Galaxy/Pegasus Hurricane

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

What's  'Lardy' mean ?.

[GrumpyGnome]

Heavy... lard, as in fat

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

It weighs in at 4k250, I did some great flying this afternoon with it.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Doing some "fag packet" calculations using figures from the internet with some assumptions on scale fidelity gives wing loading figures in the region of 34 oz/sq foot for Paul's VQ Hurricane, 37.5 oz/sq foot for Ian's and 32  oz/sq foot for mine (before removing the half pound of lead - now a bit less than 30 oz/sq foot).  In Ian's favour is that he won't need to carry so much fuel but if there's any weight saving possible (maybe delete a flight battery or put two smaller ones in?) it might pay to make them - at least for initial test flights.

[Alan Gorham_]

Didn't Ian say he had an operable sliding canopy on his model? If that's radio operable I'd say that is weight you can well do without for a maiden flight. 

[Jon H]

17 hours ago, Alan Gorham_ said:

Didn't Ian say he had an operable sliding canopy on his model? If that's radio operable I'd say that is weight you can well do without for a maiden flight. 

 

Or at all. Every sliding canopy i have ever seen has done one thing, and one thing only. Fall off. 

 

They look cool, but every one i have ever seen has made a bid for freedom in short order!

[payneib]

17 hours ago, Alan Gorham_ said:

Didn't Ian say he had an operable sliding canopy on his model? If that's radio operable I'd say that is weight you can well do without for a maiden flight. 

I wish. The only way I could make it work in the space available was with multiple linear actuators and a control board. Unfortunately the budget wasn't as big as the ideas. 

[payneib]

19 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

 if there's any weight saving possible (maybe delete a flight battery or put two smaller ones in?) it might pay to make them - at least for initial test flights.

 

With the exception of the pilot, the only things I could take out at this point are forward of the CoG, so they'd just get replaced with lead anyway. 

[payneib]

@Martin Harris - Moderator how are your U/C doors mounted? I've just taken mine off whilst fiddling with the forward rake. And I'm wondering if I could do it better/easier than I've what got. 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Mine uses clamps that I made for the lower (more middle really) mount and a threaded hole in the top. 
 

Much used and abused…

Showing evidence of previous long forgotten fixing methods.  I think I duplicated whatever was original with reasonably substantial aluminium doors many years ago. The old girl is well past the first flush of youth but is still great to fly!

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

At the risk of revealing my ineptitude, here's a video of the recent test flight which ended in a minor disaster (all repaired now) which took me rather by surprise.  Looking at the video suggests the engine may have been a touch rich on the low end which may have caused the cut at the critical moment.  Hopefully, the more successful parts may give Ian some confidence for his version's forthcoming maiden!

 

 

 

[Jon H]

I think you were a little unlucky with the 'arrival' in the wind. It looks like the wind, and maybe a little PIO while distracted slightly by the engine cut was the likely cause. As i have already mentioned, I had a situation with my little hurricane where the wind lifted it slightly and then slammed it into the runway. There was nothing i could do about it, but as with yours damage was minor. 

 

Looking at the video thought your rates seem really high across the board. I would have to reset all of my rates to get the roll rate and elevator response your model demonstrates. I have not measured the travel on mine, but its really low. 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Good morning Martin, have you a lien for your videos for Youtube, my snails internet connection won't charge them, while the first one

was charging, I cleaned the wood fire built it up and lit it, made myself a coffee and drank it, and all I charged was the first 10 seconds,

it's like a lot of the 'heavy' photos ( I won't name and shame them 🤢) I just can't load them.😡

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

A slightly more successful landing from the -4 oz. flight a couple of days earlier...still exhibiting nose happy behaviour though.

 

 

Link for the bandwidthly challenged:  https://youtu.be/rSv7ez5mknA

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

41 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

Good morning Martin, have you a lien for your videos for Youtube, my snails internet connection won't charge them, while the first one

was charging, I cleaned the wood fire built it up and lit it, made myself a coffee and drank it, and all I charged was the first 10 seconds,

it's like a lot of the 'heavy' photos ( I won't name and shame them 🤢) I just can't load them.😡

Watch this space for the Youtube version of the first video - being processed...

 

UPDATE That was quicker than forecast...https://youtu.be/kBgaPKntmP8

 

Edited Sunday at 09:00 by Martin Harris - Moderator

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Thanks, Martin, It looked exactly how mine flies in blustery conditions, I see that you know how to fly 😇, maybe just a tweak of too

much elevator on landing with an unfriendly gust of wind, not forgetting that without the engine off on landing they do seem to be more 'twitchy' on the elevator.

 

 Even your 22-second video on the site keeps stopping, but the youtube one was perfect, thanks.

 

Edited Sunday at 10:16 by Paul De Tourtoulon
22 second video

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Thanks for the kind words Paul.  I’m planning on a further reduction of rates (I took the position of preferring a slight excess rather than insufficient) and the tight turns aren’t a normal feature of my Hurricane flying!

 

Although I cut out a lot of the taxying in the video, it was totally uneventful even with a stiff downwind component.  I’m tending to come round to Jon’s ideas on warbird handling with the CofG significantly rearward of the plan position.  I wimped out of further testing yesterday due to a nasty wind direction for our site…once bitten…

[payneib]

On 25/04/2024 at 19:38, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

Doing some "fag packet" calculations using figures from the internet with some assumptions on scale fidelity gives wing loading figures in the region of 34 oz/sq foot for Paul's VQ Hurricane, 37.5 oz/sq foot for Ian's and 32  oz/sq foot for mine (before removing the half pound of lead - now a bit less than 30 oz/sq foot).  In Ian's favour is that he won't need to carry so much fuel but if there's any weight saving possible (maybe delete a flight battery or put two smaller ones in?) it might pay to make them - at least for initial test flights.

I've just been fiddling around with a kit built Acrowot I used to practice some of the techniques that went in to this Hurricane - it weighs in at a thoroughly hefty 4.1kgs/9lbs dry, hauled around by an Evolution 15cc - which on the back of a similar fag packet, comes out at 35 Oz/sqft. 

 

I know that definitely flys! And I know it's best landings were long, fast greasers using all the runway. I also know what happens when I tried to slow it down for a cross wind landing from my least favourite direction (which is why it's been waiting for the build table to clear up since November).

 

Comparing those numbers, I'm happy with the Hurricane, I just need the right weather and a properly dry runway.