Stephen Jones Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Nice one Colin, Nice to see you got it flying before you went away, i never doubted it would fly, Although it`s a bit slow for my liking . Wink Wink, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 Thank you Steve. I need to learn how to use some of this modern electronic kit properly. I tried the Bandit out a couple of weeks ago when flying the L4 Grasshopper. It worked fine except I'd got it rotated 90 degrees on the helmet bracket, so the whole video came out sidewards! Needless to say I ddn't save that one! I get things right eventually. This plane flies really well, but with these props half or full throttle didn't make much difference. I'll sort it when I get back, at least the c of g is correct without any ballast and the trims are now correct, so there's not much to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Colin don't worry. Modern technology is rubbish. I have recently bought a Canon 110D. I have now realised that I hate touchscreens. It took me 20 minutes to cancel the self timer. I shall go back to my 400D. I already dislked them from my Hitec Aurora 9 and my Kindle fire but the Canon seaaled my hatred. Trouble is that my fingers are thicker than a pencil so prees the wrong area apart from other problems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Thought on the props. I seem to racall from somewhere that the rear prop which is already working in moving air needs to be at a higher pitch that the front one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 Peter, I have the same finger trouble. Clearly they don't test these things on anyone older than 16. You're right about the propeller sizes. It is common to have a higher pitch and sometimes diameter as well on the rear prop. In this case I just wanted to get it flying. In the two bladers I've got I have a choice of 9x6, 10x5 and 10x6, so I'll try different combinations. Although I haven't mentioned it, I've got up my sleeve (in the shed) a 350W co-axial motor from Himax in the US, silly prices but a much more robust and better engineered piece of kit than the HK, (which is good value). That comes with a 9x4 and 10x5 (from memory). The ability to experiment is limited by the availability of suitably sized reverse rotation props. I've got thoughts of a Depron build MB5 for the Himax, but later! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 I could be wrong but I seem to remember on the Shackletons that the rear prop was slightly smaller in diameter than the front one. I must look at my Shack book. I do remember a couple of Mk 3s that landed with a collapsed nose legand the front prop tips bent back andthe rear prop chopped the tips off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 Wonderful memories Peter. You need to write your autobiography. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted April 6, 2017 Author Share Posted April 6, 2017 Here it is with a pair of handed APC 9x6 props and the previously loose undercarriage leg grub screw tightened so that the leg doesn't rotate on landing! It is fast and fully aerobatic, lack of torque reaction makes take-offs a doddle and rolls symmetrical in both directions. Not a great video because sticking the camera on top of the cycle helmet wasn't a good idea. However there is enough here to show how it performs, how it handled the strong wind on half-throttle. Take-off and landing are interesting. I'm totally chuffed with this, the HK retracts work well and it greases in on landing like Peter said, no tendency to go onto its nose. Well worth doing this project, it's a success. (Just noticed the video hasn't embedded, I'll try again). Edited By Colin Leighfield on 06/04/2017 20:28:10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted April 6, 2017 Author Share Posted April 6, 2017 The noise when taxying is the tailwheel, it's solid and too small. I will fit something better. Edited By Colin Leighfield on 06/04/2017 21:06:46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Colin Well done! Flies very nicely and in some serious wind too. You have to fly very low and close to get good shots with a head cam and even more so using a wide angle lens! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted April 6, 2017 Author Share Posted April 6, 2017 Thanks Simon. I'm absolutely chuffed with it. The lower weight means that It flies really well on much less power than a 50 four stroke and can slow right down safely. (Your principles). Congratulations to Peter for a great design, it really does fly in the groove. I'm going to enjoy flying this, good one Peter. I'm clueless with the video camera, but I'll get there. It is more in line of sight on the side of the helmet than on the top, so I'll re-position it. Getting it closer in then will be the next thing, but I'm a bit cautious until I've had more practice with it. We are away for the next two weeks, when I get back I'll have another go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Glad that you are so happy with her. Mine is my windy weather model now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 Peter. Thank you. Sadly the video is lousy but hopefully there is enough there for you to see a performance more in line with your expectations. The difference the propellers made astonished me. I knew there would be some improvement but I didn't appreciate the total transformation, You could see the strength of the wind and the gusting was apparent on landing, with right wing low (the unobtrusive wire skids under the wing tips deal with that), but it tracked straight as a die after that. In the air the effects of the bumpy air seemed minimal by comparison with the Cub (Grasshopper), which itself copes quite well. Also with the light weight you can slow it right down without stalling, so it looks as if it is good for all weathers. I haven't yet solved the problem of the rear spinner though, there isn't enough clearance to take a back-plate. I will think of something. I reckon the co-axial motors together give the equivalent of about 0.7 hp, so the power/weight ratio is probably similar to your 50 fs powered original. All in all, I think this is one of the best things that I have done so far, I look forward to flying it a lot more. Hopefully I will get it to Greenacres Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I can quite believe it. Mine cuts through the wind on landing and is rock steady.. Funnily enough the first R/C Marauger powered by a .25 was very fast and I flew it in a wind gusting to 30 mph. Tested with a Dwyefr wind meter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Jones Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Flies very nice Colin, I used to think that only proper IC balsa models could Handel strong winds , But since i have been building Depron Foam models my perception has changed. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron evans Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Well done Colin, the model handled the wind very well. As Stephen says, light weight models can handle the winds, particularly the more streamlined types I find. Pylon race models were always built to the lowest limit, so all other things being equal the lighter model would be the fastest. More draggy lightweights do tend to be bumped about a bit more in a blow though. Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted April 8, 2017 Author Share Posted April 8, 2017 Steve, mine too. It looks as if response to gusty winds has more to do with aerodynamics and power to weight ratio than absolute weight. Ron, thanks for that mate. I suppose it takes us back to the old principle of "adding lightness", ask Simon about that! I'm embarrassed about the predominance of blue sky in the video though, I need to get the hang of it and produce something better. I appreciate the patience of those who watched it for long enough to realise that there was a plane in there somewhere every now and then! They deserve better than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.