skunkwurk

My Feedback: (18)

Nice!

FenderBean

So bummed I have had mine finished for a while and still not flown it, curse you COVID!!!!

David Jackson

My Feedback: (15)

Keith,

Same here, my F-22 is sitting on the shelf. Maybe it will fly by March of 2021.

FenderBean

Yeah, when I get a chance to go meet with someone at a fairly close airport I make have a nice place for the bigger jets. Im trying to find something that will allow for flying anytime and to host a jet event.

gunradd

My Feedback: (9)

Dave hope all is well!
For the F22.
The gear is fantastic! I am not sure if we have an issue with the gear. We now have allot of these flying with zero issues including the demo F22 I am flying. Think the gear issue is some isolated cases. I had a friend maiden his over the weekend and he said its the best flying scale jet he has ever flown.

For the slats these also work great! You cant give them to much throw and you cant deploy them at high speed. That should go for any aircraft though in my opinion. I posted throws that I am using a while back and I have the slats on my flap switch with no issues.

Engine... I like singles. So for me the single 260 is plenty and flies it well. I have lots of extra scale stuff on mine also so I am on the heavy side and still love the power with the 260. The twin set ups have a ton of power but are more complicated but have simple pipes. So its always a trade off. The big pipe with a single 260 though makes a special sound to the point people always say I know when you are in the air without even looking at the flight line.

They flew a stripped down version for testing and it flew well on a single K160 so a stripped down no scale details version could be done light. You would need to ask Dirk but I am pretty sure they will finish it how ever you like. For me though you should at least get the bomb doors operational because its just a huge cool factor and does not add much weight. The internal bomb bays need to be installed regardless because the structure is built around that already. You could do away with the canopy function at least if you wanted too. I would not do away with the thrust vectoring though its to important and if you want short field its even more important.

I would fell fine flying this on a 500 foot paved field and if I have too maybe 450. It lands pretty slow and takes off very fast with the vectoring.

gunradd

My Feedback: (9)

Dirty pic!

Remco45

Same here.
I live in the Netherlands and we do not have a dealer here.
The MTOW limit is 25 kg.
I'm hoping that someone might be able to weigh the various parts as well as the fuel tanks and the lighting system.
Also the dimensions and weight of the Y-pipe are nice to know.
In Germany, there are a few people who can make an Y-pipe of titanium which significantly saves weight.

Ofcourse I've e-mailed the T-one factory via another dealer in another country in Europe a few weeks ago, but did not receive a reply yet.

I agree with gunradd that the doors must be operational.
Trick is to find a way to make things lighter.

If it seems possible, I would really like to buy this yet: it's a favorite jet for me.

gunradd

My Feedback: (9)

Well things off the top of my head to save weight... The pipe is pretty light I dont see much weight being saved by building a new one. I cant weigh mine since its installed and the fuselage would need to be split.

>you can do away with the slats. They are more for looks then anything. 2 servos and wire.
>No thrust vectoring. 2 servos and wire.
>Canopy function 2 valves and airline ,gauge and fill valve along with air tank. (i did mine with a servo and valve so it stays up with aircraft turned off.
>The plane has more then enough fuel. You can have a smaller main tank for sure. A typical flight for me uses just a little more then the saddle tanks and the main tank is normally full still or just a little is gone from it.
>You might be able to scale the cockpit down some to loose some weight.
>Lights and controller are not necessary.
So saving some weight is very doable. I think mine was 65 ready to fly. That's with animatronic pilot that has 3 servos and a controller just for the pilot. I have 2 extra full size servos and moving missile racks along with scale missile that are not needed. I added lots of scale details in the missile bays. The plane flies so light weight was not an issue for me so I was not careful at all when it came to adding stuff. So your goal of under 55lbs is very doable just depends on what you can live without.

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

Please post link for the pilot!

gunradd

My Feedback: (9)

well... I bought a 1/6 size pilot from warbirdpilots.com . He came with a moving head. I installed 2 more servos under the pilot seat with linkages to move his arms.


I use a controller that can do up to 6 channels. It’s made for robots and you can pre program it for a loop.
https://www.pololu.com/product/1350

Looping31

Hi guys,
Another feedback from the flying field.
I logged 25 flights now on the Raptor.
Yesterday, I experienced my first rudder flutter.
Almost half of the fin was blown out in flight.
It was at medium-high speed but not supersonic (200-250km/h) with a positive load factor of 5-8g.
I spent a lot of time with the rudder servo position, the fitting and the fin root.
I had no free play at all. This was not the problem.
This aircraft is subject to rudder flutter.
The fin and rudder should be built tougher and more rigid.
When you have a look inside the fin and rudder structure, you can notice a very thin skin, maybe not enough carbon fiber at the top.
Even I have a doubt with the glue quality.
It doesn’t look like hysol.
I’m not the first with this flutter problem, this issue should be taken with care by T-one.
Hope they will address my problem in a positive way.
Fly safe.

Looping31

FenderBean

Welp you just confirmed my fear what was inside, I mentioned this before about being afraid the rudders alone were not strong enough. I noticed this when I pushed mine on the ground with rudders on they seem super flimsy compared small/equal size other jets I have. From your pictures of the failed rudder you can tell they dont have enough support inside.
Super glad you didn't lose the model out right.

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

Good save!

And good luck on the repairs.

Craig B.

Is rudder control via a snake push rod in the fun or direct drive from a Servo with straight push rod? Thought I could see a snake style pushrod in your photo but I might be mistaken.

Remco45

Good save Arnaud!
You wrote: "Almost half of the fin was blown out in flight."
Is it possible that this happened exactly the way you wrote i.e. that the flutter was initiated by damage due to over pressure inside the rudder and/or fin?
I've seen it before that due to ram air effect of the intakes at higher speeds and a small surface area around the exhaust, air pressure builds up inside the fuselage if there are no other openings for the excess air to escape.
Looking at all the pictures in this thread, I can see a rather large opening around the rudder servo, but I cannot see the construction of the fin and rudder bottom clearly.
Could you make some more pictures?

Nevertheless, after looking at the pictures at home, the construction doesn't seem rigid enough. I wonder how the stablizers are...

gunradd

My Feedback: (9)

Arnaud did you get the new parts from T1 that screws onto the rudder servo? These where made to a smaller tolerance and allow zero play. T1 has also changed the drive pins out to a better pin but that takes all new vertical stabs to install but at this point you need new stabs anyway. With the new parts I installed on the demo bird its tough to install the vertical stabs now because the fitting is such a tight fit. The rudder has zero play now accept for the servo gears themselves. What servos where you using? Did you shim them up allot?

How was the aircraft being flown? Where you going high speed? in a dive? Do you have twins? The more info we get the better. T1 models has been made aware.

I know you overbuilt the inside of the plane after I had the flutter issue. That's great but it does not matter how strong something is built if it flutters somethings going to have to give. Most of your fin stayed on the aircraft so your mods did you well. Its not a fun plane to fly with the entire fin gone as I had.

For the structure of the rudder. Its totally enclosed so no air can get inside. The tail coming apart issue is from flutter not the structure itself. It does not matter how strong you build something when flutter starts its going to tear it up. The key is to prevent the flutter in the first place. BTW I am still using one of the prototype verticals and rudders on the one I am flying because I don't want to order all new markings and repaint. So the prototype rudder only had 4 or 5 plastic hinges on it. It works with no issue for me so its not how strong it is its preventing the flutter. When I had the flutter with the loosey goosy original parts that where made out of tolerance it wore slots into the steel drive bushings that fit onto the rudder servos. Those are thick steel and the flutter ***** slots right into it. So your not going to build anything can can take that abuse. The flutter needs to be prevented.

Flutter is a common issue with all F22s. Jet Legend and Yellow F22s both had flutter issues also. Jet legend even redesigned the rudder to be smaller to help resolve the issue. Many yellow F22s flat out snapped the rudder horns with flutter and lots of them where lost also. At the end of the day the F22 is a scale jet not s sport jet and if you have twins I could see the speed getting up pretty high pretty quick and exceeding the speed this plane should fly at.

Looping31

Hi Gunrad,

No I had not the new fitting from T1 but I managed to have zero free play on my rudders.

My rudder servos are Savox SA-1256TG, which are famous for there very low free play.

I insist that the speed and load factor was well inside flight envelope for a scale fighter jet.

Please do not assume that this plane was flown beyond limits...

I am pretty sure that the fin and rudder structure was too thin and weak. Many of my field friends who are engineers from aeronautics industry here in Toulouse Blagnac are doubtful about this fin structure.

Keys factors to prevent catastrophic aeroelastic vibrations are no free play, good servo, hinges, rigid and strong structure.

I’m sure T-one will adress this serious issue.

Otherwise, it’s a very good flying jet.

I love it.

Auburn02

My Feedback: (1)

Craig, it uses a direct drive, I believe what you are seeing is wiring for a light in the fin.

gunradd

My Feedback: (9)

Arnaud sounds good. I did not mean to sound like I was throwing blame just needed to make sure. With twins they can get this plane going very fast very quickly.

FenderBean

If there is a max speed it needs to be published, and even then they need a buffer since the mark one eyeball varies from person to person and GPS to GPS. Compared to other models with this same material the rudders are not as rigid and flex with just a slight amount of pressure. It should probably be beefed up and knowing that F-22s are subject to flutter this type on linkage setup isnt helping, it real does need a traditional linkage that allows for a mechanical advantage.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

Flutter is a VERY tough nut to crack. I saw Kris fly his pretty hard at Florida Jets a couple years ago, so I wouldn't immediately jump on the 'not enough structure' bandwagon, as sometimes that's just a brute force solution without correcting the underlying problem. Unless you can capture the flutter event with a video camera or something, it'll be hard to diagnose what's actually going on..

Looping31

gunradd

My Feedback: (9)

In talks with T1 now to find a solution. Will keep you guys updated. Keith I hear you on how you think the structure is weak but have you moved a BVM F16 by the tail? It feels like its going to break off its so flimsy. I still feel it does not matter how strong the structure is if it flutters its going to come apart period. You might make something stronger but it will just break the next weakest link. They key is preventing the flutter.

For the glue used. Its not the glue its the airX that comes apart. When you stress airX the formers will pull the airX apart making it look like its not glued. I have done countless repairs for people with airX and it does the same thing every time. AirX is super light and a great advancement in this hobby getting the weight down in these bigger planes but its not as strong as a normal glass hysol and wood former construction. At the end of the day though its a flutter issue in my opinion not a structure issue. We will see what T1 says. We also have Jeff helping out with this and with his background being an aeronautical engineer its good having his help. Barry I am sure will also be helping out. Both of us told T1 on day 1 that the rudder on the F22 needs to be super strong with no play due to flutter since we both had issues with our older F22s. He had a few jet legend F22s and I had the yellow. Flutter was always an issue on them. The yellow I flew and sold after over 400 flights ended up getting rudder flutter with its new owner and crashing.

JSF-TC

My Feedback: (2)

What is not mentioned is that all of these 'twin-tailed' fighters rely heavily on vortex lift to attain medium and high angles of attack. By design they generate and shed 2 very powerful vortices from the fuselage/ wing joint area which stream back and generate very turbulent flow around the tails. This also helps with directional stability at high AoA, but the main problem is with very high buffet loads into the vertical tails. These can damage structure and quickly wear bearings and control linkages which will then fail in a manner that looks like flutter.

Every one of the full-scale twin-tailed fighters have had structural issues in the fin and attaching structure - just look at the reinforcing plates on the early F-18. Very advanced control laws and surface deflection scheduling is used to manage loads in these parts of the flight envelope. This was poorly understood back in the 60/70's, but these loads now form part of the design spec for current aircraft.

The bottom line is that these twin-tailed designs must have a stronger structure in the verticals and attaching areas to counter these unseen but powerful buffet loads.


Paul