Shrike flight report
05-20-2006, 02:32 PM
#26
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oss, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
ORIGINAL: William Robison
Leo:
Good looking airplane.
No tip stall tendency? That 6.5 degree washout does wonders, doesn't it?
When you say NACA 23012/23015 airfoils I assume you mean 23012 at the root and 23015 at the tip? That would help also.
Bill.
Leo:
Good looking airplane.
No tip stall tendency? That 6.5 degree washout does wonders, doesn't it?
When you say NACA 23012/23015 airfoils I assume you mean 23012 at the root and 23015 at the tip? That would help also.
Bill.
should it be the opposite: at the root 23015 and 23012 at the tip, because I cannot believe that the wing will be thicker at the tip than at the root!
regards,
Jan.
07-22-2006, 06:52 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: FPO,
AP
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
I am thinking of starting the build on my great planes Shrike. I am goinng to use 2 YS .45s for power. I was thinking of placing the fuel tanks in the fuselage on the CG. Anybody tried this? I know it will take a bit of spinning of the prop to get the fuel to the engine. Maybe use one 24oz tank to both engines.
07-30-2006, 10:14 PM
#30
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Hi Guys, I want to build a Aero Commander 500 S twin engine using palmerpaln. it recommends to use Saito FA-91 engine and one of them to be used "Counter Rotating". Does anyone know if the engine needs to be factory ordered for turning anti Clock Wise? or any one can.
Please let me know if you know how?
Cheers
Reza
Please let me know if you know how?
Cheers
Reza
07-30-2006, 10:34 PM
#31
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Reza:
If you start with a factory new FA-91 engine it's a simple matter to replace the cam shaft and get the counter rotation. If the engine has some time on it the tappets and valve springs should also be replaced.
In any event, reversing a Saito single is trivial. I've done several.
Something you might consider, if the plane is big enough to use the FA-120 engines they are even simpler to reverse, and you end up with symmetric engines - both cylinders can be on the inside of the nacelles (pointing toward the fuselage) and still have the exhaust coming out the bottom. The FA-120 is the only one of the Saito singles that will allow this.
Bill.
If you start with a factory new FA-91 engine it's a simple matter to replace the cam shaft and get the counter rotation. If the engine has some time on it the tappets and valve springs should also be replaced.
In any event, reversing a Saito single is trivial. I've done several.
Something you might consider, if the plane is big enough to use the FA-120 engines they are even simpler to reverse, and you end up with symmetric engines - both cylinders can be on the inside of the nacelles (pointing toward the fuselage) and still have the exhaust coming out the bottom. The FA-120 is the only one of the Saito singles that will allow this.
Bill.
07-30-2006, 10:44 PM
#32
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Bill
Much appreciate your advice. I will be using brand new engines. and will look in to the dimensions for the 120 and if space permits i will take your advice and will go for them.
Thank you once again and kind regards
Reza
Much appreciate your advice. I will be using brand new engines. and will look in to the dimensions for the 120 and if space permits i will take your advice and will go for them.
Thank you once again and kind regards
Reza
07-30-2006, 11:10 PM
#33
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Reza:
Sorry, I neglected to post the part number for the reverse cam that fits the FA-91. It is SAI182TD34 from Horizon, I would suppose the same part number would be used by the UAE supplier, but I don’t know. With it installed and timed all the other adjustments are the same, the engine just runs backwards. No other modification required.
Using the FA-120 all you have to do is switch the exhaust and intake pipes side to side, drill two holes in the carb mounting flange to get it sitting straight again. No parts needed at all. Just a couple minutes and two holes.
Bill.
Sorry, I neglected to post the part number for the reverse cam that fits the FA-91. It is SAI182TD34 from Horizon, I would suppose the same part number would be used by the UAE supplier, but I don’t know. With it installed and timed all the other adjustments are the same, the engine just runs backwards. No other modification required.
Using the FA-120 all you have to do is switch the exhaust and intake pipes side to side, drill two holes in the carb mounting flange to get it sitting straight again. No parts needed at all. Just a couple minutes and two holes.
Bill.
07-31-2006, 08:04 AM
#36
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Reza:
You have hit on the biggest problem with counter rotating engines. There is a much better selection of props for normal rotation than reverse, but if you know where to go the right props can be had.
The Aero Commander wants three blade props for scale, I’m a fan of three blade props, and my FA-120 engines like the Zinger 14x8 three blade wooden props. These props use a metal hub, and a damaged blade can be replaced. Not terribly expensive, but they do cost more than the MAS and APC props. One left, one right, and a spare blade set for each will run about $100US.
Props here:
http://www.zingerpropeller.com/3_bladed_Propeller.htm
Spare blades here:
http://www.zingerpropeller.com/X3&4.htm
Prices are listed with the items.
Bill.
You have hit on the biggest problem with counter rotating engines. There is a much better selection of props for normal rotation than reverse, but if you know where to go the right props can be had.
The Aero Commander wants three blade props for scale, I’m a fan of three blade props, and my FA-120 engines like the Zinger 14x8 three blade wooden props. These props use a metal hub, and a damaged blade can be replaced. Not terribly expensive, but they do cost more than the MAS and APC props. One left, one right, and a spare blade set for each will run about $100US.
Props here:
http://www.zingerpropeller.com/3_bladed_Propeller.htm
Spare blades here:
http://www.zingerpropeller.com/X3&4.htm
Prices are listed with the items.
Bill.
07-31-2006, 08:12 AM
#37
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Bill:
Execellent stuff, Thanks for the link I checked. Now what does "Tractor" and Pusher means ?. Do they refer to the Ordinary and clock wise prop?
Cheers
Reza
Execellent stuff, Thanks for the link I checked. Now what does "Tractor" and Pusher means ?. Do they refer to the Ordinary and clock wise prop?
Cheers
Reza
07-31-2006, 08:29 AM
#38
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Reza:
“Tractor†means the prop, mounted on a normal rotation engine with the prop at the front of the plane will pull – it is loaded in traction. In other words, yes, a “Tractor†prop has the blades pitched for everybody’s normal engine in a normal mounting.
A “Pusher†prop has the blades pitched opposite to the tractor prop, and when mounted on an engine turning in normal rotation will push toward the engine instead of pulling away from it. At the same time, a “Pusher†prop mounted on an engine with reversed rotation becomes a tractor prop, it is just turning the “Wrong†way.
In other words, you need one tractor and one pusher for counter rotating engines.
Bill.
“Tractor†means the prop, mounted on a normal rotation engine with the prop at the front of the plane will pull – it is loaded in traction. In other words, yes, a “Tractor†prop has the blades pitched for everybody’s normal engine in a normal mounting.
A “Pusher†prop has the blades pitched opposite to the tractor prop, and when mounted on an engine turning in normal rotation will push toward the engine instead of pulling away from it. At the same time, a “Pusher†prop mounted on an engine with reversed rotation becomes a tractor prop, it is just turning the “Wrong†way.
In other words, you need one tractor and one pusher for counter rotating engines.
Bill.
07-31-2006, 08:42 AM
#39
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Bill:
Much Appreciate it . In fact after i posted you got to the main page and they explained it.
Thanks for your help and kind regards
Reza
Much Appreciate it . In fact after i posted you got to the main page and they explained it.
Thanks for your help and kind regards
Reza
01-20-2010, 10:16 PM
#40
RE: Shrike flight report
Is this plane available in kit form any longer.
I had bought it back in 1980 made of foam wings covered with balsa skin and a fiberglass body but never assembled it. It was huge. I think it took two OS 40's Not sure who the manufacturer was then.
I would like to build one this time.
I had bought it back in 1980 made of foam wings covered with balsa skin and a fiberglass body but never assembled it. It was huge. I think it took two OS 40's Not sure who the manufacturer was then.
I would like to build one this time.
01-21-2010, 09:48 AM
#41
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
ORIGINAL: rafeeki
Is this plane available in kit form any longer.
I had bought it back in 1980 made of foam wings covered with balsa skin and a fiberglass body but never assembled it. It was huge. I think it took two OS 40's Not sure who the manufacturer was then.
I would like to build one this time.
Is this plane available in kit form any longer.
I had bought it back in 1980 made of foam wings covered with balsa skin and a fiberglass body but never assembled it. It was huge. I think it took two OS 40's Not sure who the manufacturer was then.
I would like to build one this time.
good luck
Reza
01-23-2010, 03:56 AM
#42
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Blanchard,
OK
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Rafeeki,
The model you are referring to is a Shrike, but not the one that Leo built. The one you are talking about was made by Bridi, and Great Planes. I just sold one a couple of months ago. They are no longer in production anymore, but you can occasionally find one here in the market place, or on Ebay. The aircraft that Leo built is a Dan Palmer designed airplane that is much more scale than the Bridi/Great Planes, but much more complex to build. I am currently building one that I have converted into a Turbo Commander. I have quite a few build pictures on my thread if you want to take a look and see if you want to tackle it. It is a fun airplane to build. Here is my build thread: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7809490/tm.htm
Jeff
The model you are referring to is a Shrike, but not the one that Leo built. The one you are talking about was made by Bridi, and Great Planes. I just sold one a couple of months ago. They are no longer in production anymore, but you can occasionally find one here in the market place, or on Ebay. The aircraft that Leo built is a Dan Palmer designed airplane that is much more scale than the Bridi/Great Planes, but much more complex to build. I am currently building one that I have converted into a Turbo Commander. I have quite a few build pictures on my thread if you want to take a look and see if you want to tackle it. It is a fun airplane to build. Here is my build thread: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7809490/tm.htm
Jeff
01-28-2010, 08:52 AM
#43
My Feedback: (38)
RE: Shrike flight report
Leo:
A couple of questions for you as I am finishing up a GST Shrike and am going electric with it.
Did you actually meter your motors and confirmed 800 watts per side for a total of 1600 watts? The reason I ask is because at 28lbs, 1600 watts would calculate to 57.14 watts per pounds. Yikes, not much. ( I guessed at your total weight but should be close)
I have always used this formula:
50 - 70 watts per pound - minimum requirements usually good for park flyers and light wing loaded planes
70 - 90 watts per pound - basic sport flying
90 - 100 watts per pound - scale models and light aerobatics
110 - 130 watts per pound - advanced aerobatics
Rich Ultravich is flying a 51lb Bronco on 129.4 watts per pound and is quite happy with it so I was basing my system on his and
shooting for the 110 to 130 watts range. But after reading your information, maybe I should scale it down for weight savings as I don't need to hover it.
Question #2
I have 6 degrees of washout in my wing. I am about ready to install the stabilizer on the fuselage. My last Shrike flew with up trim and ,like yours, scraped the tail on take off. So, I was thinking about putting 1 degree of negative incidence in the stab. Then here you come with .75 degree positive? What would be your recommendation here?
Paul
A couple of questions for you as I am finishing up a GST Shrike and am going electric with it.
Did you actually meter your motors and confirmed 800 watts per side for a total of 1600 watts? The reason I ask is because at 28lbs, 1600 watts would calculate to 57.14 watts per pounds. Yikes, not much. ( I guessed at your total weight but should be close)
I have always used this formula:
50 - 70 watts per pound - minimum requirements usually good for park flyers and light wing loaded planes
70 - 90 watts per pound - basic sport flying
90 - 100 watts per pound - scale models and light aerobatics
110 - 130 watts per pound - advanced aerobatics
Rich Ultravich is flying a 51lb Bronco on 129.4 watts per pound and is quite happy with it so I was basing my system on his and
shooting for the 110 to 130 watts range. But after reading your information, maybe I should scale it down for weight savings as I don't need to hover it.
Question #2
I have 6 degrees of washout in my wing. I am about ready to install the stabilizer on the fuselage. My last Shrike flew with up trim and ,like yours, scraped the tail on take off. So, I was thinking about putting 1 degree of negative incidence in the stab. Then here you come with .75 degree positive? What would be your recommendation here?
Paul
01-31-2010, 12:20 PM
#44
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gothenburg, SWEDEN
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Hi Paul,
Yes, I measured 37 amps static at 22 volts for one motor = 814 watts. I read somewhere that the power requirement for a twin is only 2/3 of a single engine plane because of a more effective propeller stream over the wings
1600W is enough power for flying the Palmer Shrike from a paved runway. The drop to 22 volts in the 7s packs reveals poor battery performance though.
As a comparison, here´s a guy flying a 132" DH Rapide using an identical setup with a decent set of LiPos. Flying weight is 28,5 lbs. Airfoil is NACA 2412.
[link=http://www.modelmotors.cz/index.php?page=winner010807]DH-88 Rapide[/link]
The stated current draw is 42 amps. If each cell voltage is 3,7 volts under load, the total input power is 42x3,7x7x2 = 2175 watts = 76,3 W/lb.
Your thought about 1deg. of negative incidence sounds like a good idea. I´m not sure whether I got the stab incidence right on my Shrike. Not an easy task when using a twisted wing for reference..
Leo
Yes, I measured 37 amps static at 22 volts for one motor = 814 watts. I read somewhere that the power requirement for a twin is only 2/3 of a single engine plane because of a more effective propeller stream over the wings
1600W is enough power for flying the Palmer Shrike from a paved runway. The drop to 22 volts in the 7s packs reveals poor battery performance though.
As a comparison, here´s a guy flying a 132" DH Rapide using an identical setup with a decent set of LiPos. Flying weight is 28,5 lbs. Airfoil is NACA 2412.
[link=http://www.modelmotors.cz/index.php?page=winner010807]DH-88 Rapide[/link]
The stated current draw is 42 amps. If each cell voltage is 3,7 volts under load, the total input power is 42x3,7x7x2 = 2175 watts = 76,3 W/lb.
Your thought about 1deg. of negative incidence sounds like a good idea. I´m not sure whether I got the stab incidence right on my Shrike. Not an easy task when using a twisted wing for reference..
Leo
01-31-2010, 11:38 PM
#45
RE: Shrike flight report
ORIGINAL: William Robison
Reza:
If you start with a factory new FA-91 engine it's a simple matter to replace the cam shaft and get the counter rotation. If the engine has some time on it the tappets and valve springs should also be replaced.
In any event, reversing a Saito single is trivial. I've done several.
Something you might consider, if the plane is big enough to use the FA-120 engines they are even simpler to reverse, and you end up with symmetric engines - both cylinders can be on the inside of the nacelles (pointing toward the fuselage) and still have the exhaust coming out the bottom. The FA-120 is the only one of the Saito singles that will allow this.
Bill.
Reza:
If you start with a factory new FA-91 engine it's a simple matter to replace the cam shaft and get the counter rotation. If the engine has some time on it the tappets and valve springs should also be replaced.
In any event, reversing a Saito single is trivial. I've done several.
Something you might consider, if the plane is big enough to use the FA-120 engines they are even simpler to reverse, and you end up with symmetric engines - both cylinders can be on the inside of the nacelles (pointing toward the fuselage) and still have the exhaust coming out the bottom. The FA-120 is the only one of the Saito singles that will allow this.
Bill.
01-31-2010, 11:42 PM
#46
RE: Shrike flight report
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
Can the Saito 100 be reversed as easily, and where are you getting the cam shafts? Thanks.
ORIGINAL: William Robison
Reza:
If you start with a factory new FA-91 engine it's a simple matter to replace the cam shaft and get the counter rotation. If the engine has some time on it the tappets and valve springs should also be replaced.
In any event, reversing a Saito single is trivial. I've done several.
Something you might consider, if the plane is big enough to use the FA-120 engines they are even simpler to reverse, and you end up with symmetric engines - both cylinders can be on the inside of the nacelles (pointing toward the fuselage) and still have the exhaust coming out the bottom. The FA-120 is the only one of the Saito singles that will allow this.
Bill.
Reza:
If you start with a factory new FA-91 engine it's a simple matter to replace the cam shaft and get the counter rotation. If the engine has some time on it the tappets and valve springs should also be replaced.
In any event, reversing a Saito single is trivial. I've done several.
Something you might consider, if the plane is big enough to use the FA-120 engines they are even simpler to reverse, and you end up with symmetric engines - both cylinders can be on the inside of the nacelles (pointing toward the fuselage) and still have the exhaust coming out the bottom. The FA-120 is the only one of the Saito singles that will allow this.
Bill.
02-01-2010, 01:36 AM
#47
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Blanchard,
OK
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Leo,
Did you mount your stab at .75 degrees positive incidence in reference to the wing incidence, or the fuselage waterline? I haven't studied that part of the plans in depth yet, but I would like to find out how you did it. I am almost ready to begin working on my tail section and will hopefully be mounting my stabs soon. Thanks,
Jeff
Did you mount your stab at .75 degrees positive incidence in reference to the wing incidence, or the fuselage waterline? I haven't studied that part of the plans in depth yet, but I would like to find out how you did it. I am almost ready to begin working on my tail section and will hopefully be mounting my stabs soon. Thanks,
Jeff
02-01-2010, 03:36 PM
#48
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gothenburg, SWEDEN
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
Jeff, I mounted the stab 0,75 deg. positive incidence in reference to the fuselage center line. Sorry for the being unclear in my previous post.
Paul, At a second thought, I think 1 deg. negative incidence of the stab might be to much. My Robart incidence meter says the stab is close to 0 deg when the up trim is included
The trim is visible in the image below. (around 3/16" at trailing edge)
Paul, At a second thought, I think 1 deg. negative incidence of the stab might be to much. My Robart incidence meter says the stab is close to 0 deg when the up trim is included
The trim is visible in the image below. (around 3/16" at trailing edge)
02-01-2010, 09:16 PM
#49
My Feedback: (38)
RE: Shrike flight report
Leo:
I planned on using a Robart incidence meter on the wing center section which would not have any wash out close to the fuselage. With this at 0 degree's I will put just a little negative incidence. Maybe 1/4 to 1/2 degree. Sound about right to you? Thanks for your input.
Paul
I planned on using a Robart incidence meter on the wing center section which would not have any wash out close to the fuselage. With this at 0 degree's I will put just a little negative incidence. Maybe 1/4 to 1/2 degree. Sound about right to you? Thanks for your input.
Paul
02-01-2010, 09:20 PM
#50
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Blanchard,
OK
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shrike flight report
The wing center section is not at 0. It is actually at 3.5 I believe. I have been using my Robart incidence meter a lot in my build and it is a life saver! So Leo, do you think 0 degrees on the tail would be better? It doesn't look like you have to use much trim. Also are your trim tabs separate pieces, or have you just cut the edges and made it look like it? They look great!