Former Member Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Tee Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 I use QCad here, basic 2D Cad. If you register for a fee it will print drawings on multiple pages. CAM is also available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 25, 2018 Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jez Saunders Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 As supertigrefan says ? Also which is the best online tutorial ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Tee Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Plenty of help out there, a quick google of qcad tutorials brought up a good few links. I didn't find it particularly difficult to learn YMMV. I think there is a thread on here about various CAD programs, many though are not cheap. If you want 3D FreeCad is erm free, I've not really taken a good look at it yet as I find 2D is fine for my needs. I've looked at some others like Turbocad but they are either above my budget or gave me a headache. Oh and QCad has a free version so you can play all you like before spending any money. Edited By Rick Tee on 25/02/2018 16:12:55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Tee Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 I have done with dxf files exported from Profili. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 "A good example is the Precision Aerobatics "Addiction" which uses brilliant design to transfer structural loads through ultra-light balsa/carbon composite sub-structures." I would point out that you will also find guys knocking up 3D planes with the same WCLs (~4 oz/cuft) and using those traditional materials we all know and love - balsa, ply, film type covering - without using carbon fibre covered laser cut latticework. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 "Yes, I do too, Nigel. I use Depron with small amounts of 1/64" ply (top and bottom as spar caps). I've designed & built several 3-D planes at well under 4 OPCF." Neat composite. The only trouble with loadings that low is their ability to handle wind. It's really into indoor territory at that point. Or, as you say, wind speed in the very low single digits. Personally I find most anything under about 7 or 8 oz/cu ft to be a light winds type affair. And would look to something pushing 12 oz/cuft for a breezy day. Coincidentally, I have 2 models flying regularly right now, a flyweight depron 3d at around 4.5 oz/cu ft, a small but quite lardy biplane at 12 oz/cu ft, and now the sport/trainer I've just finished at 7 oz/cu ft. Gives pretty good coverage of most flyable weather. I'm right with you on the cubic wing loading, it's the single most useful 'what if' tool for our purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 27, 2018 Author Share Posted February 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 I reckon all this discussion has confused the budding designers! the really useful info was all on page one of this thread and particularly the posting by Simon Chaddock. Countless aeromodelling designs, books and magazines have always referred to ounces per SQUARE foot of wing area but now this thread has started discussing ounces per CUBIC foot without really distinguishing the change of term clearly! Will cause confusion I reckon. All the calculations tell us is what all experienced aeromodellers already know - light models fly better than heavy! I still reckon the original enquirer probably wanted to know the proportions of tailplane to wing etc as provided in diagrams by Chuck Cunningham and Ken Willard years ago ( others too no doubt) and that the copies of these that I sent him will help. I am not rubbishing David's theory but just being Devils Advocate to bring the discussion back to practical level Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Posted by kc on 27/02/2018 14:29:14: I reckon all this discussion has confused the budding designers! If that means we will be spared their efforts and the world will be a safer place, surely that's a "good thing"? Those who've taken the trouble to read and digest will certainly be better informed. My thanks to John and David for their scholarly contributions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 27, 2018 Author Share Posted February 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 27, 2018 Author Share Posted February 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wright Stuff Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Posted by David Mellor on 27/02/2018 15:54:48: I should add that nothing I have said here is taking anything away from traditional designers or TLAR methods. I like traditional methods. I like TLAR. I like guesswork. I respect other people's experience. What I've presented here should be regarded as (a) additional to the above and (b) entirely optional. Well put, and very diplomatic, David. In this instance, I would offer that rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 27, 2018 Author Share Posted February 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 27, 2018 Author Share Posted February 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wright Stuff Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Once again, very well put David. It really all (in my mind) hinges on what we mean by 'fly better'. There are some vicious, malevolent widow-makers of full size aircraft designs out there. What do we want when we say we want models of them to 'fly in a scale-like manner'? Supertigrefan, I'm pretty sure Mike's comment was tongue-in-cheek, don't be put off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djay Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Peter Miller had a 3 part article in the magazine some years back which gave a really simple guide to how to plan, draw and make a model. It was so simple and logical, that using this guide I drew up and built 4 own designs of different sizes from 25 to 60 size, that all flew hands off from the drawing board. Basically you draw a series of lines and then sketch in a fuselage shape you want. Plan around the size of the tank, engine length, servo size etc and all will be good. Darryl 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.