Nigel Heather
-
Posts
842 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by Nigel Heather
-
-
41 minutes ago, Shaun Walsh said:
Wouldn't 90 degrees of downthrust make it a rotary mower?
Maybe I can get some use out of it 😀
But seriously, it's that feeling when I have more than doubled the down thrust, it already has more than I have every put in any plane and it isn't enough and people are saying to add more.
Just tried calling Century UK, I did send an email some days back but heard nothing back. But I got through to someone in technical support who admitted he doesn't really know anything about plane, but he took my number and the has said he will get the guy who does to call me back. Let's see if they do.
-
38 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:
Not owned a Ruckus Nigel, but did test fly one for a clubmate, it was pretty straightforward and flew O.K, by no means flighty nor unpleasant, control was sedate ish. The lads saying the incidence is the cause sounds plausable to me, that would be down to design not a fault with yours, on 3 cell it's fine, given more grunt it don't like it and you'd need downtrim putting in elevator to compensate.
Maybe that is the issue - I'm powering using 4S, but I'm not letting Century/Max Thrust off the hook as they make a big thing of it being suitable for 3S and 4S in their advertising blurb.
I have more down thrust at the moment than I have ever put in the plane and it is not enough. I echo the sentiment of the story by a guy with the same problem (linked above by @Shaun Walsh) when he says that it feels like it is going to need 90 degrees of down thrust.
Can't say that I am impressed with it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:
You added uptrim because it was climbing, by uptrim you meam you pushed the trim up ? giving down on the elevator ?
Yep sorry, got that the wrong way round when typing, but definitely did it correctly in real life.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Learner said:
Shame he doesn't say how he fixed the issue!
Yes a real shame, what he describes is exactly what is happening to me.
I'll also second the bloody awful undercarriage bolts - I fitted mine, and after fitting the receiver noticed something not quite right with the wheels and on closer inspection saw that the wheel bolts were really bent. And what excessive force caused the bend - why, pushing down the receiver onto some double-sided sticky sponge to fix it in place - yep that's right, gently pushing down on the receiver was enough to bend the wheel axles - bloody Chinesium.
-
32 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:
A simple explanation could be, if it's nose heavy and trimmed to fly at a slowish speed, you would have up trim in the elevator, once you put more throttle in, the uptrim will cause model to climb, if there's a fair bit of uptrim, you'll get a pitching up effect.
28 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:Stab in the dark, is the wing secure, not moving in flight ?
On the maiden, checked the balance, that the controls were in the correct direction and the surfaces were all nicely neutral and aligned.
Take off tracked really straight and took off nicely. Absolutely no aileron or rudder trim needed but noticed the plane was climbing strongly. Added a little 'up trim' (meaning that I pushed the trim button up to bring the nose down) but realised that it wasn't really helping so brought it down.
Tried the next day when there was no wind, same results, but that ruled out balloon because the the wind - though if I'd though about it I could have ruled that out because it was climbing regardless of direction of flight.
Then I more than doubled the amount of down-trust but this appeared to make no difference, or if it did it was very slight.
The wing is secure, not moving.
I was hoping to fly today, was going to try moving the CoG and packing under the leading edge - unfortunately pesky work have thrown in a late afternoon meeting so no chance to sneak of early to the flying field - so may have to wait until tomorrow.
-
9 minutes ago, PatMc said:
The first sentence is true but limits the models speed range & might be fine for someone happy to fly it as a trainer or relaxing to fly very limited performance model.
The second sentence is also basically true. I think this is what you want, isn't it
The third will take some time consuming explaining with diagrams. I'll have a look at a couple of books I have & see if there's anything suitable I can crib & post but it's likely to be this evening or tomorrow.
Bit I'm struggling with is suggestions that my plane is nose heavy and that I would associate that with stable, docile, flight possibly with a decent, not with bucking up and climbing fast.
-
So just to make absolutely sure that I am packing in the right place, the attached picture shows where I believe I am being asked to add packing.
Asking because it seems counter-intuitive to me, also because the plane is already scary to fly and I don't want to make it worse as I may struggle to keep it safe.
Apologies for the noddy diagram, art was never a strength, but hope it conveys the idea.
Cheers,
Nigel
-
11 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:
Re the incidence meter - although I've had a Robart instrument for many years, I made up a nice piece of kit from scrap ply and one of those digital spirit levels/inclinometers that you can get from the web for a few pounds. I needed to measure a much larger model than the Robart can handle. I always check the rigging angles of all my new models for peace of mind before a first flight, and it also saves a lot of guesswork should one wish to experiment or sort out a model with handling problems.
I was thinking the same - I already have a digital pitch gauge for setting helicopter blades.
I imagined propping up the plane so that the tail is level, then attaching a homemade platform that attaches to the tips of the leading and trailing edge and then sitting the gauge on the platform.
But then shelved the idea as I thought that I've only got to be out by fractions of a millimetre with my construction and that would account to whole degrees.
Cheers,
Nigel
-
8 hours ago, PatMc said:
Incidence is merely a rigging reference, it's not the angle of attack (AoA) of the wing. AofA is the angle that the wing actually enters the air at.
Increasing the incidence by packing the TE won't alter the AofA but will increase the downthrust.
However IMO my previous advice in moving the CG rearwards makes more sense & has already been tried & tested by Mike Freeman as described in the first page of this thread. After trimming a more rearward CG results in a lower AoA which in turn results in a wider airspeed range without "ballooning" but also make the elevators more sensitive which is why I say move the CG rearwards in increments over several trial flights adjusting the elevator trim each time.
I’m really struggling with this concept. I’ve always been told that having a plane too nose heavy is better than having it too tail heavy. That a nose heavy plane is more table and a tail heavy plane is more sensitive to the controls.
For example, often told that a plane advertised as with the COG forward makes a stable intermediate plane that is easy to fly but move the CoG back and it becomes aerobatic.
So if I have a plane that is balloon up and climbing fast as soon as I apply power why would moving the CoG backwards help that? Why isn’t moving the CoG forward a more likely answer. I’m not saying it is wrong, just that I don’t understand it because it is contrary to what I have been told in the past.
-
5 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:
Hi PatMc
I did read the text before you deleted it and I hpld my hand up for getting my recommendation the wrong way round.
So, for a low wing aircraft,ike the Ruckus, an alternative to applying more down thrust is to increase the wing incidence. This would require the TE to be packed. For the same flying speed, you would need more down elevator trim to reach the same angle of attack as before i.e. the aircraft would be flying more nose down than before and hence more down thrust.
Sorry for missing your point first time.
Nigel Heather - please note the above.
Getting a little confused now.Packing the the trailing edge would increase the incidence - is that what I need to stop the ballooning?
In my head that seems the opposite, wouldn’t it increase the lift and therefore, cause it to rise even more?
-
1 hour ago, Kim Taylor said:
With the greatest respect, you don't know whether it's nose heavy or not, until you get it trimmed correctly and check the c of g in flight, where it matters. The numbers are just that, numbers on a page and are a recommended starting point, not cast in stone.
But the plane is yours, you can do with it what you will, and I hope you get it sorted.
Kim
Well, if I had designed the aircraft myself then maybe. But this is a mass-produced aircraft that has been around for at least 5 years. Sure, it is not unknown for manufacturers to make typos in the instructions but this typically leads to lots of reports of problems form customers and inevitable an errata being published either the manufacturer or experienced fliers on forums like this. This isn't the case for the Ruckus, it has 100s maybe 1000s of customers who haven't raised any concern.
Of course this does raise the question - why is my experience so different.
But on the balance of probability, if the manufacturer says that the balance should be between 80-100mm then I am pretty sure that is correct.
And as mine balances at 90mm I can't see how it's CoG can be massively out.
And finally, I don't understand how a nose heavy aircraft would want to strongly climb - I'm not saying I know better, just that I don't understand as it is the opposite to what I would expect - so I would appreciate an explanation.
Cheers,
Nigel
-
6 hours ago, Kim Taylor said:
Not in my experience - I put it down to having to trim additional up elevator to counteract the nose heaviness, then when you open the throttle / increase speed the up trim becomes excessive and up she goes.
I've had similar on a foamy Riot, which I've got balanced either at or behind the recommended c of g, and a Wot4 woody ARTF, which if memory serves, was a good 15mm behind the recommended rear limit
KIm
eta I should add, that the method I use to set c of g is to trim for level flight at half throttle, then roll inverted to see what happens. When it flies inverted either hands off, or with a whisker of down stick, jobs a good'un
But my Ruckus isn't nose heavy. The balance range is 80mm to 100mm from leading edge, mine is balancing at 90mm at the moment.
I can't see how moving it back will help things.
Going to try a few things tomorrow
1 - move CoG forward as I can do that very simply. Everything I have read says this isn't the problem but worth a try.
2 - packing the leading edge.
-
1 hour ago, Learner said:
No doubt you've tried but doesn't some down trim improve it at half throttle? I was taught to trim straight and level at half throttle, then fine trim from there.
I’ll try that, but I’m concerned that the trim will be quite significant. With the trim as it is at the moment it is very easy to see the deflection. Having an elevator with significant deflection at neutral just seems wrong. -
20 minutes ago, Learner said:
Are you trimming it at too low throttle, I would trim it at cruising speed around 1/2 throttle. If thats to fast maybe 3s would be better.
It's not too fast, it's just that as soon as I throttle above 25% (or so, it is just a guess) the plane climbs rapidly and I have to throttle back to stop it disappearing into the clouds.
-
Please don’t let my question cause people to fall out. 🙏
So where I am:
The first thing I did was to add some elevator - that reduced the effect and left it flying what I consider properly at low throttle. I didn’t try adding lots of elevator to try and level out at throttle because the elevator is clearly deflected already so that didn’t seem the right answer - more like curing the symptom rather than the fault.
I then more than doubled the down thrust, it may have made a small amount of difference but not much. Again adding more seems like curing the symptom.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to an incidence meter - it would be great to see what it is but unfortunately I can’t.
So next flight I will loosen the wing and slip in some card near the leading edge, retighten and see what that does - I’ll let you know, won’t be until Wednesday at the earliest.
-
1 hour ago, GrumpyGnome said:
1. Get it in the air and try to establish if the cofg is correct - my rough and ready hack flying check consists of the dive test, and some inverted flight. If not as you like, adjust it
2. I'll then trim so it glides how I want - descending as shallowly as possible whilst maintaining good control. If you find you need to add lots of up/down elevator trim, I'd say an incidence is wrong (you may have a bad moulding...)
3. I'll then check the thrustline. I like my models to climb gently on increasing throttle. If it's stays level, that's fine for me. If it has a strong pull up or down, I'll adjust the thrustline.
25 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:Just to manage your expectation of.an F3A aircraft, they do not plug together out of the box. There is a lot of work needed to get them into the air when the fun of trimming then starts. Quite often, there are no instructions either! So, I quite agree with Nigel's expectations of a modern mass produced product in that it should fly better than he has experienced but CG position does majorly affect the way the aircraft flies together with control throws being set to avoid twitchiness.
All reasonable textbook suggestions I am sure. But in reality .....
My short flights with this have left my pulse racing and my arms shaking. For me, it is a challenge to keep the thing in the air, it is one big panic to keep it under control and to bring it down.
With any sort of throttle it climbs quickly into the clouds, at minimum throttle it is quite mushy and difficult to control in a different way.
My flights have been made in panic, I certainly do not feel at any time I could do some inverted flight - I'm not that comfortable flying inverted with an aircraft that flies well.
But I am becoming a little puzzled with the comments about CoG - to date the advice and guidance has been 'it's not the CoG' so I haven't played around with it other than to check it falls within the manufacturer's stated range. One of my first questions was whether to push the CoG forward and I was simply told in chorus that it wasn't the CoG.
So going back to issue, the stated range for the CoG is 80-100mm, mine is set at 90mm, is it worth moving it forward to see if that makes any difference?
-
Remember we are talking about a mass-produced, cheap(ish), foam plane here, not a precision F3A aircraft.
I'm not expecting perfection, but I did expect it to fly reasonably well out of the box provided that it had been assembled correctly.
I have just carefully inspected the build, well to be precise, inspected for the third time, but just in case.
The tailplane fits into a slot in the fuselage - this is fitting perfectly, so if it is wrong it is down to manufacturing.
Likewise, the wing sets on the bottom of the fuselage and again that looks like a very good fit, pretty flush where the fuselage and wing meet with no overly large or uneven gaps. So again, if that is wrong it down to the manufacturing.
I don't have an incidence meter - I'll put a call out to the club members to see if they have one - but I don't know what I should be looking for even if I do manage to get hold of one.
Finally, in terms of packing - do I need to pack the trailing edge or the lead edge - it's a low wing plane so packing will push the packed edge closer to the ground
-
1 hour ago, GrumpyGnome said:
If it's mushy and unresponsive at low throttle, and climbs (balloons) when throttle is added
This is exactly what it is doing.
-
17 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:
Sorry Stuart Z you are incorrect in your statement. I confused the Ruckus with the Riot. For low wing aircraft to reduce incidence, which is what I was trying to suggest to Nigel, you do need to pack the LE. If you pack the TE for a low winger you will increase the incidence which is not what Nigel wants. Although, by the sound of his last post it's all academic anyway!
Not academic yet, prepared to try some more stuff, just that it will get to the point where I decide I am doing more fiddling than flying.
And yes I am pretty irritated that I am even having to do this for an ARTF foam model - I expect them to work out of the box.
-
4 minutes ago, Stuart Z said:
You’ll need to pack the trailing edge, not the leading edge. A couple of incidence meters would be useful. My Super 60 had a similar problem and as engine adjust was awkward the tail plane incidence was changed. Not such an easy fix on a Ruckus. Do you know someone that has the same plane so that you can compare. Incidence meters will help.
SNo, I’m the only one with one, regretting buying it to be honest. I’ll keep tinkering but there is only so much valuable time I’m prepared to waste on it - there’s a good chance it’ll just end up in the tip - certainly won’t be buying another Max Thrust product, has been full of disappointments from the start.
-
16 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:
It's telling you to add more downthrust.
Or, try packing the trailing edge of the wing to reduce the incidence. It is effectively the same as adding more downthrust. A combination of the two should cure the problem of ballooning when adding power. It may look odd but keep going till the problem is solved.
Yes but I’ve already more than doubled what the manufacturer suggests and that made no difference at all - how can it be so wrong for a mass-market model that has sold in the thousands without any similar stories.Is there something else I could have done wrong with the assembly?
-
UPDATE - took it down to the field yesterday. Tried it first unchanged because there was zero wind compared to the first flight which was a little gusty. Same happened so that ruled out being wind related - didn’t think it would be but worth the check.
So added some more downthrust by adding an extra washer top-right and top-left. The washers I had were a little thicker than the ones already fitted which means that I more than doubled the amount of downthrust - it was very evident to see that the mount/motor were pointing downwards.
I’m sad to say that this made little difference, the plane still climbs significant at anything above 1/4 throttle.
Now pretty perplexed what it can be. Going to try moving the CoG forward, but not convinced that is the cause so not holding my breath.
-
On 16/08/2024 at 10:17, Cuban8 said:
I guess that running one of the many cottage industry modelling firms that were very common forty years ago was always going to be a labour of love, rather than a plan for riches or having their modelling activities as a sideline to other business ventures. Tony Nijhuis gave a talk at my club years ago and I recall him saying that a lot of his modelling work in terms of design, he did on his laptop whilst enduring the long commute into London to his 'day job'.
It does come as a surprise just how small some of these big name model companies are.
Just before the pandemic hit I was looking at 500 sized electric helicopters and I had settled on the Mikado Logo, huge name in the model helicopter world.
I parked it during the pandemic, started looking afterwards but there was no stock anywhere. I put this down to the world-wide semiconductor shortage that followed the pandemic, so I continued to keep an eye on the market. But years after, when everything should be clear, there was still no stock. I tried emailing the company but never got any response. Then someone on a forum advised me that mister Mikado had decided to take a break and reassess where he wants to go with the business. At this point I’d seen a good second hand Logo but was now worried whether spares would continue to be available, so I made direct contact with mister Mikado and had a really good exchange of communications. He told me that the competition with other brands had become cut-throat to the point that he either had to sell at a price where he made no profit or sell at a price that customers would not pay. He did say that he would continue to make spares but not regularly, he would wait until there were sufficient requests for a given part to make it worthwhile, so he concluded that spares would be available but you might have to wait a few months.
The biggest shock for me, is that I imagined Mikado to be a huge company, with shiny offices and cutting edge factories, but it turns out it was practically one guy who lives above the workshop aided by a few helpers.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Christopher Long 1 said:
Their website is rubbish, it is not secure (hardly with it technology wise!!), and there is absolutely no product information for instance, wingspan, engine size, is electric conversion available and so on. So why would they expect me to buy from them with so little product information. I am sorry, having a Facebook group/page does not count as being 'with it' in my book.
I do agree with that - I feel that I was a little suckered to buy a kit that was stated as ICE or EP only to find when I got home and opened the box that there was no provision for EP at all. First you have to buy their overpriced conversion - and then find out it is just a small piece of ply to build up an engine mount, with no instructions for it let alone how you are meant to do the rest of the EP conversion. Of course I can figure it out myself but it wasn’t something I was expecting to do.-
1
-
RCM&E Dec 2018 - Ruckus Review Update
in RCM&E Magazine
Posted · Edited by Nigel Heather
Thanks, I hadn’t spotted that - I did read it a while ago but concentrated on the modifications for the battery fitting.
Note they recommend a CoG of 105mm which is 15mm back from what I have at the moment and 5mm back from the manufacturer’s stated maximum.
I’ll try moving my battery back - not sure I can achieve 105mm with some weight on the tail - have to see how it goes.