Rob Ashley
-
Posts
355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by Rob Ashley
-
-
Thanks Chris.
-
I'm glad it wasn't just me that exclaimed when I was asked to project commercial drone growth - it was a bit of an ask. Hopefully common sense will prevail.
-
Certainly does Tim. I'm also quite chuffed I completed the 2018 Mass build.
-
She is very aerobatic a delight to fly very smooth upright or inverted - I'm already thinking she will become one of my favourites.
She flew sans canopy and I will add some vents to the nacelles - the TE vents I have work but I guess more cooling wouldn't hurt.
As you can see I was quite happy.
Picture credits go to my good friend Steve.
-
In slightly more interesting news I did manage 2 flights yesterday. She flies excellently! Zero rudder and aileron trim required but I did need quite a bit of +ve pitch trim. I have since moved the CG back 5mm and see on the next flight.
Rolls are very axial and she will loop from level flight at half throttle - so my concerns about the power I was getting from the 3S setup were quite unfounded. This model is a real credit to the designer - well done Peter Miller!
-
OK so with the rain set in for today I thought I'd take the time to add some of the trim.
Just needs a canopy and I need to order the letters. Saw tooth cut individually using a ply template. Wasn't hard to do apart from taking time to reduce the number of air bubbles between the two coverings. Yellow is Oracover and blue is Easycoat.
-
Nigel - IPA? That's a beer where I'm from
-
Hi All,
Peter - thank you for the link for the lettering I will give them a look later on ( have some jobs to finish for my wife first).
Nigel - Yes she is a little yellow at the moment isn't she. I wanted to fly her first and make sure all was well before completing the covering job. I intend to compliment the blue underwing with something on the top surfaces similar to Peter's original. Likely including painting the canopy the same shade blue and add some lettering etc. plus that means I don't have to do cockpit detailing...
I hadn't thought of cyano on the prop shaft - thanks for the tip I will give that a go.
Piers - I have swapped the original prop nuts for loc nuts, oddly it was the adaptor that came loose and the nut was still tight when I picked up the bits. I replaced that adaptor and so far the this one seems fine, but as Nigel says a drop of cyano should help matters. I do balance my props and think it is important to do so, there are quite substantial differences in manufactures tolerances sometimes.
Anyhow - it looks like time for a maiden flight - hopefully report back later today.
-
Have to admit the dog doesn't look that impressed, but I am quite happy with it.
There are still some lettering I need to source and add on the top wing - I mean it must have a name right? I need to change the deans connectors to XT60s and I need to mould another canopy and paint it blue to match the underneath but otherwise the jobs list is complete and ready for her maiden flight.
-
Ok, new motors in and tested. Didn't go that well as I hoped, as no matter how much tightened the prop nut the prop shot off the motor and smashed into the cupboard door, splintered and scuffed the transmitter I was holding at the time. Hey ho.
Motors are holding about 31A at full chat and producing 330ish W, but more interestingly the model weighs 2.9kg with a static thrust of 3.54kg - so should be ok. What I found interesting here is the thrust is greater than the manufactures' quoted but the watts are less. Still thrust / weight ratio is a much better performance indicator than watts / weight.
She has moved under her own power for the first time - I managed to taxi around the garden for a while, setup the failsafe check for loose items and conduct a range check.
Edited By Rob Ashley on 24/08/2018 18:44:12
-
Eflightray,
Nice model you have there sir - I understand that Miss LIzzy is an 'eyeballed' scale up of the Tequila Sunrise with some enhancements to the fus, I think a NACA 2412 instead of symmetrical aerofoil and reduction of the strip ailerons.
I'm sure a 4S leccy setup will motivate the 150% Tequila or Miss Lizzy most comfortably.. As I said they have excellent characteristics and I love flying mine.
Geoff, I even used my TS as a camera ship about 10 years ago.
Rob
-
Posted by Geoff Sleath on 17/08/2018 20:02:52:
Looks great Rob. Details needed - size, power source? After seeing pictures of the Tequila Sunrise in Peter's book 'Designing Model Aircraft' I always quite fancied it and your example only serves to encourage my interest.
Geoff
Geoff,
This particular one is 150% of original which gives a wingspan of 52" and powered by an OS32 SX covered in solartex and painted. I have also CNC machined two 200% size kits at 68" span for 2 club mates and my own 200% size is still on my 'to do' list.
I test flew one of the 200% models for my club mate and can happily report it flew perfectly just like my smaller size! I was comfortable doing inverted low passes on the maiden flight - showing how well this plane flies and the confidence it gives.
If you do decide to build one you wont regret it.
Best, Rob.
Thank you John Stones 1 for your comments.
-
Like most who have already posted I really found this difficult to answer. Having to chose from numerous 1/7th to 1/4 scale WW1 and WW2 scouts, fighters and bombers, to many sports models (although never owned a Wot 4) and even a couple of gliders I think my favourite model to fly in any weather, aerobatically or just circuits has to be a scaled up Peter Miller Tequila Sunrise. Flies beautifully and will pretty much do anything you ask of it - except make a brew.
-
Coming along at great speed Peter.
-
Yes Peter she certainly is different, but what a model, very unique shape. Looking forward to seeing the plans.
-
Wow, talk about something a bit different Peter! Really interested to see this develop.
-
Chaps, thanks for all of your advice - I am most grateful.
Nigel - I will stick the 1450kv jobs in and see what readings I get. Looking at the motor specs they are rated to 655W on 4S, so with the right prop I think I can get a useful 400ish W per motor which should give enough performance without stressing the setup too much.
Tim - Great to hear from you again. I do remember you changing your motors come to think of it and with your flight test data with similar weights gives me more confidence in mine. Incidentally I have 1 battery per motor in each nacelle so I'm hoping power to endurance will be a good balance. I can see me ending up with a whole raft of elec props to get the best balance. I like the idea of 3 bladers though.
Peter - I'm with you at the moment. I know what I am getting with IC and don't with elec despite many calculations and research. I feel your pain with the lugging of kit to the flying site, we are lucky at our club being able to park directly at the site. I see your Ohmen is due to be published next month too - honestly, you put the rest of us to shame...
-
Peter - I'm sure your weight calcs will be spot on! I reckoned my GTC would be 7lb and current weight ready to fly is 6.5lb.
Nigel - thanks very much for that very useful info. I may well send a PM to David for his advice too.
I have been using a 3S 3000mAh battery throughout and had intended to try these motors on with a 4S battery - alas my 4S batteries arrived with different connectors so I need to do some soldering before a go any further along that avenue.
After I posted my results the other day I did look at the figures again and considered that I would only get near 430W with a 4S after re-reading the motor literature which states 2-4S. Typically, I have built the battery boxes and hatches to suit the 3S batteries I was intending to use.
The 1450kv motors are due to arrive in a day or 2 so I might fit those and look at the results from there - my initial thoughts were physical size of the motor is the same as what is currently fitted so I don't need to start carving away at the model to make them fit. I was also thinking that with a 9x6 prop and higher rpm I may get closer to the output of a 0.25-0.30 IC. Failing that I guess I'm looking at a little surgery to shoehorn a 4S into each nacelle.
I'm quite interested to see the results of the higher kv motors - I'll be back soon with info.
-
In the absence of any replies I went ahead and ordered another set of motors that have a quoted output of over 600W, 1450kv and 220g more thrust plus some manufacturers recommended props. Due to arrive in a couple of days so I guess I'll wait and see the results from those.
-
I'm with the engine doc here - we have an MPV and a Volvo XC70, build quality is better in the Volvo, mpg is better and there is more room with seats folded. Wins on all counts really.
Rob
-
Hmmm,
Not being a leccy expert I am a little confused about the results I am getting from my setup. The motors I bought state 430 watts each and gave an appropriate prop and battery which I have fitted (11x5). When I attached my Wattmeter to the setup and ran it in the garden, I was getting 288Watts at full power - quite disappointing really.
I put a larger diameter prop on (12x7) and retested it and found an initial peak of 395 - 405 Watts on as the motor reaches max rpm. The Watts then fall to around 340ish - so still not really much better.
Am I doing anything wrong or do I need to buy slightly bigger motors?
Any help would be really appreciated.
Rob
-
Peter - perhaps, but your models fly well though don't they.
I need to clean it with meths to get rid of the blue smudges left by the iron, but she's getting there.
-
Some more work this afternoon and I seem to have broken the back of the covering
-
Wow - Thanks Peter I'll take the compliment especially from you.
Government Consultation on Drone Flying in the UK.
in All Things Model Flying
Posted
I think you are looking at it a bit too narrowly.
The consultation will also be completed by the commercial drone industry and their customers, I don't think it's unreasonable that they have the means to express their opinion in this area.
We just have to be sure that we make our case heard.
I see what you are saying John and get the fact that both casual and commercial users are able to respond to the consultation - I did read it and didn't infer commercial operators shouldn't get a say. Problem is the questions are poor as lack decent definition or were too direct missing vital information. They have tried to write questions that fit all camps, but they don't.
As a military aviator and modeller I have a vested interest over a wider perspective than most, as drones (I use this term to define quad type off the shelf systems) have significantly increased the risk to military low flying aircraft and of course commercial aviation, generally near airports. This is mainly due to the average user who can buy one, take it out of the box and fly it with zero knowledge of the Air Navigation Order - the questions in this consultation did not distinguish between these types and responsible modellers or indeed identify the need for education. Perhaps the data collected will reach that conclusion and common sense will prevail.
The consultation was not well written, in my opinion, and I think would have been better had it made some clearer definitions to start with and even a separate question bank for casual and commercial operators as they have very different needs. There are many rules and regulations in the flying world already and there is a good system for notifying where and when drone / model activity will take place so why not focus on educating people to use the system correctly - which is available online - instead of spending tax payers money on a new system that requires development and testing - the system is already there.
Best, Rob