So what on earth is a Nanorare @!? Is it a rare heavy metal or maybe Michael Crichton's latest novel? You don't think so...? Well, if that's the case, read on!

It would be fair to say that the Nanorare (and its siblings) has been my brain child for quite some time. As a teenager I lusted after the sleek and beautiful pattern aircraft I couldn't afford that were being flown at my field. To satisfy my desire to build something different, I would tear letter sized plans out of RCM magazines, re-draw them by hand at a scale I could afford pocket and school time wise, alter them, build them and then usually throw them in the air and see what would happen. Some models would spiral upwards to the heavens never to be seen again (alas, some also spiraled in the opposite direction but I should mention that my first control system was provided by a Cox/Sanwa 2 channel proportional radio ) and others just plainly bored a cylindrical curving tunnel through the skies that made my blood thicken! That was my idea of what a 60 sized pattern model would be like through and through and Dick Hanson's Tiporare embodied this mirage completely.

With that little prelude out of the way, the Nanorare is a scaled down version of Hanson's Tiporare - 74% scale to be more precise. It has a 48" wing span, 41.5" overall fuse length and is intended to be powered by a .25 to .32 glow engine or electric equivalent (500-600W). Some of you who may read this thread will probably be familiar with another plans thread where I provided scaled versions of Dick's Tiporare in 10, 20, 40, 60 (the original) and 120 sizes - the recent early manifestations of my brain child. For reference, here's the thread:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7825947/tm.htm

Since I started with the actual scaling concept, I convinced myself that sooner or later I would scratch build a Tipo in all the various sizes (don't ask me why - I must have become a little obsessed at some point). With that in mind, in conjunction with a fellow modeler, we setup templates and foam core blocks for the wings and stabs of each scale and currently have a number of cores on the shelf in each size. With that done, I was able to start planning my first assault on the project and settled on a 20 sized model primarily because 20 sized vintage pattern models are few and far between and also because I don't really have any models in this size.

So this begins what may be a rather slow progressing build thread of two Nanorare's - one glow powered, the other electric powered. I'm hoping that the dual nature of the project, in addition to satisfying my curiosity and desire for such a pair of models, may peak the interest of others. Judging from some recent exchanges (and a total of 217 scaled Tipo plans downloaded to date!), there seems to be a growing momentum in building assorted scale Tipo's now that the winter building season is approaching in the Northern Hemisphere.

Taking some license with the photos of accomplished Tiporare builders and pilots, below are a few snaps of what I hope will be a similar outcome of this project. A picture of the Nanorare scaled plans is also shown. BTW, in the center of the third photo are three of the beautiful models I used to gaze at in my youth - a Tiporare, a Phoenix and a Deception.

Build on!

P.S. If the owners of the aircraft depicted wish me to remove them from this thread, please just let me know.

To get things started, here are the two power plants that will be pulling the birds through the skies:

An OS .32 SX and a Rimfire brushless outrunner 35-36-1500 (.32 equivalent ). These have power outputs of ~ 750W @14K rpm and ~600W @12.5K rpm, respectively.

Of interest, is the fact that the motor/prop/spinner for electric (5.68 oz = 161g) is half the weight of the glow (11.36 oz = 322g) without exhaust system. If we factor in fuel, methanol will be ~10 oz (8 oz liquid + tank/plumbing) and lithium will be ~10 oz (3200 mAh Lipo pack). Also, the ESC & BEC circuitry will be of similar weight to the throttle servo & linkage. What remains to account for is the flight pack for the glow version - another 3.5 oz (100g).

From this quick calculation, It seems safe to assume the glow version will be heavier due to engine, exhaust and flight pack. However, the glow version will have more power!

I can't wait to see them on the flight line...

The wing and stab cores and planning for the retract and aileron servo cutouts.

I intend for the models to be as close as possible to the full size in terms of layout concept. Both will have retractable trike landing gear and I will use dual outboard digital servos for the ailerons (this is a deviation from the original '80's model). For the retracts, the electric version will have Robart mechanicals while the glow may have Robart pneumatics (not released yet) or Spring-Air series 600's - I haven't decided yet. I may fall back and use mechanicals on both for simplicity sake and to keep costs lower.

Aileron and elevator controls will be run with Hobbico CS-110MG digital mini servo's while I'll be using a Hitec HS-82MG in a P-P setup for rudder. Retract and throttle (for glow) servos still to be decided. All will be run at 6V either off a separate BEC from the Lipo motor pack (probably 3S/3200 mAh) or via a 2S 800-1100 mAh Lipo or A123 pack for the glow version. The glow will likely use a Hayes 8 oz slender tank.

Modifications to the fuses will be made to both models (they'll be a little wider) but particularly to the electric version which will have a FW moved forward by about 1/2" among other things. This will allow greater ground clearance allowing 10" props to be spun. I hope to be able to make the necessary changes to allow the glow version to also spin 10" props.

Here is the trial fitting and layout planning of the gear in the fuses.

I have made several hand annotations to the plans to remind myself of what, where and how things should be placed and installed. We'll just see how many times I change those notes throughout the build .

Wheels shown are 2" on mains and 1-3/4" on nose but the final setup will be 1/4" less on each. 2" mains are better suited to the 40 sized Mirare. In both cases I expect to be able to lower the ground line below the plan bottom edge providing about 1-1/2" of 10" prop ground clearance.

I'm putting these builds on hold for a bit as I want to make headway on their bigger brothers - two GP glass Tipo's. I'm a little overwhelmed by my plans, desires and ambitions - too many models, not enough time. But build I will! Maybe I need to get my younger brother involved. Mmm... Too bad he's 5K miles away. [].

In any case, after much personal debate on how to go about the fuse on the Nanorare, I feel strongly inclined to using the following asymmetric scaling in the builds. A longer/wider fuse should help to accomplish a number of things that were being rendered difficult by the narrow small fuses. For one, it was going to be a bit of a challenge to get a .32 SX, the retract, tank and battery in the nose at the standard scaled width. With the new widebody/longbody Nanorare, things should be much easier. Plus, this will solve the problem on how to get a 10" prop spinning on the glow which needs the full nose area for the engine installation (electric needs less space).

Nanorare 48" Span (~4% asymmetry)
[ul][*] Wing Scaling Factor, Sw = 48"/65" = 73.8462 %[*] Resulting Fuse scale = Sw x 55" = 40.6"[*] Fuse Scaling Factor, Sf = 1.75"/2.25" = 77.7* % (recursive)[*] New Fuse scale = Sf x 55" = 42.8"[*] New Dimensions: Wing = 48" / Fuse = 42.8" / Spinner = 1.75" (exact) / Mains = 1.75" / Nose = 1.50"
[/ul]
However, the seeding of this project hasn't stirred too much interest (~200 hits/no comments) so the icing shouldn't disappoint too much (aside from me, that is).

BTW, comments on the above approach to scaling differently can be found in post # 53 in the plans thread here:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_78...mpage_3/tm.htm

In any event, I look forward to getting back on the project soon.

David.

When close to done (famous last words), we should have something along the lines of this!

Stiletto's Tipo Max 2x2m 22% asymmetric Tiporare (but actually referred to as square)

Albeit... a little more portable .

David,

Don't get discouraged by the lack of comments. I, for one, have been following you progress and can't wait to see the your fleet of Tipos.

What is your preferred method for the elevator pushrods? A single servo with a "Y" at the elevator end to each half, seperate servos or even two tail mounted servos.
Regarding the electric version, will you have air flowing over the battery and ESC? The air is usually a lot cooler in Montreal than in Arizona. Does that make cooling a non issue?

Tim,

Excellent! The road is now lit! I can't drive in the dark without milestones and checkpoints

I'm enjoying documenting builds (well, just started to since this will be my third build thread) as it helps me set goals and stay motivated and focused (my mind tends to wander in all sorts of directions by nature). But it does feel like it can be a fair amount of extra work. In the end, it's worth it, especially if someone out there is enjoying it and/or offers suggestions and criticism. I can't overemphasize how much inspiration I've derived from other build threads; not to mention the clever and masterful techniques I've learned.

I'll just have to see what kind of build pace I can set for the big brothers - retract and aileron servo installation alone can take as long as framing up a fuse! Some things stump me... for instance, the ingenious way required to get electric retracts wired (after joining wing panels) via an extension that meets the gear connector half way down its pipe in a foam wing! You can't physically get your hands in there so how are you going to make the connection!? Neither lead is long enough to make it to the opposite end and the connectors are unique! I can't simply make myself a longer extension (ultimately, I suppose I could - everything's possible). I found a simple solution (of course..., there always is one) but I still find myself saying "what on Earth!?" Ever run into that problem?

When I'm feeling a little more comfortable (and can regain some work space!), probably toward mid-late winter, I'll likely get back to the Nanorare. I think I'll enjoy building them more than the big fella's - uncharted territory, right?

'nough said. David.

Dwight,

that's pretty funny . Agreed, the air is cooler up here considering you're probably used to 115-120F in summer! I used to hang out in Tucson, back when I had a good reason to be there (I won't go into details on that one, if you get my drift...) Just loved the Sonoran desert - great thunderstorms!

Montreal averages about 77F in summer but can hit 90F! (I bet that's warmer than you expected.) So, cooling is an issue. Regardless, I would want flow over the BAT/ESC, except possibly in winter (believe it or not, people here actually fly with skis on their planes and use gel packs to keep their batteries warm and big mitts for their hands!)

Getting to the point, the pictures below show how I plan to get air in there. Basically, there will be a BAT/ESC plate (the tank floor in the glow) at the tuck line level. The stack of gear will be ESC & BEC (separate) above the plate under the "canopy", BAT below the plate (velcro'd and strapped) and finally the nose gear under that. There's plenty of room, at this scale, for a 3200 mAh 3s pack and the other stuff. Then, the front top will be hollowed out as per the plans and I'll bore out a hole (maybe 1/4") in the front of the "canopy" horizontally, directing air over the ESC & BEC (a snorkel into the Nanorare). The hole will only be big enough for others to say, "hey, what's that!?, I hadn't noticed it at first". The plate will have holes in it so air will flow down over the BAT too. But, I also plan to make an oval shaped opening in the flat chin under the spinner allowing air to enter the motor area (I may also direct air down from the top). The FW will be drilled out too wherever possible allowing air to further flow over the BAT. Finally, there will be a "as small as possible" opening in the fuse front bottom for the nose gear. Since I intend to make the entire nose bottom into a hatch (to swap the BAT and to provide access to the motor), air will further enter the BAT area from this opening. The air exhaust openings will be, as usual, in the fuse bottom rear.

For the elevator control: I like dual servo's but on a model this size I feel it's overkill - I don't do it on 60 size models. Also, as it stands, there will be 6 servos in the electric version and 7 in the glow version! And that is using only one servo for elevator. Originally, I wanted to install the elevator servo horizontally under the wing using a glass type DB Y-pushrod (I like those). This eliminates any throw differential provided the pushrod is centered down the fuse center line. Problem is, the fuse is too narrow (at least the symmetrically scaled one - I'll have to see how much more clearance I get with the wide body fuse), even with micro servos. So, with that in mind, I figured I'd just go with a standard mounted (vertical) servo with its action on the fuse center line.

I thought about using servo's in the rear but, again, the fuse is pretty narrow and the servo would end up half way between the wing and the stab - not great. You could also mount the ELE/RUD servo's vertically in the rear interior with the control horn exiting the side. Problem here is that it makes for tricky access. Finally, Tipo's tend to be tail heavy (so I'm told), so I'd rather keep things as close to the CG, or forward, as possible. Keeping the gear concealed also fits with my vision of what a Tipo should look like - smooth as silk!

In a nutshell, I'd install along the lines of what I'm doing on my Tsunami in this thread (see post #34):

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_79..._2/key_/tm.htm

The other pictures show some additional details of the gear layout.

As I said, my mind can wander. Sorry for overdoing that one.

I may need to stop following your threads. They are very informative and well written, but I am developing the same problem that you complain about.
I now want to build a half dozen planes of different sizes and power sources. I think that I will just draw a number from a hat and go with one plane at a time

Dwight,

you're a wise man. It's not really that tenable to try and build 3-4 models at once (unless you're producing in series factory style). I had reason to want to do something like that on the Tiporare project, given the fact that they are all the same aircraft. Wrong! The smaller models, require more careful planning than models > 40 size; particularly if you want to throw in all the bells and whistles.

In any event, I'll try to be more succinct when posting, as that can be a bit of a bad habit - hopefully not loose too many readers!

Whatever it is, it'd be great to hear about what you're working on!

David.

David dont get discouraged at all, keep the building up and let us know your progress, pics included I just love my picorare and 'd love to see the nanonare flying !!!!

Rafa,

thanks for your words of encouragement. I'm no longer discouraged thanks to great feedback. This project is slowly coming back to life. As I've been building stabs for the 60 size counterparts, I've been cutting sheeting for Nanorare stabs while waiting for things to setup. I may actually have a stab or two done in the not too distant future.

Interestingly, some wood from the GP Tipo's (the wing/stab TE's) wasn't suitable to my building style and so has been re-purposed for the Nanorare's. I might end up with LE & TE for both wings and stabs. That might expedite things a tad!

Maybe I'll bring the thread to life again slowly. It is important, however, that I do finish threads at least with complete aricraft. So far, I still don't have one!

David.

David small tipo's tend to be be nose heavy, both picorare's I've build finished that way,even moving batteries back did not solved the problem and had to add some weight on tail, not my favorite solution but I had no choice.

Maybe this comment can help you decide on equipment location for the nanonare.

Rafa,

that's good to know. When you say nose heavy, is that the condition with or without a tuned pipe? It's interesting because the glass 60's are reportedly tail heavy (will know soon enough).

I suspect the electric version might balance nicely given the lighter motor and the weight displaced toward the CG with the battery (the mass of the weight) in the tank compartment area. I'll be sure to place all servo's as far back as possible and allow the possibility of locating ESC's and BEC's in the radio area rather than above the battery.

For the glow, I'll be interested to find out how the modified assymetric build turns out. I'll be adding just about exactly 1" to the fuse length from the wing TE to the fin post making the tail moment that much longer.

Have you made any progress on the second electric Pico? How much power did you end up choosing for it? Do you have links to the components (motor, ESC, battery) you chose? You probably already know but be careful with ESC servo rating. With more than 4 servo's you might want to think about a separate BEC. I'll be going with Castle's 10A BEC which doesn't weigh a thing and is pretty small. Then again, the models will have 6-7 servos (flaps anyone )

David.

As a quick update, attached are the two fuse plans I intend to work from. The Nanorare+ assymetric plan shows the correct scale for the fuse but the root wing chord will be shorter by 0.5" with a max chord and radio bay length of 9.75" rather than 10.25". This, of course, leaves the radio bay section identical in length to that of the electric 74% Nanorare (symmetric scale) and provides the additional 1" of tail moment mentioned (the additional 0.5" is gained from the larger 78% scaling). Clearly, the third former (B) will be moved forward by 0.5".

Overall, the flying surfaces between the two models will be identical but the glow version will have an all around larger fuse. Although not quite there, this is leaning toward the current trend of over-square (longer fuses than spans) designs in F3A. Trickery [8D] will be required to keep the wing loading acceptable, particularly on the glow version.

Rafa, see, now you've got me thinking about this again!

David.

David only with tuned pipe my picorare turned nose heavy, i'll copy paste the items I order from hobbyking so you can take a look, only problem I see is engine I chose final weight all included should not be over 550 grm ( 19.5 oz ) so this plane must be a light one, I think im going to battle a lil bit to get it right.

One comment I should make upon reflecting on the plans posted is that there is nothing inherently assymetric about the Nanorare+ (78%) plans. They simply represent a ~78% scaling of the original. What makes the model assymetric is the use of smaller wings and stabs (74% scale) on a larger fuselage (78% scale). This change to the basic layout of the scaled Tipo makes the g-Nanorare (glow version) align more closely with the crop of 20 size MK designs which typically exhibit longer fuses than the American and European designs of the period. The classic example would be the Aurora which is considerably larger than the Curare and Tiporare yet retains the sleek long wings. The Deception on the other hand is more akin to the squarer designs of today showing wide shorter wings and stabs and a comparatively long fuse.

David.

Rafa,

I think it is generally hard to build super light airframes using classic construction methods - especially in the scaled down versions. The smaller the model, the more careful one has to be. Using foam cores should help if built light although doing a built up flat stab is also a good option at the scale you're building. Still, its possible that an airfoiled foam core stab might weigh less than a built up flat one at considerably higher strength.

My D10 will likely be in the 40 oz range AUW, heavy by today's standards for a 40" model. However, the Deception is a wide wing model and the D10 has over 300 sq in of area which brings the model in with an acceptable wing loading. The same is not true of the 40" Pico which has wing area in the mid to upper 200 sq in (I haven't figured it out the area yet). I'm not sure what your figure of 19.5 oz constitutes but my gut feeling is that Pico's with retracts should come in around the 36 oz (2.25 lbs) mark - 34 would be better. Of course omitting landing gear takes care of a few weight problems - hand launch, grass land. Again, my instinct on an electric Pico would be to omit LG, keep the servo count to 4 (I think 3 servos would end up weighing the same with today's crop of 0.3-0.4 oz servos which weigh the same or less than torque rods), and mount the motor in a simple fashion using carbon rod spacers if necessary. In the absence of retracts, it would be pretty simple to just move the FW forward to where its needed and mount the outrunner directly to it with an X mount. This also provides more room to locate your power gear (battery, ESC, etc.). You also wouldn't need a BEC with 4 micro servos.

Regarding the TP, thanks for that clarification. I suspected that this is what rendered it nose heavy. One option would be to tail mount the servos when planning to use a TP to offset the nose weight (4 cycle style). With an electric, you'd have a lot of room to fit two servos, a micro Rx, an ESC and the battery. Avoid the wing fillets, possibly use 1/16" fuse sides laminated with 1/32" ply full length and drill out the sides at will to lighten. Likewise on the fuse top, bottom and solid control surfaces (elevator and ailerons). I think if built like that, you could easily bring in a Pico airframe in the sub one pound weight ballpark for an AUW of ~36 oz (if your gear is weighing ~20 oz)

Just a few thoughts, David.

Building a straight foam core wing that thin is not easy, and while it may be more resilient to puncture damage, I wouldn't call it "stronger." I think the average builder would be more successful with a built-up tail. A full airfoil back there is neat but at these Reynolds numbers totally unnecessary. Round the LE, taper the TE (and that's as much for decreasing sensitivity around neutral as it is for drag).

Over 19 is acceptable? When we worked it here, we figured 17 would be the upper limit for something we'd want to land. I was very glad that both of mine came in under 15.

Bite your tongue! That's like putting wheel pants on!

You're thinking old school, David. 3/32" sheet from the firewall back, no ply for electric but maybe 1/32" from the wing forward if nitro. 3 formers (firewall, at LE, at TE), 3/16" longerons at the top and bottom of fuse. 1/16" sheet for fuse top/bottom from the wing aft.

I hope to send you an e-mail at lunch.

Andy

David I think Andy is trying to say your wrong well anyway as they say "build light, planes are not crash proof intended "

Will wait for more comments.

David and I have a very good handful of e-mails going on about a possible project. He just opened the door wide for some ribbing

The key is to not build a flying lumberyard. If you follow the "classic" construction methods, that's what you get (I think he'd say he agrees with that). If you apply some experience and mechanics to it, you get a much lighter model. If you add composites in the right place, it comes out better still.

Anyway, I sent him a PDF a few hours ago to explain what I did and how I ended up with a 28 oz 270 sq in Pattern plane with retracts and electric power.

Andy

Andy would you send the same info to me please.
pm you my email.
Txs.

It will be available to all who subscribe to FM shortly.

Andy