Do you think an RC boomerang would work?
05-12-2006, 03:23 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Columbia City, IN
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think an RC boomerang would work?
I have designed a RC boomerang that could be built out of any symmetrical wing kit off of a trainer, or can even be made out of a 15% damaged wing from a trainer. I have devised a launch method of surgical tubing, but I'm not sure how this would make it spin. My friend and I also are worried how to control it, how the elevators on each wing would make it turn, slow down, or control the altitude. We are worried about the CG, though. Who thinks that with enough effort, this will work?
By the way, I'm 13, so that explains why I'm confused
By the way, I'm 13, so that explains why I'm confused
05-13-2006, 07:24 PM
#4
My Feedback: (3)
RE: Do you think an RC boomerang would work?
What is it on the boomerang that you want to control remotely?
A boomerang turns because of the assymetrical lift of the forward moving wing combined with the effects of gyroscopic precession. The more lift the boomerang's airfoil produces, the tighter the circle the boom will fly. But it will also cause the boom to fly higher. In theory, if you had ailerons on a boomerang you could alter it's flight path.
But there are numerous problems. Here are just a few.
First of all, you would not get true directional control of the boomerang. The path a boomerang flies is dependent on the relative lift of it's two wings, it's weight, it's spin rate and it's forward speed. Tuning a boomerang to fly is a balancing act of adjusting lift and weight. Just changing the lift of one or both wings will not give you directional control, it will only throw the boom out of tune.
Secondly, a boomerang made from model airplane wings would not have the moment of inertia required to maintain it's spin. A boomerang is a bent stick. It's much denser than a model airplane wing. And the density helps it to keep rotating during flight. The distribution of weight is also important. More weight towards the tips of the blades helps it to retain spin. Weight towards the center makes it lose spin but also makes the boomerang "lay down" sooner. Something that produces a poor flying boomerang. Many booms have weights on the wing tips.
Additionally, boomerangs lead a very rough life. Many throws end with the boom crashing into the ground and I've seen plywood boomerangs break on impact. Your trainer wing boomerang doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of surviving a spinning dive into the ground.
Large boomerangs have been made but are very difficult to throw or to even get tuned.
Radio controlled boomerangs has been discussed at length in the boomerang community. The general concensus at this point is that it won't provide any useful control. But if you're interested in it, I suggest that you talk with people in the boomerang community. The mechanics of boomerang flight is even today poorly understood and is the subject of great debate. To get in on the fun sign up for the Yahoo group "BoomTalk".
I've been throwing boomerangs for years and a perfect throw comes back with pin point accuracy and "put on the brakes" when it reaches you, going into a hover for an easy catch. It's a thing of magical beauty and really looks like it's remotely controlled.
Dave
A boomerang turns because of the assymetrical lift of the forward moving wing combined with the effects of gyroscopic precession. The more lift the boomerang's airfoil produces, the tighter the circle the boom will fly. But it will also cause the boom to fly higher. In theory, if you had ailerons on a boomerang you could alter it's flight path.
But there are numerous problems. Here are just a few.
First of all, you would not get true directional control of the boomerang. The path a boomerang flies is dependent on the relative lift of it's two wings, it's weight, it's spin rate and it's forward speed. Tuning a boomerang to fly is a balancing act of adjusting lift and weight. Just changing the lift of one or both wings will not give you directional control, it will only throw the boom out of tune.
Secondly, a boomerang made from model airplane wings would not have the moment of inertia required to maintain it's spin. A boomerang is a bent stick. It's much denser than a model airplane wing. And the density helps it to keep rotating during flight. The distribution of weight is also important. More weight towards the tips of the blades helps it to retain spin. Weight towards the center makes it lose spin but also makes the boomerang "lay down" sooner. Something that produces a poor flying boomerang. Many booms have weights on the wing tips.
Additionally, boomerangs lead a very rough life. Many throws end with the boom crashing into the ground and I've seen plywood boomerangs break on impact. Your trainer wing boomerang doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of surviving a spinning dive into the ground.
Large boomerangs have been made but are very difficult to throw or to even get tuned.
Radio controlled boomerangs has been discussed at length in the boomerang community. The general concensus at this point is that it won't provide any useful control. But if you're interested in it, I suggest that you talk with people in the boomerang community. The mechanics of boomerang flight is even today poorly understood and is the subject of great debate. To get in on the fun sign up for the Yahoo group "BoomTalk".
I've been throwing boomerangs for years and a perfect throw comes back with pin point accuracy and "put on the brakes" when it reaches you, going into a hover for an easy catch. It's a thing of magical beauty and really looks like it's remotely controlled.
Dave
05-14-2006, 08:01 AM
#5
My Feedback: (24)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Peachtree City,
GA
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think an RC boomerang would work?
ORIGINAL: dbacque
I've been throwing boomerangs for years and a perfect throw comes back with pin point accuracy and "put on the brakes" when it reaches you, going into a hover for an easy catch. It's a thing of magical beauty and really looks like it's remotely controlled.
Dave
I've been throwing boomerangs for years and a perfect throw comes back with pin point accuracy and "put on the brakes" when it reaches you, going into a hover for an easy catch. It's a thing of magical beauty and really looks like it's remotely controlled.
Dave
05-14-2006, 09:20 AM
#6
My Feedback: (3)
RE: Do you think an RC boomerang would work?
[/quote]
It stops and hovers in front of you?
[/quote]
Not every boomerang does this. But the right boomerang with the right throw is the most amazing thing. Every time I throw I think about how much it looks like magic.
The boom starts out on edge, putting most of it's lift into turning it's flight path. As it flies it slowly lays down. As it's coming in for the return it has laid down completely flat so now it's flying straight. The front will lift slightly and it slows down. Some boomerangs on a good throw will reach a complete stop and hover right in front of you. Others that fly higher will stop and hover down to you, making the catch very easy.
But note that it takes the right boom, the right conditions and most importantly the right throw. Boomerangs don't work automatically. But they're the most amazing flying devices I've ever played with in my 40+ years of building flying objects.
There's lots of good boomerang info on the web. Most dealers have throwing instructions on their site. Check out
http://www.coloradoboomerangs.com/catalog.html
http://www.kendalldavis.us/
http://www.gel-boomerang.com/index.html
http://www.flight-toys.com/
The Colorado Boomerangs Yanaki is about as good a beginner boomerang as there is.
Dave
05-14-2006, 03:44 PM
#7
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Columbia City, IN
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think an RC boomerang would work?
ok thanks. but I was only thinking of that as an idea. The elerons would control how high the boomerang would go, that's why servos would be installed. also, I think somehow I could have a dowel rod that you loop the cord that you launch it from, resulting in it spinning right when it launches. I don't expect it to go very high, I was thinking less than 10 ft.
Thanks for your advise, now I have more issues to work out.
Basswood LE and TE?
Thanks for your advise, now I have more issues to work out.
Basswood LE and TE?
05-14-2006, 06:19 PM
#8
My Feedback: (3)
RE: Do you think an RC boomerang would work?
Problems you'll have radio controlling a standard boomerang:
Even a micro radio system will be more weight than a normal boomerang can support.
Boomerangs are way too thin to mount a radio in.
Addition of a radio will cause havoc with the weight distribution of the boomerang.
A boomerang crash is a violent thing. The control system is not likely to withstand the abuse. And they crash frequently.
Actually ailerons aren't just going to control how high it goes. Boomerangs are thrown on edge, not flat like a Frisbee.
Making a boomerang fly higher isn't necessarily a good thing.
It's going to go higher than 10'.
Forget built up construction. Most boomerangs are carved from a solid piece of plywood. And high quality aircraft plywood is needed to withstand the abuse that they take.
Even if you manage to build a working boomerang with an R/C system in it, any attempts at controlling it's flight will most likely make it far less accurate in return.
Here's a basic question for you. Have you ever thrown a boomerang? I suggest that you buy a good beginners boom then get out and learn to throw it. Seeing how one works will help you to understand the many problems you are facing as well as giving you an idea of what it is that you want to control.
Boomerang flight is extremely complex. I seriously suggest that after you learn to throw you take these questions to the boomerang experts on the Yahoo group I mentioned previously. This is a subject that has been discussed at length there. As yet, no one has come up with anything useful.
Dave
Even a micro radio system will be more weight than a normal boomerang can support.
Boomerangs are way too thin to mount a radio in.
Addition of a radio will cause havoc with the weight distribution of the boomerang.
A boomerang crash is a violent thing. The control system is not likely to withstand the abuse. And they crash frequently.
Actually ailerons aren't just going to control how high it goes. Boomerangs are thrown on edge, not flat like a Frisbee.
Making a boomerang fly higher isn't necessarily a good thing.
It's going to go higher than 10'.
Forget built up construction. Most boomerangs are carved from a solid piece of plywood. And high quality aircraft plywood is needed to withstand the abuse that they take.
Even if you manage to build a working boomerang with an R/C system in it, any attempts at controlling it's flight will most likely make it far less accurate in return.
Here's a basic question for you. Have you ever thrown a boomerang? I suggest that you buy a good beginners boom then get out and learn to throw it. Seeing how one works will help you to understand the many problems you are facing as well as giving you an idea of what it is that you want to control.
Boomerang flight is extremely complex. I seriously suggest that after you learn to throw you take these questions to the boomerang experts on the Yahoo group I mentioned previously. This is a subject that has been discussed at length there. As yet, no one has come up with anything useful.
Dave
05-14-2006, 06:32 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think an RC boomerang would work?
Wow! You pose a fascinating question... I have never successfully gotten a boomerang to return (which makes me a failure as an Aborigine, I guess 
) Having established my lack of boomerang credentials, let's approach it as an air vehicle design project...
As a start, to control any rotating airfoil in forward flight, cyclic control is required. To do that, you need to have a reference to "forward" ... In a 'chopper, the fuselage provides that... Without a fuselage, am unsure how a boomerang in flight could find "forward" to ensure that cylcic controls can maintain a flight path is stable and controllable. Additionally, collective control of lift is necessary to obtain true control... While collective control requires no forward reference, obtaining space for the collective control mechanism and mixing the collective and cyclic controls for compleete control will present a real headscratcher... Could be done with some sort of interial sensor I guess, but the hardware and circuitry to make it work could get pretty $pendy. I guess the good news is that no antitorque mechanism is required...
After resolving the aerodynamics, you need to figure a way to control or modify the gyoscpoic forces that act on the vehicle... That would be more challenging due to the magnitude of the forces involved and the fact that they cannot be eliminated, but must be overcome to move the vehicle in a direction contrary to those forces... The physics are failry easy to understand, but overcoming them to gain control of the aircraft will require some pretty hefty control foces. High control forces means large servos and large batteries... could get pretty heavy...
When it is all said and done, I fear that the result will be a boomerang that goes somewhere else than where you threw it from. Since I have no problems doing that already, don't think I'll add one to my hangar. Perhaps it could be called a "Gone-arang"?
Good luck with the project - you have your work cut out for you!
) Having established my lack of boomerang credentials, let's approach it as an air vehicle design project... As a start, to control any rotating airfoil in forward flight, cyclic control is required. To do that, you need to have a reference to "forward" ... In a 'chopper, the fuselage provides that... Without a fuselage, am unsure how a boomerang in flight could find "forward" to ensure that cylcic controls can maintain a flight path is stable and controllable. Additionally, collective control of lift is necessary to obtain true control... While collective control requires no forward reference, obtaining space for the collective control mechanism and mixing the collective and cyclic controls for compleete control will present a real headscratcher... Could be done with some sort of interial sensor I guess, but the hardware and circuitry to make it work could get pretty $pendy. I guess the good news is that no antitorque mechanism is required...
After resolving the aerodynamics, you need to figure a way to control or modify the gyoscpoic forces that act on the vehicle... That would be more challenging due to the magnitude of the forces involved and the fact that they cannot be eliminated, but must be overcome to move the vehicle in a direction contrary to those forces... The physics are failry easy to understand, but overcoming them to gain control of the aircraft will require some pretty hefty control foces. High control forces means large servos and large batteries... could get pretty heavy...
When it is all said and done, I fear that the result will be a boomerang that goes somewhere else than where you threw it from. Since I have no problems doing that already, don't think I'll add one to my hangar. Perhaps it could be called a "Gone-arang"?
Good luck with the project - you have your work cut out for you!
