Talon
11-08-2004, 09:06 PM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pachuca, MEXICO
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talon
It has been a while since I last posted something here... I've just bought a brand new Talon and I chose to build the V tail option that came in the instructions and I went for the zero dihedral option too. A few weeks ago I just flew it for the first time on a hill, and the plane came to be really unforgivable to fly... It rolls over every single time the wind hits a wing panel (u can't actually do anything but watch the plane to keep it from crashing) to make things worse u can't pick any speed over 30MPH or the plane will fall apart due to the flutter the tail gets. Im just thinking of breaking the wings in two again and put some dihedral on'em. I'm also thinking on glue the front of the tail to the fuselage and put a normal elevator on the thing (it's a full moving tail). Any suggestions welcomed. (Forgive mispellings above. It's been a while I don't write english 
)....
)....
11-09-2004, 10:42 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: MO-VAL,
CA,
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Talon
Talons usually fly decent but the full flying V-tail is a bad idea. Rip that off and put a standard tail on it. You should not need to break the wing apart. It will fly slightly better with a slight amount of dihedral but it's not a big enough improvement to justify cutting the wing in two. Just put a normal tail on it and fly it with just ailerons and elevator.
TFLG
TFLG
11-09-2004, 11:41 AM
#3
RE: Talon
I've had many Talons. I've built both and I also have them both with out dihedral and they fly great. Niether have flutter. How much aileron control do you have? Did you balance it as per the plans? What kind of push rod did you use to the elevators? Pictures so I can see your set up? Here are pictures of two I've built this year, the V tail is more or less per plans. The standard tail has a larger span, longer fuse and larger tail surfaces. The wing and stabs are swept back. The tail surfaces are also reshaped to give it a more modern appearance. Both have slight anhedral for looks. Instead of the flexible push rod to the elevators I use music wire. I fly both slope and off high starts. Both fly exceptionally smooth and are capable of some high speeds, neither have any flutter problems... If you have them tail heavy and try to fly slow any glider becomes unstable.
11-09-2004, 06:28 PM
#4
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pachuca, MEXICO
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Talon
Thanks 4 your suggestions.... I'll try to go for the standard "T" tail. I'll go for a piano wire pushrod and see what happens... The CG is set up per the plans. I think I'm posting a pic of the Talon tomorrow so u can tell any things that may be wromg with my setup.
04-22-2005, 09:11 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: camb, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Talon
I've got 1 sitting here, but being where i am the wind seems to be slowly getting slower.....
whats the chances i can get away with "slapping" a 0.049 on the front.
remeber it working well with my West Wings Orion
whats the chances i can get away with "slapping" a 0.049 on the front.
remeber it working well with my West Wings Orion
04-23-2005, 12:04 AM
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chino hills,
CA
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Talon
You put a tanked up 049 on the front of that bad boy, and you have a missle. I did this and It was the most fun 1/2a I ever had. It was very cool and flew great. Give it a try you wont be sorry, as a matter of fact I bought a kit off Ebay just for this.
J
J
08-20-2005, 09:17 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Haiku,
HI
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Talon
This is a reprint from another forum....
Sorry about the short post. I was off to France in the morning and bit tight for time. Relaxing in Italy now, starring at a slope to-die-for and wondering why I left the ship in Scotland.
I thought it was about time to post a little treatment on the Talons history and some inside skinny. And also, to give you the direct URL for the SuperTalon. Go here and then click on New Designs for 2004http://www.kjmdesign.com/kjm_m04_rc.htm. Which, by the way, was of little or no interest to Dynaflite. Not that it’s anything groundbreaking. Seems I had been laboring under the false assumption that there was some interest in an upgraded, high performance alternative. Unfortunately, the ARF scene has pretty much destroyed the kit market as we knew it. This wouldn’t bother me so much if it weren’t for the shear mass of total crap available. Don’t get me wrong, there are some nice ships out there, but they are expensive and are rarely domestic. Seems we are destined to hand this market overseas as well. If this doesn’t bother you, maybe it should. The implications are broader than just loosing another creative asset. It has forced the small domestic manufacturers (who once produced high quality kits) to jump ship and try to compete by consolidating with other junk suppliers. Stripping the supply of building material is just one consequence. Filling trash bins is another. OK, enough said.
Back in 1984, an old friend, Bruce Lewis, and myself, were heavily involved in designing and building RC sailplanes. Bruce was actually the catalyst for many of us getting involved in the sport back in the mid-seventies. Bruce is a master at most anything he tackles and I, well, I’ve got my points.
So, here we are in ’85, I’ve started a new company, Laminar Research, and we are finishing up a new design called the LR-50. A foam and glass V-tail ship that was designed from the get-go to fit in a trunk, assembled. We generally flew at Sunset beach and we packed a lot of big stuff in. Bruce had a competition 2M slope ship design, and so did I. Mine seemed a better starting point to scale down a new ship. So we put our heads together and came up with the new ship. Testing went well and after a year and a half, we developed what was one of the first successful V-tails around. Between a foil section unique to our designs and exhaustive testing of angles, sweep, etc., we ended up with a very solid performer. I have no idea how many LR-50’s we produced, but there were a few dozen to be sure.
Sometime around ’87, I was prompted to design a built-up version of the ship and in that same year I was on a hill in Cerritos, California, testing the proto when someone walked over and asked me some pointed questions about the design. It turned out to be Bob Martin, and we struck a deal to put it into production. I never quite knew if he was pulling a fast one, or genuinely believed that the Talon would not be much of a seller, but, in any event, my royalties were limited to two thousand units. I’m told sales are somewhere over a bucket-load of units at this point. The other thing that was a bit odd at the time was Bobs insistence that I design a conventional tail. We compromised by having two options
OK, lets move onto the nitty-gritty. When I received my first sample production kits, I immediately went ballistic. My original plans and sample kits delivered to Bob had specified spruce spars. He substituted balsa. There were also 1/64th ply doublers running full length, on the inside of the two large fuselage side strakes. The main foil section was also modified. I immediately ripped off a post to all the BBS sites and my own site at the South Bay Soaring Society, listing these changes and the fixes. The final insult came when he sold the kit rights to Dynaflite. The plans now credited him with the design. It took awhile, but now there is suppose to be a change to the plans, sticker, or something to correct that bit of plagiarism.
I will soon put together a list of mods that I have made to the original ship. The SuperTalon is basically the same ship with a 60 inch span, ballast tube and four servo wing. It’s a goer. Too bad Dynaflite is too wrapped up in ARF’s to be interested. Or, for that matter, upgrading the Die-crunch parts. Or even, selecting balsa that is remotely close in weight, side to side. I received two sample kits from them last year and literally thru away half the sheets in order to get one ships worth of semi-matching parts. It’s a sad state of affairs. However, I would suggest that if anything is going to happen regarding kit quality, be it the Talon, or any other kit, you need to email Kevin Burner at Great Planes and lobby for the change.
So there you have it. Good flying
Kevin J. McDonald
Addendum: Answer to where the Talons shape came from
The lines for the Talon were most likely derived from my backgroung in Yacht design and construction. At least thats were my wood sense came from. The ME 262 influenced the shape a bit and the fact that I believed there was both a minor lift and a major structural advantage to the shape. Its pretty common to design in some pre-stress by torturing planks or strakes. In the Talons case, this proved very effective. But, as mentioned above, Bob opted to eleminate the ply doublers, thereby compromising the overall strength.
I don't have much here on the SuperTalon. Sorry. If Hobbico doesn't opt to produce it, it may become history anyway. Who knows. If you go to my site, you'll notice a conversion booklet and info on the kit. I am sorry, but the booklet and kit are not available at this time. I'll keep everyone posted. If you really want the kit, you should email [email protected] and put "Please produce the SuperTalon" in the subject line.
Cheers,
Kevin
Sorry about the short post. I was off to France in the morning and bit tight for time. Relaxing in Italy now, starring at a slope to-die-for and wondering why I left the ship in Scotland.
I thought it was about time to post a little treatment on the Talons history and some inside skinny. And also, to give you the direct URL for the SuperTalon. Go here and then click on New Designs for 2004http://www.kjmdesign.com/kjm_m04_rc.htm. Which, by the way, was of little or no interest to Dynaflite. Not that it’s anything groundbreaking. Seems I had been laboring under the false assumption that there was some interest in an upgraded, high performance alternative. Unfortunately, the ARF scene has pretty much destroyed the kit market as we knew it. This wouldn’t bother me so much if it weren’t for the shear mass of total crap available. Don’t get me wrong, there are some nice ships out there, but they are expensive and are rarely domestic. Seems we are destined to hand this market overseas as well. If this doesn’t bother you, maybe it should. The implications are broader than just loosing another creative asset. It has forced the small domestic manufacturers (who once produced high quality kits) to jump ship and try to compete by consolidating with other junk suppliers. Stripping the supply of building material is just one consequence. Filling trash bins is another. OK, enough said.
Back in 1984, an old friend, Bruce Lewis, and myself, were heavily involved in designing and building RC sailplanes. Bruce was actually the catalyst for many of us getting involved in the sport back in the mid-seventies. Bruce is a master at most anything he tackles and I, well, I’ve got my points.
So, here we are in ’85, I’ve started a new company, Laminar Research, and we are finishing up a new design called the LR-50. A foam and glass V-tail ship that was designed from the get-go to fit in a trunk, assembled. We generally flew at Sunset beach and we packed a lot of big stuff in. Bruce had a competition 2M slope ship design, and so did I. Mine seemed a better starting point to scale down a new ship. So we put our heads together and came up with the new ship. Testing went well and after a year and a half, we developed what was one of the first successful V-tails around. Between a foil section unique to our designs and exhaustive testing of angles, sweep, etc., we ended up with a very solid performer. I have no idea how many LR-50’s we produced, but there were a few dozen to be sure.
Sometime around ’87, I was prompted to design a built-up version of the ship and in that same year I was on a hill in Cerritos, California, testing the proto when someone walked over and asked me some pointed questions about the design. It turned out to be Bob Martin, and we struck a deal to put it into production. I never quite knew if he was pulling a fast one, or genuinely believed that the Talon would not be much of a seller, but, in any event, my royalties were limited to two thousand units. I’m told sales are somewhere over a bucket-load of units at this point. The other thing that was a bit odd at the time was Bobs insistence that I design a conventional tail. We compromised by having two options
OK, lets move onto the nitty-gritty. When I received my first sample production kits, I immediately went ballistic. My original plans and sample kits delivered to Bob had specified spruce spars. He substituted balsa. There were also 1/64th ply doublers running full length, on the inside of the two large fuselage side strakes. The main foil section was also modified. I immediately ripped off a post to all the BBS sites and my own site at the South Bay Soaring Society, listing these changes and the fixes. The final insult came when he sold the kit rights to Dynaflite. The plans now credited him with the design. It took awhile, but now there is suppose to be a change to the plans, sticker, or something to correct that bit of plagiarism.
I will soon put together a list of mods that I have made to the original ship. The SuperTalon is basically the same ship with a 60 inch span, ballast tube and four servo wing. It’s a goer. Too bad Dynaflite is too wrapped up in ARF’s to be interested. Or, for that matter, upgrading the Die-crunch parts. Or even, selecting balsa that is remotely close in weight, side to side. I received two sample kits from them last year and literally thru away half the sheets in order to get one ships worth of semi-matching parts. It’s a sad state of affairs. However, I would suggest that if anything is going to happen regarding kit quality, be it the Talon, or any other kit, you need to email Kevin Burner at Great Planes and lobby for the change.
So there you have it. Good flying
Kevin J. McDonald
Addendum: Answer to where the Talons shape came from
The lines for the Talon were most likely derived from my backgroung in Yacht design and construction. At least thats were my wood sense came from. The ME 262 influenced the shape a bit and the fact that I believed there was both a minor lift and a major structural advantage to the shape. Its pretty common to design in some pre-stress by torturing planks or strakes. In the Talons case, this proved very effective. But, as mentioned above, Bob opted to eleminate the ply doublers, thereby compromising the overall strength.
I don't have much here on the SuperTalon. Sorry. If Hobbico doesn't opt to produce it, it may become history anyway. Who knows. If you go to my site, you'll notice a conversion booklet and info on the kit. I am sorry, but the booklet and kit are not available at this time. I'll keep everyone posted. If you really want the kit, you should email [email protected] and put "Please produce the SuperTalon" in the subject line.
Cheers,
Kevin
