Erfolg
-
Posts
13,874 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by Erfolg
-
-
I keep living in hope, our grass has not been cut in months, it cannot be a the field is absolutely sodden.
Then there is the perennial issue, that it is always that bit winder here by the coast.
-
Simon, this is as far as I got, before chickening out, that is get some experience before going for the X3.
My model is a +60 year old model built prior to leaving school. The books are my references. As to being absolute scale no way, the drawings are tiny, who knows how accurate the drawing are anyway.
I stopped at the rear duct, which I was making a round to oblong, to correspond roughly with the two scale out lets.
It may interest you in that I have seen the D558? at Pensacola, and a sky rocket somewhere in Nevada (Reno?) they are both tiny, the pilots must have been small.
Another model I have in the past considered is the Leduc at Paris (Le Bourget?), again the pilot must have ben very very small, who did not mind dying.
-
2
-
-
I have beeb considering the option you have put forward, I decided on this current course of action, because I have not been to our field for some + months, the weather here has been so bad.
My own method is a home made type of measurement process, using spirit levels, bits of wood an card.
I will post a picture of my ad-hoc set up, not suitable for field use.
-
A bit of light relieve, not related directly to the thread.
At present I am playing "Halo 4", there is a sequence where you are required to fly down a tunnel/valley (the Sci-Fi type). The tunnel obviously, as a game, has slots to get through, obstructions within the tunnel, air locks that are closing and something's that fall into the tunnel. For us modellers quite easy, except that our down is up, and up is down it is when something suddenly gets in the way requiring a pitch correction, then I instinctively put in the opposite to what was required. I tried altering the controller button option, but did not seem to work when in the game.
Now back to my calculator which I do not think I have/had touched in some +20 years ( for sine calc).
-
That is useful to know. I now suspect that I did not straighten the fuz out.
I now have something to see how it can be done, conveniently, or the easiest. I will initially look at 2 degrees, whilst also considering 1 degree.
I guess the reason being is that for a trainer type, you want the fuz pretty much level, when trimmed to fly at a reasonable speed, with little elevator trim, requiring some up. At the same time inverted flight requiring little down elevator to keep the nose up. The thick symmetrical section with a really well rounded LE provides the good characteristics at the stall, and when changing the pitch quickly.
-
It did survive the first attempt. It stalled out in climbing out.
Philip I have also set a previous model at 2 degrees, from memory. A pushy cat built with a non standard wing using Naca 0009.
Given that on the 0-0 line symmetrical sections generate no lift, where as the so called flat bottom sections are generating lift with a 0-0, AoA, at often -5 degrees, I now wonder, if that is the reason that the Wot 4 takes of so quickly, climbing out steeply.
Hence the question, hmm, what is the standard Wot 4 AoA.
-
There is a reason, in that my wot 4 suffered massive damage to the body when it crashed, essentially doing I believe is called a half Cuban roll. Then in the vertical part of the loop, it kept on going absolutely vertically down, no amount of bending the tx stick altered the trajectory. The result was a body beyond repair.
I decided to rebuild a body out of ply. I carefully drew around the remains (after gluing together), then designed (although that is pushing the concept) the internals. With new metal geared servos.
Anyway the first flight did not go well with the best club flyer doing the honours (not me).
Since then I have been carefully checking everything I can think of. My last check has been the wing/tail plane incidence which is at 5 degrees (just slightly less), where the stall AoA is 15 degrees for Naca 0018 (0010 & 0012) I believe. It would be good to know what the relationship is with a unsullied model, in case I did not do the reassebly of the bent fuz well.
the first picture is with new body.
-
1
-
-
Does anyone have access to Naca 0018 cd/AOA plot looks like. I am particularly interested in the stall AoA (the approx., ignoring scale effect). Also the max lift drag AoA.
I have an idea what it might be, although I seem to make more mistakes these days. Plus the guy I used to discuss these things with, before I did anything, is no longer with me.
-
I am very interested how this goes.
My own thoughts were very much about placing the DF right at the back, pretty much adjacent to the out let. I also thought of increasing the inlet size. I was also thinking that I would have a cheater hole.
Due to my lack of experience of DF, that is why I started with a simpler DF model (so I thought). I could not decide where the Lipo would probably need to go.
I have drawn up the body shape. Also it compares with the TSR 2 in general proportions.
-
Does any one know what the incidence between wing and tail plane is/should be.
This is the polypropylene electric version with the 46" (approx1.2m) wing?
-
As the Flyinflyn suggested that a 32GB SD Card would be formatted as required, is true.
The card has been lying by my printer for some time now, today, I used it.
-
Well Ron, what can I say?
You might forget some of the detail, is very much an understatement when it comes to T-splines.
It does seem the way to go for Spats. Conceptually I cannot decide to go for two sperate halves, reflected, or a single shape, that will require slicing with supporting extrusion, to cope with the overhangs that would be printed in mid air.
I have used splines in the resent past, although without the complexity, and capability that the T-Splines video demonstrates.
One of the lessons that is appropriate to me, is to plan as far as possible what I am trying to achieve. My initial approach of free styling as I go leads to failure for me. How the video T-Spliner did what he did leaves me, well, speechless, and in admiration.
I will be re-watching the video in sections it seems.
-
Thanks for your reply Simon, not thinking through has caused me what to do problems, it seems that I have become very formulaic in my adhoc designs using balsa ply standard design.
I am now thinking of a two hatch approach, the canopy and either the bolt on (as Alan) or a belly hatch. The pity is that the battery box was conceived as a structural member with end loading. Which will require some stress compensation re-enforcement.
I was hoping to get all the major bits pretty much fabricated so as to decide if the wing as partially made would provided a wing loading circa 20-22 oz ft^-2 loading, or if some extra area needs finding.
-
Just a comment on the clevis-horn that failed. Polymers tend to fail at low or warm temperatures. Compared with metallic items their range of temperature viability is quite narrow. Also as mentioned the structural viability also tends to change with age, due to many things, from leaching of plasticers, photon damage (not normally a problem with models, although plastic gutter/drainpipes etc). Never mind "environmental stress cracking" that can happen with some of the solvents we like to use.
On the face of it, there is not a lot going for plastics, in reality they are great for much of we do.
-
I hope the sketch adds some clarity😀
-
I have now back tracked, as I did not realise there were issues that are relevant, I was so busy thinking about so much that concerned me , initially some very relevant things did not register.
Alan's posting did not come up in my in tray, for some reason.
Now I can see others solutions to problems did not register
So what did I initially not register, that the 162 had a wing. I was fixated on the duct to body junction (ignoring the wing completely), the other thing on my mind is the Lipo access. To date I am still disturbed by the issues. It is the issue of avoiding excessive weight, as interfaces often disproportionally (in full size also) increase the weight, At the same time I want to keep things secure.
Normally I would rough out a design, not overly concerned with detail, relying on tried and tested generic solutions. Any issues normally are identified during the process. In this case, just drawing bits and pieces on taped together A4, has not worked well at all.
-
Still struggling, the problem I am having is a diagonal line from one plane to another.
The line tool does not seem to allow cross plane lines. I can create a point for a line on one plane (or parallel plane), many different angular lines along the plane, or at 90 degrees to the pane, that is say the yz plane, not across the xyz planes.
There is normally always a way, simple when you know what you are doing. If only I knew what ..............................................
-
I had thought that was a solution, although I did not think it was possible.
You now what is coming, it is the how🙂?
The general command process, from that, with luck (rather than intelligence) I will work out how to do it.
-
I am trying to create a extruded plane at a slight angle to the x,y plane, which starts wide and tapers to a narrower width.
I am struggling to date. I feel confident that others will know the options.
-
Things continue to be frustrating here. I charged my batteries on everything yesterday, as the weather forecast was favourable, other than cold.
Just as I was about to load my car it started to rain, which turned to light drizzle.
I stayed at home, as the track to the field could be muddy and slippery and grass on the field would be wet, no doubt uncut, for some time now.
Worst still my wives golf course is yet again closed, as are some of the links.
-
Christmas is now over. During the period, most definitely family time. Puts my hobby back into perspective.
I have started on a body, being an ex-engineer plagiarism is my thing. On that basis I have the RCM&E free plan to hand. Whilst sketching out the body, I did realise that engineers like circles and straight lines. Unfortunately the real world forces complications like curves. The freebee has the circles, but all of my reference sources show the body at least in parts are more egg shaped. The problem seemed to be the real UC forced a widening of the lower body.
I am most definitely not a slave to absolute accuracy, as my models deviate from this philosophy to make them very semi-scale. Yet another side tells me, unless there is a practical reason, keep thing scalish.
As to the real design I have borrowed extensively from Simon and others, because all engineering knowledge comes from others efforts.
Yet there is one issue at least unresolved, that is the hatch into the model for a lipo, I do not like the free plan very much, mainly because of the motor wires and the need to arm the model, fasten at least one screw, for me a bit clunky. I prefer a bottom hatch, yet this weakens the monocoque shell. A big hatch makes working easier at the expense of strength, a small hatch, well my banana fingers have difficulties. All require an aperture compensation.
By the way I made a mistake on the drafting for former position 5. When doing the profiles I think I have made a mistake in the potions of the template contour position, hence the former line. I bodged a correction, did not bother with my former contour view.
Feed back and suggestions on the way forward will be appreciated.
-
1
-
-
I was aware that that the issues have been going from about 2015.
What has changed and continues to change is the breadth and scope. 2015 was just the opening shots. The shear scope of the questions, the expected responses indicates this is the beginning of bigger issues.
Just because some say that some belief in conspiracies, does not mean there is not a conspiracy. Although I do not see this as a conspiracy, I see the development of policy and regulation for the future.
My main view, is what the BMFA are engaged in, is a continuous struggle to minimise the impacts on us. Most of us do not understand the ramifications that the survey questions indicate could be coming down the track to us. To believe what ever is agreed in the short term is not the end. It would be naïve to think so, as others have said, it is the beginning, of a continuing process (change is always with us), that appears to be gathering speed and momentum.
-
I have partaked in the CAA survey, which I found to be quite involved, requiring a lot of reading. It was and probably is still true that I am far from understanding all of the proposal, and potential issues as referenced.
Some of the issues raised such as overflying crowds, individuals and properties, hints at some radical departures from what is presently thought acceptable.
I did come to a view that the origins and scope of the areas highlighted within the survey, have less to do with the CAA, probably either the UK Civil Service, after a suggestion to the relevant Government Minister. There is more than a hint that the process is conjunction with the EU. I did read presently that the good Baroness (the one who seemed intent on causing us problems in the resent past) is still active, now within a civil service department, that has interests in this area.
This left me thinking why, more than probably driven by the prize of commercialisation of the airspace sub 400 foot via logistic and survey drones (in all their shapes and guises) by commercial operators. In that context we are but a nuisance to those seeking to develop this area, that is Governments and Commercial Operators.
The CAA is possibly more sympathetic to our position in that we are not a problem, in the way we operate, as a present day safety, noise or intrusion issue to the public or property.
Drones/quads have come a long way in a very short period of time from some presently the size of insects to others that resemble light aircraft. The operations that are undertaken are wide ranging. Their capabilities ever increasing.
What is affordable to industry as an issue , will be very different to us hobbyist.
I think that the BMFA and some others have a tough long term fight on our behalf, that is just beginning.
-
1
-
-
That did not seem to be how the article with respect to selling second hand goods read. That you have a limit to how much you can sell, without paying tax, is how it was written.
Wot4e incidence
in General Electric Flight Chat
Posted
Here is a picture of the set up I am using to measure the AoA. I just use a couple of spirt levels a few pieces of spars, some cards to establish the 0-0 level of the wing. I set the tail plane level, then set the wing spars to 0-0. Pack up the wing spirit level to level. Measure the packer. The rest is just trig (sine = O/H), (Tan= O/A the difference is significant at model level).
On some other set ups I jst use the long spars packings, a steel rule, and trig ( again using measurements to form triangels0 although 0-0 is often what I am seeking (remembering on sections such a E205, Clark Y, and Selig) are lifting at ) 0-0, by quite a few degrees.
Just a comment on the Wot 4E being a step up from anything, puzzles me. The Wot 4 is the easiest model I have ever flown, The thick wing with a well rounded LE makes for a stall resistant model.
Another thought, back in the day many stunters used NACA0018 type sections as the drag worked well in the down leg in square loops, wing overs, the well rounded LE helped in the snap movements from transition from horizontal to vertical travel without a stall.