RCM&E Dec 2018 - Ruckus Review Update

[GrumpyGnome]

33 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

  I took over from the owner of a small aerobatic model who was having problems flying it - wow!  Did I have problems flying it!  Got it down unscathed and turned down his control throws and it looked like he was flying on rails on his next flight.  I'm told he's been told this at his club and they turned down his control throws but...he turned them back up again and had difficulty in flying it.  There's a lesson there somewhere!

 

There's at least one in every club - we have a relatively new flier who refuses to reduce throws and tries to compensate with bucket loads of expo......

[Nigel Heather]

Des anyone know when the V2 was released and what improvements did it introduce.

 

The reason I ask is that I have just bought a V2, well it was advertised and sold to me as a V2, and I’m sure it is a V2 - but there is nothing at all on the box or manual that identifies it as a V2.

 

So is there anyway to tell that I have a V2 and not a V1?

[Stuart Z]

Sorry can’t remember but do remember there was a change to the vents under the fuz.  I think the 2 hole version is V2, but what else I’m not sure, possibly the 4 S capability, but might be rambling.

[Nigel Heather]

Well I bought this back in February and I still haven't managed to assemble it - by comparison the Acrowot Foam-E can be assembled in under an hour and that includes having to cut out and apply all the decals.

 

Okay, I haven't been trying very hard - the reason is whenever I try to figure out how to fit the battery, the receiver and ESC I get stumped and give up with a rethink.

 

Overall the plane looks great, impressed with the quality of the build until it comes to the electronics compartment - the design of that is god-damned awful - I say design but I doubt any thought thought or design went into that aspect at all - it truly is awful.  I think they just finished and said "god knows how everything is going to fit in there - let's leave it to the customer to work out".

 

My issues with it

• There is no separation between the ESC the battery and the receiver - they all have to contend for the same space.  Sure you can squeeze them all in but the result would be a rat's nest of wiring and changing the battery for each flight would be awkward.
• Where they expect the delicate LiPo to sit is littered with screw heads and ends - this is asking for a battery puncture and fire.
• There is no air flow over the ESC - it sits entombed in the fuselage - there are no air intakes in the cowling that flow into this area - all you have is a tunnel behind the motor - okay that is at least something but not great especially given it will be obscured by motor wiring.
• The servo wiring also has to contend for the same space adding to the rat's nest.
• The instructions say "we recommend putting some velcro down - presumably to provide some protection from puncturing and to secure the battery because the straps they provide and two short and useless

I think the OP has addressed these best - means carving out an area in the wing for the servo cables and building a battery plate solution to keep the battery and the ESC apart and to ease battery replacement.  These are excellent solutions and I believe they are the best solution but you should have to build stuff like this.  Unfortunately, because I am using 4S, my batteries are just a tad too tall to use this.

 

Out of the box the electronics arrangement just hasn't be thought out, which is a shame because the rest of the plane looks great, but because of this I really could not recommend the Ruckus.

 

 

[Cuban8]

On 28/01/2023 at 18:56, GrumpyGnome said:

 

There's at least one in every club - we have a relatively new flier who refuses to reduce throws and tries to compensate with bucket loads of expo......

Ah, you can't beat loads of throw in case you need it in an emergency! Er, No.

[Nigel Heather]

So rather embarrassingly, I have only just managed to fly it, some 14 months after buying it.

 

I'm flying 4S with a 2800mAH battery, nose weights removed.

 

Had one flight, and to be honest it wasn't pleasant.  At low stick it was very sluggish, clearly not very aerodynamic as it slowed to a stop in a slight head wind.  But at higher throttle it ballooned up quite considerably - maybe my CoG is too far back.  I have a heavier battery and will try that next.

 

Overall, just on the first flight, it is nowhere near as nice as my acrowot, but I will persist to see how it improves with a CoG change.  Honestly, though, if I could have my time and money back would probably buy a Wots Wot.

 

If you are wondering why I bought it when I have an AcroWot - it is because my AcroWot has lots of crash damage, glued together and a wobbly motor mount.  The motor mount issue and the broken undercarriage mounts made me think that I'd be best getting the Ruckus as a replacement rather than buy another Acrowot.

Edited August 12 by Nigel Heather

[Kim Taylor]

In my experience, the Max Thrust planes, both Riot and Ruckus fly nicest with the c of g at or near the back of the suggested range. 

Pitching up with increasing throttle is normally indicative of a forward c of g, I thought. 

Kim

Eta To get it close to a 'Wot' of any flavour, you'll need to increase the throws above the 'book ' settings, particularly the ailerons. 

Edited August 12 by Kim Taylor

[Peter Jenkins]

1 hour ago, Kim Taylor said:

In my experience, the Max Thrust planes, both Riot and Ruckus fly nicest with the c of g at or near the back of the suggested range. 

Pitching up with increasing throttle is normally indicative of a forward c of g, I thought. 

Kim

Eta To get it close to a 'Wot' of any flavour, you'll need to increase the throws above the 'book ' settings, particularly the ailerons. 

Pitching up with throttle is due to too much up thrust and not a C of G issue.  Many foamies don't seem to have a way of easily adjusting up or side thrust.  What you really want is for the instantaneous application or removal of throttle not to cause an immediate pitch up or down.  The aircraft will climb as speed and hence lift increases and vice versa but there shouldn't be an instantaneous response to throttle as that points to too much up or down thrust.

[Nigel Heather]

1 hour ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Pitching up with throttle is due to too much up thrust and not a C of G issue.  Many foamies don't seem to have a way of easily adjusting up or side thrust.  What you really want is for the instantaneous application or removal of throttle not to cause an immediate pitch up or down.  The aircraft will climb as speed and hence lift increases and vice versa but there shouldn't be an instantaneous response to throttle as that points to too much up or down thrust.

The Ruckus is different in that respect - it has a wooden firewall and a proper 'X' motor mount.  There are washers behind the mount providing down and right thrust.

[Peter Jenkins]

54 minutes ago, Nigel Heather said:

The Ruckus is different in that respect - it has a wooden firewall and a proper 'X' motor mount.  There are washers behind the mount providing down and right thrust.

Well in that case, the symptoms you describe mean you need more down thrust and you have the means to do so.

[Nigel Heather]

Hi,

 

To summarise ....

 

The stated CoG range is 80mm to 100mm from the leading edge, mine is balancing at 90mm.

 

In terms of trust angles I have what is provided by the manufacturer - they use washers between the firewall and motor mount as follows:

 

Looking at the motor from the front

• Top Right - 2 washers
• Top Left - 1 washer
• Bottom Right - 1 washer
• Bottom Left - 0 washers

 

Which amounts to one washer of right thrust and one washer of down thrust.

 

When I apply power the plane makes quite a significant climb, akin to pulling back fairly hard on the elevator stick - this isn't a gentle climb.

 

I understand why you say that it needs more down-thrust and whilst that sounds reasonable, it does puzzle me that a model that is so common can need such adjustment - it's not like I have heard this as a common complaint.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

Edited August 13 by Nigel Heather

[Stuart Z]

CoG same as mine.  Washers same as mine.  If I’d built it myself I’d be checking wing and tailplane - but these are moulded in.  Have you changed the motor at all?  Might be worth increasing the top row of washers for a test flight ? As CoG is correct no need to ask about the weights as the balance is correct.  

[Nigel Heather]

1 hour ago, Stuart Z said:

CoG same as mine.  Washers same as mine.  If I’d built it myself I’d be checking wing and tailplane - but these are moulded in.  Have you changed the motor at all?  Might be worth increasing the top row of washers for a test flight ? As CoG is correct no need to ask about the weights as the balance is correct.  

Thanks, all makes sense, but puzzling all the same.

 

Not changed the motor - everything is stock.

 

But as you say, worth trying it with some extra washers top right and top left to see if that changes.

 

Do you know what the consequences of having too much down thrust?

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

Edited August 13 by Nigel Heather

[Stuart Z]

Personally no, but someone here will know.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

One thing is, you'll need up elevator trim to counter the motor pulling down, so when you come to land, reducing the throttle will mean elevator trim causes noses to pitch up, that reduces speed more, so working on getting amount of downthrust correct is a worthwhile task, only real measure is flying it.

[Colin Carpenter]

When Riots/Ruckus get a little foam compressed at the front 😂😂I find the thrust line changes and needs washer adjustment. My preference is for a ✈️to stay straight ahead when opening the throttle so I adjust washers as necessary . I don’t find landing like this a problem at all. Colin

[Peter Jenkins]

3 hours ago, Nigel Heather said:

Hi,

 

To summarise ....

 

The stated CoG range is 80mm to 100mm from the leading edge, mine is balancing at 90mm.

 

In terms of trust angles I have what is provided by the manufacturer - they use washers between the firewall and motor mount as follows:

 

Looking at the motor from the front

• Top Right - 2 washers
• Top Left - 1 washer
• Bottom Right - 1 washer
• Bottom Left - 0 washers

 

Which amounts to one washer of right thrust and one washer of down thrust.

 

When I apply power the plane makes quite a significant climb, akin to pulling back fairly hard on the elevator stick - this isn't a gentle climb.

 

I understand why you say that it needs more down-thrust and whilst that sounds reasonable, it does puzzle me that a model that is so common can need such adjustment - it's not like I have heard this as a common complaint.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

Nigel and others who are interested in this topic

 

It doesn't matter what the instructions say is how you should set up your aircraft.  Yes, it's a good starting point.  However, there are manufacturing tolerances that effect things.  The only thing that matters is what the aircraft flies like.  I've lost count of the time when pilots have told me that they have set the aircraft up exactly as stated in the instructions but it still doesn't fly right.

 

The answer is to apply the following process:

 

• get the CG in the correct position for the aircraft.  That is, when you roll the aircraft inverted, at height, or fly up a 45 deg climb and then roll inverted (at least you are flying away from the ground to begin with) see if the aircraft pitches to the canopy rapidly.  If it does, just roll level and then land and move the CG aft a little bit and go and go and test it again.  When the aircraft only requires a small amount of down elevator to fly level inverted you have arrived at a good CG position.
• fly past yourself in level flight at your normal throttle position - if that's at full throttle then that's an abnormal state!. Apply full power smoothly.  If when you apply power there is no discernable pitch up or down but a gradual increase in speed and then a gradual climb that is a good place to be.  If the aircraft pitches up quickly, add down thrust a washer at a time.  If the aircraft pitches downwards, add up thrust a washer at a time.  Keep adjusting till you reach the position where application of power does not result in a pitch up or down.
• For side thrust, from level flight, pull to the vertical while applying full power smoothly.  If the aircraft yaws to the LEFT and some RIGHT sude thrust.  If the aircraft veers to the RIGHT, add some LEFT side thrust.  You have got it right when you can pull up to the vertical, or a loop for that matter, and the aircraft tracks straight.

Those are the basic steps to ensuring that your aircraft is trimmed correctly and it may bear some or no relationship to what the instructions state.  I've trimmed out a Wot 4 to fly in a way that the owner went away feeling very pleased as it felt like a completely different aircraft from the one he had started with which was not nice to fly.

 

Of course, if you have a badly warped wing or a banana shaped fuselage then you have a problem as none of the traditional ways of trimming the aircraft will turn the aircraft into a delight to fly.  The basic design might suffer from insufficiently sized tail surfaces as well making the aircraft less stable than you would want - small scale aircraft are like this hence the use of gyros to tame them.  For a well trimmed aircraft there is no need for a gyro other than to help with the approach on a gusty wind day. 

[Stuart Z]

Peter

Very helpful, thanks

S

[Nigel Heather]

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.

[Peter Jenkins]

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.

[Shaun Walsh]

9 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.

As the Ruckus is a low wing model, shouldn't you pack the leading edge to reduce the incidence?

[Nigel Heather]

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?

Edited August 18 by Nigel Heather

[Shaun Walsh]

As a last resort you could mix in a little bit of down elevator with the throttle. I've done this with one model and it's quite effective, just don't overdo it.

[Philip Lewis 3]

35 minutes ago, Shaun Walsh said:

As the Ruckus is a low wing model, shouldn't you pack the leading edge to reduce the incidence?

Yes, the objective is to reduce the wing incidence.

[Stuart Z]

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.  
S