it`s a tremendous weight differential But Yet, we somehow manage to make it work! and mix most of it away if we have too.
It is absolutely amazing how far rearward and forward you can put the cg and get a airplane to be reasonable in all conditions But , Bumpy choppy air, always tells the tale.
The new knife edge triangle and v-8 maneuver's and manv like the golf ball radius down wind will give you fits with this setup.
I like to say sensitivity and power are two different things and they are often confused. and the reason why you see 95% of most add on`s.
But it looks so cool
Bryan
Those are reasonable arguments, and in theory they are correct. and it`s easy to loose the Forest for the Trees. I think practical examples work better here.
My argument is ,To make the cg work with the wing position on the fuse for equipment placement is the biggest criteria to be concerned with. Trying to add stability with tail moment or more area in the rear has quick diminishing returns for maneuverability and the ability to snap and recover for f3a.For other classes they would be ok and may be a benefit. But hard to overcome as they move up in class difficulty because of developed habits learning to deal with the ease of flying the model through rolls and loops.
The vast majority of stability comes from the front of the model on a decent design , the fine stability comes from the rear as demonstrated by my k/e Valiant video. The model is super stable in all conditions yet extremely maneuverable in knife edge Snap recovery and yaw without detracting from precision, duplication, and application of rudder anywhere.
To move the c/g from 23% to 27% on a average wing is about one inch of movement. this should be the target within reason on a Bipe or Mono. That`s only a 4-5 % margin and to get the equipment moved to compensate 1" takes tremendous effort and rearranging. Most models offered today are set to run the CG from 30-35% that`s another inch. so if you move the wing forward you will never be able to fly the airplane correctly or, get the cg right to fly in all conditions.
Putting three servo`s in the rear of a airplane is common these days, and with this setup, there is no way to get the c/g to the proper position. So, you see single double fences added to the rear , rudder elevator flares, strakes, double t-cans mini bipe t-cans Ect. this is all to overcome a setup problem ,or running the cg too far back. 6 ounces on the tail is like taking 18 Ounces off the nose! it`s a tremendous weight differential But Yet, we somehow manage to make it work! and mix most of it away if we have too.
It is absolutely amazing how far rearward and forward you can put the cg and get a airplane to be reasonable in all conditions But , Bumpy choppy air, always tells the tale.
The new knife edge triangle and v-8 maneuver's and manv like the golf ball radius down wind will give you fits with this setup.
I like to say sensitivity and power are two different things and they are often confused. and the reason why you see 95% of most add on`s.
But it looks so cool
Bryan
07-10-2014, 10:55 AM
#54
Bryan
Yes my example is hypothetical and yes getting the CG forward, to accommodate a more forward wing, is not at all practical in most current cases as the equipment has to go where it has to go.
Who wants to add weight and again most models have no margin for 'added' weight anyway.
I'm just being thought/discussion provoking.
Looking forward to more 'actual' reports on your model and the Contra.
Brian
Yes my example is hypothetical and yes getting the CG forward, to accommodate a more forward wing, is not at all practical in most current cases as the equipment has to go where it has to go.
Who wants to add weight and again most models have no margin for 'added' weight anyway.
I'm just being thought/discussion provoking.
Looking forward to more 'actual' reports on your model and the Contra.
Brian
07-11-2014, 11:24 PM
#55
Bryan,
I would be grateful for your comments on my particular setup. The model is a Sazuki designed Hybird bipe built by Oxai. Respected designer and top flyer so I'm assuming this model falls into the catagory of a "good" design.
I don't know where the designer's datum is for this design but taking the bottom wing as 0, the top wing is at around -0.2, the tail adjustable but currently at 0 and the thrust line -1. A contra is installed. I started with the model balanced at Suzuki's recommendation which according to all the calculations we have done puts the neutral point well in front of 25% mac. The model tracked well, went dead straight vertical up and very nearly dead straight vertical down. Only major problem was a significant pull to canopy on both knife edges. So using your trimming methods which have worked well for me in recent years I started to move the CG back by temporarily adding lead to the tail. With the CG back well over an inch the pull was still aparent but slightly reduced and here's the problem, the lateral stability was greatly reduced so this line of correction appears limited for this contra equipped design anyway. My current thinking is to add the dreaded tail drag inducing element to restore some of the lost lateral stability robbed by the contra and then continue to move the CG back.
My question Bryan is, does this seem a sensible approach or is there something other more productive to try, bearing on mind that major changes with a bipe are doubly difficult!
Malcolm
I would be grateful for your comments on my particular setup. The model is a Sazuki designed Hybird bipe built by Oxai. Respected designer and top flyer so I'm assuming this model falls into the catagory of a "good" design.
I don't know where the designer's datum is for this design but taking the bottom wing as 0, the top wing is at around -0.2, the tail adjustable but currently at 0 and the thrust line -1. A contra is installed. I started with the model balanced at Suzuki's recommendation which according to all the calculations we have done puts the neutral point well in front of 25% mac. The model tracked well, went dead straight vertical up and very nearly dead straight vertical down. Only major problem was a significant pull to canopy on both knife edges. So using your trimming methods which have worked well for me in recent years I started to move the CG back by temporarily adding lead to the tail. With the CG back well over an inch the pull was still aparent but slightly reduced and here's the problem, the lateral stability was greatly reduced so this line of correction appears limited for this contra equipped design anyway. My current thinking is to add the dreaded tail drag inducing element to restore some of the lost lateral stability robbed by the contra and then continue to move the CG back.
My question Bryan is, does this seem a sensible approach or is there something other more productive to try, bearing on mind that major changes with a bipe are doubly difficult!
Malcolm
07-14-2014, 05:38 AM
#56
Malcom
I`m at a cross roads, I know the problem your describing , I know the solution it`s a long explanation. I have through 4 years of testing discovered the remedy for the problem. I can tell you this, the heart of your problem does not lie with the Contra drive.
I respect Mr Suzuki And I know Oxai is a top Maf. of airplanes So I hesitate to give the fix. It is extensive in explanation, and I`ll only get argument from the "PRO`S" that have not designed a competitive Bipe. and at the same time takes my edge away in design theory and my lead in Bipe design. I gave away the info on Mono`s I cannot do it on the Bipes. I can tell you this you will not get the pull to the canopy out of that design no matter what you do. In fact all bipes being produced currently have this problem except one
You can guess what one that is I hope.
It is flawed thinking to believe you can take the top wing of a Bipe, any Bipe , remove the inc. and it still work normally, this is "old Bipe theory" the real bipes use it, but it`s not sound logic for the precision model world. And to think it don`t matter to have it accurately measured is un informed thinking. Just like I have been preaching about the T-can , you never ever add a wing of any size and put it on with negative inc. ,,why would anyone do that? you ask. Because it allows you to run the cg slightly farther back for a nice elevator feel and easy rudder use, but every other control surface, is negatively effected, and flight performance suffers especially in an up line or choppy air. it is impossible to fix a poor designed model with a rearward cg.
Do not assume just because Mr Suzuki designed it, that it was accurately produced. or because he seems to fly it well anyone else can , These guys are pro`s and can fly what ever they want very well. As to what you measured , do you know how little .2 tenths of a degree is on that wing . probably one MM , Most top modelers cannot reproduce this in their shop even with their years of modeling experience. we must understand these factories are good at producing the airplane ,BUt not as good accurately setting them for competition, That's Our job. So there is a good chance it was slightly miss aligned when it was built, However,it might be they meant for it to be .5 Neg however and missed it ! your lucky, ,Do not be scared to repair it. A 6000.00$ model is pretty, but no good if you cannot compete with it. Take the time to make it fly correctly. There is no add on tip, strake, winglet Ect. that will fix a bad setup.
For now,remove the neg out of the top wing and you will get a improvement in performance, But you will not be able to remove the knife pull , so put the cg at 25% mac and no farther back on that model ,or your flight in choppy air will still suffer. removing the neg will improve snaps, spins and spin entry`s.
Bryan
I`m at a cross roads, I know the problem your describing , I know the solution it`s a long explanation. I have through 4 years of testing discovered the remedy for the problem. I can tell you this, the heart of your problem does not lie with the Contra drive.
I respect Mr Suzuki And I know Oxai is a top Maf. of airplanes So I hesitate to give the fix. It is extensive in explanation, and I`ll only get argument from the "PRO`S" that have not designed a competitive Bipe. and at the same time takes my edge away in design theory and my lead in Bipe design. I gave away the info on Mono`s I cannot do it on the Bipes. I can tell you this you will not get the pull to the canopy out of that design no matter what you do. In fact all bipes being produced currently have this problem except one
You can guess what one that is I hope. It is flawed thinking to believe you can take the top wing of a Bipe, any Bipe , remove the inc. and it still work normally, this is "old Bipe theory" the real bipes use it, but it`s not sound logic for the precision model world. And to think it don`t matter to have it accurately measured is un informed thinking. Just like I have been preaching about the T-can , you never ever add a wing of any size and put it on with negative inc. ,,why would anyone do that? you ask. Because it allows you to run the cg slightly farther back for a nice elevator feel and easy rudder use, but every other control surface, is negatively effected, and flight performance suffers especially in an up line or choppy air. it is impossible to fix a poor designed model with a rearward cg.
Do not assume just because Mr Suzuki designed it, that it was accurately produced. or because he seems to fly it well anyone else can , These guys are pro`s and can fly what ever they want very well. As to what you measured , do you know how little .2 tenths of a degree is on that wing . probably one MM , Most top modelers cannot reproduce this in their shop even with their years of modeling experience. we must understand these factories are good at producing the airplane ,BUt not as good accurately setting them for competition, That's Our job. So there is a good chance it was slightly miss aligned when it was built, However,it might be they meant for it to be .5 Neg however and missed it ! your lucky, ,Do not be scared to repair it. A 6000.00$ model is pretty, but no good if you cannot compete with it. Take the time to make it fly correctly. There is no add on tip, strake, winglet Ect. that will fix a bad setup.
For now,remove the neg out of the top wing and you will get a improvement in performance, But you will not be able to remove the knife pull , so put the cg at 25% mac and no farther back on that model ,or your flight in choppy air will still suffer. removing the neg will improve snaps, spins and spin entry`s.
Bryan
Last edited by flyncajun; 07-14-2014 at 05:59 AM.
07-14-2014, 05:53 AM
#57
Hi Bryan / Malcolm
The recommended CG for that model of 90mm back on the bottom wing calculates at LESS than 20% of MAC !! (maybe as forward as 18.5%) -- For what it's worth !
Brian
Edit ; I should have said that this CG, 18% to 20%, seems excessively forward to me.
The recommended CG for that model of 90mm back on the bottom wing calculates at LESS than 20% of MAC !! (maybe as forward as 18.5%) -- For what it's worth !
Brian
Edit ; I should have said that this CG, 18% to 20%, seems excessively forward to me.
Last edited by serious power; 07-14-2014 at 06:36 AM.
07-14-2014, 05:57 AM
#58
I want to add that 75% of all turbulent air problems are due to the wrong cg position for the setup of the wing. The other 25% is due to misalignment of surfaces, or wings, and stabs being warped causing trims to be slightly off. this little bit of trim misalignment can make you chase your tail and also cause small mixes in knife edge and inverted flight.
CG is the absolute most important thing on any design, it is not flexible and you cannot add anything to the airplane to fool it or help it.
It should be responsible for the whole platform of the design and the theory of the model layout. from wing platform , position and equipment layout.
The Shark Bipe is at 23%-25% depending if it`s glow or electric. 25% electric. The Bipes in general cannot accept a rearward cg it will not tolerate it one bit.
Bryan
CG is the absolute most important thing on any design, it is not flexible and you cannot add anything to the airplane to fool it or help it.
It should be responsible for the whole platform of the design and the theory of the model layout. from wing platform , position and equipment layout.
The Shark Bipe is at 23%-25% depending if it`s glow or electric. 25% electric. The Bipes in general cannot accept a rearward cg it will not tolerate it one bit.
Bryan
Last edited by flyncajun; 07-14-2014 at 06:02 AM.
07-14-2014, 11:02 AM
#59
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for your comments and I understand your desire to keep your lead in bipe design.
You make some good points re the setup of these models as they come from the manufacturers and the fact that we need to tweak them to get them to fly right. I also agree re the pros being able to fly anything and make it look good. A good F and or Unknowns setup isn't necessarily going to be the best setup for a mere mortal to fly through Ps!
When I decided to try a Contra bipe it was with the full knowledge that it might not work out or if it did might still end up with some issues. Luckily I have a very good mono/Contra setup to fall back on so can afford to experiment with the bipe.
Oh and btw as a hydraulic engineer used to working to 0.0001" ( yes tenths) I'm happy searching for 1mm on these wings!
Malcolm
Thanks for your comments and I understand your desire to keep your lead in bipe design.
You make some good points re the setup of these models as they come from the manufacturers and the fact that we need to tweak them to get them to fly right. I also agree re the pros being able to fly anything and make it look good. A good F and or Unknowns setup isn't necessarily going to be the best setup for a mere mortal to fly through Ps!
When I decided to try a Contra bipe it was with the full knowledge that it might not work out or if it did might still end up with some issues. Luckily I have a very good mono/Contra setup to fall back on so can afford to experiment with the bipe.
Oh and btw as a hydraulic engineer used to working to 0.0001" ( yes tenths) I'm happy searching for 1mm on these wings!
Malcolm
07-14-2014, 12:21 PM
#60
Hey Malcolm
Again the contra is not the problem and is probably a good match for the plane.
I`m glad you understand my Problem , I know you have the expertise to fix that plane and .2 makes a whopping difference even more so in the top wing, Please don`t rely on Aero trickery to fix the wing twitching if you look hard enough you will find it in the wings and stabs. only then when you have fixed or exhausted all options try add on`s some are enhancements and work with you. others trick you into believing you have fixed one thing but causes other problems.
I can`t tell you how many wing, and stab warps at the tips I fix regularly that seem small But at the tips they are double trouble. .2 on the tip is enormous. take the time to check them.
Check your wing root to tip inc. make sure there are no warps. With a blow drier/ heat gun you can do magic, just be careful not to over heat and scorch the paint. Also Brian had a excellent point about the pins, I had to modify Brett`s Euphoria`s to fix all the slop in wing stays and center pylon, on a glow model this cannot be tolerated. Slop makes slop.
Striving for perfection on setup is a never ending ,learning, love/hate problem. You make small advances But in the end the small advances equal big improvements.
Bryan
Again the contra is not the problem and is probably a good match for the plane.
I`m glad you understand my Problem , I know you have the expertise to fix that plane and .2 makes a whopping difference even more so in the top wing, Please don`t rely on Aero trickery to fix the wing twitching if you look hard enough you will find it in the wings and stabs. only then when you have fixed or exhausted all options try add on`s some are enhancements and work with you. others trick you into believing you have fixed one thing but causes other problems.
I can`t tell you how many wing, and stab warps at the tips I fix regularly that seem small But at the tips they are double trouble. .2 on the tip is enormous. take the time to check them.
Check your wing root to tip inc. make sure there are no warps. With a blow drier/ heat gun you can do magic, just be careful not to over heat and scorch the paint. Also Brian had a excellent point about the pins, I had to modify Brett`s Euphoria`s to fix all the slop in wing stays and center pylon, on a glow model this cannot be tolerated. Slop makes slop.
Striving for perfection on setup is a never ending ,learning, love/hate problem. You make small advances But in the end the small advances equal big improvements.
Bryan
07-14-2014, 05:26 PM
#61
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wollongong, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bryan, Just out of curiosity how do you calculate the MAC? I have been using the NACA website however I can get 2 different answers depending on whether the calculation is based on the actual physical wing panel dimensions or the dimensions with the wing planform projected to the fuse centre line. On my Arbalest wings the CoG is 26.5% based on the actual panel dimensions or 29% if I project to the fuse C/L. My understanding is that wing area is usually based on projection to the fuse C/L so just wondered if that convention applies to MAC as well.
Thanks Bill
Thanks Bill
07-15-2014, 05:23 AM
#62
Hi Bill
I always use the wing including the center it`s the most accurate way. I`m not a real aero guy, But this is how I think it should be done.
How is your bipe coming along ? I see you have built a few.
Bryan
I always use the wing including the center it`s the most accurate way. I`m not a real aero guy, But this is how I think it should be done.
How is your bipe coming along ? I see you have built a few.
Bryan
07-15-2014, 06:52 AM
#63
I want to clear one thing up I see again and again.
In f3A. A design setup for F should fly the P better Not the other way around. There is no difference in setup for a good flying airplane for different schedules. All F3a Designs are designed around the designers idea to be able to do the hardest Maneuvers ,That`s F3a in general. The hardest maneuvers for any design are the 1.5 snaps / reversed snaps and upline reversed snaps, if done without cheating. the vertical plane intergraded rollers next, and the down line snaps next. then horz rollers.
An airplane properly set up to do these on command will fly any maneuver flawless Assuming the airplane is trimmed pure.
If there are add on aero devises to trick you into believing they are easier, that's when the easy stuff becomes hard. This is why most guys say the Bipes are easy to do the hard things ,but hard to do the easy things. It`s all in the setup, or lack thereof.
Most of the time when you see Mono`s in P and Bipes in F in the States, is because we fly with two guys in the air at the same time. We dare not risk the money maker so the Bipes are saved for the finals and unknowns. Not because they are are not capable of flying the easy stuff.
Bryan
In f3A. A design setup for F should fly the P better Not the other way around. There is no difference in setup for a good flying airplane for different schedules. All F3a Designs are designed around the designers idea to be able to do the hardest Maneuvers ,That`s F3a in general. The hardest maneuvers for any design are the 1.5 snaps / reversed snaps and upline reversed snaps, if done without cheating
. the vertical plane intergraded rollers next, and the down line snaps next. then horz rollers.An airplane properly set up to do these on command will fly any maneuver flawless Assuming the airplane is trimmed pure.
If there are add on aero devises to trick you into believing they are easier, that's when the easy stuff becomes hard. This is why most guys say the Bipes are easy to do the hard things ,but hard to do the easy things. It`s all in the setup, or lack thereof.
Most of the time when you see Mono`s in P and Bipes in F in the States, is because we fly with two guys in the air at the same time. We dare not risk the money maker
so the Bipes are saved for the finals and unknowns. Not because they are are not capable of flying the easy stuff. Bryan
07-15-2014, 02:56 PM
#64
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wollongong, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hallo Bryan,
Thanks for the feedback. The bipes have been going well. We have two going. David is still flying his but I have gone back to the Arbalest monoplane because I have done new wings , all moving stab and taller rudder/fin. Still trimming that. Surprisingly the bipe has the least mix of the two at this stage. No rudder- elevator mix and 3% rudder- aileron to correct slight proverse roll.David is going well with the same changes on his mono. All good fun. Cheers, Bill
Thanks for the feedback. The bipes have been going well. We have two going. David is still flying his but I have gone back to the Arbalest monoplane because I have done new wings , all moving stab and taller rudder/fin. Still trimming that. Surprisingly the bipe has the least mix of the two at this stage. No rudder- elevator mix and 3% rudder- aileron to correct slight proverse roll.David is going well with the same changes on his mono. All good fun. Cheers, Bill
07-16-2014, 07:26 AM
#66
I will have both proto Allures E and Glow, at the Nat`s and will try to give as many test hops as we can , It`s a team trials year So I will be busy with Brett and my flight team. I have chose not to compete so I can be better equipped to help and discuss my new products. If you look me up , I will tell you what`s up with the plans for,production schedule, first order, weights, anything you want to know just look me up.
The airplane has a few changes that will be done in production, Colors Scheme, some aero changes, all minor it`s why we have the proto.
I will offer the Glow version chin removable, for Electric, the electric version chin removable, and two color scheme choices.
The Contra will have a molded in place chin for weight reduction and better gear placement. and some other minor changes all to make it better for the unit.
My new website will have details on a Introductory waiting list for the first batch with a 20% off price for a limited time. I will release details soon, You will get the opportunity, to pay a non refundable deposit,this will guarantee you get one from the first shipment. after that the price will go up and we will have to wait a few months to get another production run in.
I will also be releasing a 120 sized pattern plane in the near future aimed at the entry level pilot , and will be concentrating on the Alferma Project as well for a spring release . Very Busy ! But Working with good People and good pilots help a lot. Look me up at the Nats !
here is the link to Our new site
http://www.ckaero.net/
Bryan
The airplane has a few changes that will be done in production, Colors Scheme, some aero changes, all minor it`s why we have the proto.
I will offer the Glow version chin removable, for Electric, the electric version chin removable, and two color scheme choices.
The Contra will have a molded in place chin for weight reduction and better gear placement. and some other minor changes all to make it better for the unit.
My new website will have details on a Introductory waiting list for the first batch with a 20% off price for a limited time. I will release details soon, You will get the opportunity, to pay a non refundable deposit,this will guarantee you get one from the first shipment. after that the price will go up and we will have to wait a few months to get another production run in.
I will also be releasing a 120 sized pattern plane in the near future aimed at the entry level pilot , and will be concentrating on the Alferma Project as well for a spring release . Very Busy ! But Working with good People and good pilots help a lot. Look me up at the Nats !
here is the link to Our new site
http://www.ckaero.net/
Bryan
Last edited by flyncajun; 07-16-2014 at 08:20 PM.
07-17-2014, 02:34 PM
#67
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys,
I have been reliably informed that the glow version of the Allure is scheduled to commit aviation today. Keeps your eyes peeled for the flight report and with any luck, some pictures.
Cheers,
Jason.
I have been reliably informed that the glow version of the Allure is scheduled to commit aviation today. Keeps your eyes peeled for the flight report and with any luck, some pictures.
Cheers,
Jason.
07-17-2014, 07:57 PM
#69
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a bit rough when your employer can't get your name right...
Last edited by Jason Arnold; 07-17-2014 at 08:03 PM. Reason: Poor quality image uploaded....
07-17-2014, 09:12 PM
#70
The glow Allure has seen the skies. You can read my flight report and see a few new pictures at www.ckaero.net/blog
07-17-2014, 11:45 PM
#71
' There seems to be a trend towards super light airplanes, or airplanes with a thousand fins and vortex generators hanging off of them and none of them impress me. '
Hi Brett,
These moments are like little landmarks !
Are you flying this at your Nat's / Team-trials ?? - Would that be a bit risky ?
I wish you all the best either way.
I've quoted a line from your blog report.
In particular I'm focused on your comment re the trend towards lighter aeroplanes not impressing you.
Reading Bryan's own contributions here over the last few years there is one thing he says really consistently ; ' Lighter flies better ! '
Brian
Hi Brett,
These moments are like little landmarks !
Are you flying this at your Nat's / Team-trials ?? - Would that be a bit risky ?
I wish you all the best either way.
I've quoted a line from your blog report.
In particular I'm focused on your comment re the trend towards lighter aeroplanes not impressing you.
Reading Bryan's own contributions here over the last few years there is one thing he says really consistently ; ' Lighter flies better ! '
Brian
07-18-2014, 06:41 AM
#72
Hey Brian,
You left out the most important part!
"The Allure is impressive, a big and beautiful machine that doesn’t have to try so hard to be great."
I know I've said "lighter flies better" in the past as well, and it's true holding other things constant. Some have concentrated on getting their airplanes as light as possible and I just don't agree with that approach. It obviously works, but it doesn't impress in the air. The Allure has a presence in the air because of its sheer size and ability to keep a constant pace so well. The wings on the Allure are also bigger than most airplanes out there and light is all relative to the size of the wing.
But don't get me wrong, the Allure is no heffer. Under 2400g from the factory and 4900g ready to fly with no effort on our part to save weight. Heavy aileron and rudder servos, big receiver pack, YS mount, and some extra reinforcement that will be done at the factory on the production models for half the weight we added.
You left out the most important part!
"The Allure is impressive, a big and beautiful machine that doesn’t have to try so hard to be great."
I know I've said "lighter flies better" in the past as well, and it's true holding other things constant. Some have concentrated on getting their airplanes as light as possible and I just don't agree with that approach. It obviously works, but it doesn't impress in the air. The Allure has a presence in the air because of its sheer size and ability to keep a constant pace so well. The wings on the Allure are also bigger than most airplanes out there and light is all relative to the size of the wing.
But don't get me wrong, the Allure is no heffer. Under 2400g from the factory and 4900g ready to fly with no effort on our part to save weight. Heavy aileron and rudder servos, big receiver pack, YS mount, and some extra reinforcement that will be done at the factory on the production models for half the weight we added.
07-18-2014, 07:30 AM
#73
Hi Brett,
I wasn't being selective - just saw the weight comment as an exception.
Big and light it will have to be so
The Allure weights seem great.
Re the aero stuff ; I'm not sure I agree with you on that either ,but for now anyway the F3A jury is out on that one.
The FI jury came back in about 20 something years ago and since they did it has been a story of continual aero development and improvement against a backdrop of changing specifications.
If you think about it ; The wings,tails,fin,fuz, ailerons,elevators and the rudder are aero devices already , and very basic ones at that.
They will develop - within the spec's that prevail.
It might be foolish to just 'diss' the possibility.
Brian
I wasn't being selective - just saw the weight comment as an exception.
Big and light it will have to be so
The Allure weights seem great.
Re the aero stuff ; I'm not sure I agree with you on that either ,but for now anyway the F3A jury is out on that one.
The FI jury came back in about 20 something years ago and since they did it has been a story of continual aero development and improvement against a backdrop of changing specifications.
If you think about it ; The wings,tails,fin,fuz, ailerons,elevators and the rudder are aero devices already , and very basic ones at that.
They will develop - within the spec's that prevail.
It might be foolish to just 'diss' the possibility.
Brian
07-18-2014, 01:03 PM
#74
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
With all weight and aero arguments aside, it will be very interesting to see what others think after test flying the model at the NATS.
Its certainly sounding very promising so far.
Cheers,
Jason.
With all weight and aero arguments aside, it will be very interesting to see what others think after test flying the model at the NATS.
Its certainly sounding very promising so far.
Cheers,
Jason.
07-18-2014, 05:10 PM
#75
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: boca raton,
FL
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great reading all the inputs. Bryan - big congratulations on bringing the Allure to market! Looks great! I'd like to add one thing regarding all this trim talk - the pilot needs to detect immediately if/when the plane does something that was uncommanded... Every flight or sequence is a trim flight in my book.
First thing - pick a prop that sets the speed range to your liking. Be CONSISTENT with your throttle usage, and linkage geometry. Use throttle curves to create a high fidelity zone in the middle of the stick that allows you to make small changes in throttle and see results in the air. Fly your trim maneuvers at "sequence"speed. Trimming for knife edge tells you very little - but flying a knife edge figure 8 tells you a lot!!! Keep the wing on knife edge and remember what the repeated tendency is. Higher amount of rudder use, smoothly applied, not jabbed...
Best trim/mix, rates, CG checking manuever? Lots - but surprisingly, rolling circles are a fantastic family of maneuvers to help you determine if you are fighting a setup issue or not (mostly constant or sustained power/speed). Rolling loops have a reduced or power off section to them that you need to pay attention to. If you can fly a 2 roll opposite roller and blend in/out of all commands, without the pitch of the model changing or bouncing up/down, you have an easy set up going for you . Must notice if when adding rudder, does the roll rate or pitch change...
CG? I'm remiss in ever calculating the CG of a plane. In order to participate further in this conversation, I'm considering making the calculation. Qualitatively, all my models will maintain an inverted 45 up line, then arc towards earth. They don't travel on this line for more than 2.5-3seconds max or so before the arc being started is visible. Never had a CG neutral setup I liked. None of my FAI setups even hinted at being neutral. I verify and set incidences Using a small digital incidence meter I built, as well as a Robert. The model will fly at its own AOA, and I've tried to run the least total angular differences between the engine, wing, and stab. My digital meter reads in tents of degree. I will begin in the .2's, and sneak up until it barely keeps the 0.3 reading. This (I think) keeps me consistent within the +/- accuracy or rounding of the meter.
last thing - be results focused, not transmitter fixated. Also, not a fan at all of the OAxi dual tube stab configuration. Would MUCH prefer they came with adjustable stab 1/2s.
Thanks ( free perspective Lol)
Jim
edit- if you are like me and end up settling with some pitch mix, Futaba has a brilliant "Expo" mix!!! I have often found that I may end up with 2-4% needed! but with + 60% expo. This makes the mix happen closer to neutral on the rudder stick, where as a pure linear mix would need a huge number to have any action around neutral.
First thing - pick a prop that sets the speed range to your liking. Be CONSISTENT with your throttle usage, and linkage geometry. Use throttle curves to create a high fidelity zone in the middle of the stick that allows you to make small changes in throttle and see results in the air. Fly your trim maneuvers at "sequence"speed. Trimming for knife edge tells you very little - but flying a knife edge figure 8 tells you a lot!!! Keep the wing on knife edge and remember what the repeated tendency is. Higher amount of rudder use, smoothly applied, not jabbed...
Best trim/mix, rates, CG checking manuever? Lots - but surprisingly, rolling circles are a fantastic family of maneuvers to help you determine if you are fighting a setup issue or not (mostly constant or sustained power/speed). Rolling loops have a reduced or power off section to them that you need to pay attention to. If you can fly a 2 roll opposite roller and blend in/out of all commands, without the pitch of the model changing or bouncing up/down, you have an easy set up going for you
. Must notice if when adding rudder, does the roll rate or pitch change...CG? I'm remiss in ever calculating the CG of a plane. In order to participate further in this conversation, I'm considering making the calculation. Qualitatively, all my models will maintain an inverted 45 up line, then arc towards earth. They don't travel on this line for more than 2.5-3seconds max or so before the arc being started is visible. Never had a CG neutral setup I liked. None of my FAI setups even hinted at being neutral. I verify and set incidences Using a small digital incidence meter I built, as well as a Robert. The model will fly at its own AOA, and I've tried to run the least total angular differences between the engine, wing, and stab. My digital meter reads in tents of degree. I will begin in the .2's, and sneak up until it barely keeps the 0.3 reading. This (I think) keeps me consistent within the +/- accuracy or rounding of the meter.
last thing - be results focused, not transmitter fixated. Also, not a fan at all of the OAxi dual tube stab configuration. Would MUCH prefer they came with adjustable stab 1/2s.
Thanks ( free perspective Lol)
Jim
edit- if you are like me and end up settling with some pitch mix, Futaba has a brilliant "Expo" mix!!! I have often found that I may end up with 2-4% needed! but with + 60% expo. This makes the mix happen closer to neutral on the rudder stick, where as a pure linear mix would need a huge number to have any action around neutral.
Last edited by jim woodward; 07-18-2014 at 08:14 PM.