Jump to content

Tim's Skywriter Build


Tim Ballinger
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wings pretty much finished so as an excuse for more bench flying I thought I would have a weigh in and cg check.Currently 1.85 kg (4lb 2 oz) and 30 % chord . The battery can still move forward if needs must so with only the radio/servos and covering missing i am hopeful of managing without ballast.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Tim Ballinger on 23/03/2017 19:09:37:

Wings pretty much finished so as an excuse for more bench flying I thought I would have a weigh in and cg check.Currently 1.85 kg (4lb 2 oz) and 30 % chord . The battery can still move forward if needs must so with only the radio/servos and covering missing i am hopeful of managing without ballast.

Tim

30% chord on which wing Tim? If is is the upper you are good. Covering is quite heave (I guess 200-300 gram added) and most of it is behind the CG.This probably means rudder and elevator servo's should go as far forward as they can go.

Lucas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope to come this far before breaking for the summer, then she can hang from the ceiling uncovered until autumn comes. The fueltube looks very good, I will get some for the coaming.

Your weight is inline with Lindsay's. He needed some ballast, but then he used heavy covering. You can still make lightening holes in the elevators and rudders if you want. It saved (on mine) 12 grams, which corresponds with 40 grams lead up front.

But then, is 30-35% too far forward? The whole lower wing is further back. 35% sounds about right to me to get the average on 25%.

Lucas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough I was just contemplating if putting holes in the elevators rudders would be a hedge against ballast.

As far as cg position goes I was only going on Lindsay's write up which aimed at 70mm or 30 % of top wing. I did not read of him needing to change that so probably only flying will tell us more.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CG on the plan is for sure a safe starting point. I would not be surprised if you end up with 5% further back after flying a while. But this is very dependent on how "neutral" you prefer planes to be - that is will they level out when sticks are released or do you want them to continue straigth on.

Lucas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your computation is correct but the starting points may not be:

- 30% MAC for each wing is quite far back. 23-25% is safer to start with

- the upper wing is in free air and is more effective. The second drawing on the rcgroup thread accounts for that.

I would stick to the 30% as on the plan for the first flights. If you have to use weights that you can easily remove to achieve that. The "leads" used to balance Aluminium car wheels are ideal for that.

Lucas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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...