Jump to content

Ask..Peter Miller


Recommended Posts

Chantilly Lace was published by RCM&E. According to the magazine it was plan number RC1881 but for some reason I can't find it in My Hobby Store.

It was published in the April 2000 issue.

Unfortunately I do not have my original drawings and, because it was published as a feature plan I do not even have the full size plan to copy.

Chase the plans servie up. they must still have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Peter - Forgive what maybe a "newbie question from an newly back to the hobby old guy here in the USA. I'm planing to build the Harmong as my next plane. I looked at the article, I have the Hobby Store plans, and am not sure if you used a "std" or a "micro" servo for the ailerons. I plan to use an OS .25 AX engine in mine. Thanks and Thanks for so many great model designs! Leo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...

Hi Peter.

I hope this is not too leading a question. I have mainly opted for electrically powered models BUT have a OS40FS which I would like to use in a model to hopefully take my B cert with. Could you suggest one of your designs which might suit (or more if thats the case). I feel a little awkward asking this as most advice seems to be go bigger with everything but Im not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Oodalally would work quite well. capable of quite precise aerobatics. A nice model.

Harlequin can do all the manouvres but might not fly with quite as much precision especially in a breeze.

I don't really see the obsession with going bigger. Yes, really small models down in the .15 size would not be wise but 50 plus inches span will cope with most normal conditions. Just a matter of practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi Peter

Having decided to try designing and building my own plane I managed to get an A1 drawing board off Ebay.

I decided it would be a good idea, for practice, to copy my Arising Star trainer at 75% size as the fus length fits A1 nicely. All is going well but I have just measured the airofoil secion which ecouraged me to investigate the subject.

The section is 18% of the chord length which is , as I have discovered , very thick. From what I have read this will give good lift but a lot of drag. Also the large radius at the LE will give a low speed stall. I also read that when the chord length is changed the characteristics change so what I would like to know is .....

By reducing the chord length on such a thick section should I also reduce the airofoil thickness? or..

Would it be wiser to just use a Clark Y airofoil section.

Your advice would be greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Geoff.

As you say, that airfoil section has good characteristics for a trainer. IT will be slow and stable and will not stall easily or suddenly.

The airfoil has to be reduced as a unit, you can't reduce the chord and not the thickness.

What you want the model to do will affect the choice of airfoil. Clark Y is an excellent section and if set with the chordline (A line drawn through the centre of curvature at the LE and the trailing edge.) is set Parallel to the centre line of the aircraft it will work quite well when inverted.

If you want a similar sort of section but better for aerobatics I would choose NACA 3413. This still has a flat bottom behind the spar for easy building on the board.

Lets be quite honest, at the sizes we are working with there is not a tremendous amount of difference between basically similar sections. I change from NACA 2412 through 2414a d the NACA 34 series and cannot tell the difference I use them because my Compufoil program allow me to.

Indeed the old TLAR sections ("THat looks about right" drawn round the sole of your boot) work just as well.

Basically you want a section about 14% thick, down to 12%. Maximum thickness at about 30% back from the leading edge. A fairly blunt nose and the nose a bit higher than Clark Y. We call this height of the nose the Phillips entry. Clark Y is a bit lower than we want for aerobatics but still works.

From the mainspar back the underside can be flat for ease of building and there you have a TLAR section.

Hope this helps

 

Edited By Peter Miller on 09/04/2013 11:13:46

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used NACA 3412 on Harmony. THis was because it was compleely flat on thbe bottom behind the spar. I used to pin down all thebottom sheet and capstrips and build the wing on top of thsoe.

Now I don't pin the capstrips down and this allows me to use NACA 2412 which has slight curvature on the underside.

To be honest I can't tell any difference whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...