PDA

View Full Version : Article The Vertigo Revisited -- 10 years later!


Jaffray
May 14, 2004, 10:00 PM
!Introduction
@907695:A sight I didn't know if I'd ever see...my very own Vertigo taking off....

On a normal day in July, 1994, I went to the mailbox and found the August 1994 issue of the Model Airplane News. On the cover was Tom Hunt and one of his Vertigo models, outbound on a vertical takeoff. I walked directly to the telephone (we didn't have cell phones to speak of then, or I would have called from the mailbox), and ordered the plans. I read the article. I studied the plans. I read the September 1994 issue follow-up article. Over and over and over. I am guessing now that at this point, I am not alone. This is without question one of the most incredible model aircraft ever designed and planned. Also without question, it is one of the most complex and demanding aircraft to build and fly successfully (which is why my aircraft waited for my abilities to catch up - like about eight years)!

In August, 2001, amidst periods of inactivity, I finally caught up with the short list of models that I wanted to build for my own personal use - except for one. The Vertigo. I had almost forgotten. Almost eight years to the day later, I jumped in with both feet, just like I wanted to back then at the mailbox. I made a wood list. I tuned up the foam saw. I had a friend in the aerospace machining industry, Ron, at Rock's Precision Machining, start making all of the parts that I could not. I burned the midnight oil, and by October, I was ready to cover the airframe. By November, I was ready for the parts that Ron was not quite finished with. By January, 2002, I was ready to fly. A few things remained to be sorted out, though. (I had a few "bright ideas" that worked, and a few that did not). In the end, the first of my Vertigo's is exactly as it was planned, except for the updated version of O.S.'s wonderful .46 ducted-fan engine, and some aluminum and carbon here and there.

In this article, I hope to share the experience and excitement I have had building and flying this masterpiece exactly as Mr. Hunt designed it, and to include those "bright ideas" and plans for future models, utilizing the latest available technology and construction techniques. I will include some flight briefing. I hope it pushes you fence-sitters right over the edge!

!!A Word About Pilot Skills
One thing that requires mentioning is the pilot's skills. This aircraft is capable of taking off and landing vertically, as well as hovering. The controls are set up to function like a helicopter in the hover mode, and an airplane in the flight mode. When you hit the nacelle-tilt switch, you have one, or the other. Ducted-fan experience would be somewhat helpful, but you <b>need</b> to know how to fly a helicopter to fly this model successfully! To hover is to hover is to hover! A nose-in vertical landing with this airplane is no place to learn how to hover! <a href="http://www.realflight.com">Great Planes "Realflight G2"</a> is the simulator I purchased when I discovered this minor detail...pilot training! I trained diligently. I bought a .30 size heli and learned to fly that. You can get by with just the simulator if you practice, practice, practice. The G2 Harrier is as close as it gets to flying Vertigo, and it may even be a little tougher, lacking gyros to stabilize it. If you can fly a heli, Vertigo is a blast to fly!

!Construction
I started with a wood order from Lone Star Balsa. While I waited for the wood to arrive, I started cutting foam. I used white Styrofoam for all of my parts. I used my own versions of the commercial foam cutters available. I cut 3 12" squares of the 3 thicknesses required for the nacelle, and tacked them together before cutting the nacelle to shape. Here's where the first "bright idea" came along. I thought that if I assembled the spar rings with the 1" foam layer and the pivot blocks in between them, I could cut the slots for the stator vanes in the foam at the right locations, and add them later. This way, I could build and sheet the nacelle without the stator assembly in the way. I sheeted the inside first, then cut the slots in the sheeting from the outside before I sheeted it. I was able to finish and glass the inside of the nacelle smooth and perfectly round. When that was done, I slid the tabs on the stator vane cores into the slots in the ring, and slid the stator hub into place in the middle. If all the parts are machined properly, it all goes together like a jigsaw puzzle. I centered the hub up and aligned everything using the engine, bolted to the hub, and a cut-out from the ring spar (a 1/8" plywood disc with a 1/4" hole in the center) bolted to the shaft. Then I glued the stator parts together. It worked like a charm! Next, I sheeted the stator vanes and added the leading edges and trim tabs.

@907696:I decided to make the stator hub
@907697:and stator vane cores out of aluminum.
This was well suited to the nacelle construction technique change, because the parts were self-aligning.

@907698:A closeup of the vanes.
@907699:When I first saw the O.S. .46VXDF, I had second thoughts about an engine this powerful being screwed to hunk of maple and some 1/8" ply. I'm sure it works just fine for many models, but it gave me the willies!

The nacelle turned out perfectly! I picked up an ounce, but gained tremendous strength and rigidity! I felt good about that hair-thickness of prop-to-duct clearance, too! I covered the outside of the nacelle with Monokote. All of the hover vanes, control rods and servos were added, and the nacelle was finished. I tried a variety of servos for the plane, and the ones that worked the best were the Hitec HS 85BB micros for the vanes, and the HS 81 micro for the throttle.

@907700:Now, I needed to build the muffler.
I wanted a solid connection between the can I had chosen, and the engine header. I wanted to reduce the space a silicone coupler would take up, and eliminate the chance for failure. A system of two collars, one between the header and the can, and one outside the can, was chosen. Three #2-56 screws through everything, tapped into the header hold it all together. This allowed the can to be opened up enough to get the bolt-through pressure fitting installed. Outlet holes were used at the end. It reduced the total noise to 104db.

I found the engine to run well on pressure, and poorly without it. I used Nylon fuel lines instead of aluminum, and used two lines through each spar tube. The exit for the tubes must be cut in the aft side of the spar tube, so as not to weaken it by cutting out the bottom right about where the load occurs.

@907701:I connected the tubes with silicone fuel tubing and T connected them to the engine and muffler. I used equal length tubes!
@907702:The tanks will draw about the same. When one empties out, though, the engine quits!
You don't want to cut the fuel so close as to lose the engine as you settle in from twenty feet or so! I covered the openings for the fuel tanks with a translucent so I could monitor the fuel level.

@907703:One of the "bright ideas" that may have worked, if I had done it right, was the inverted "V" tail, or "A-Tail".

I thought that since the radio was operating in V-tail mode to drive the hover vanes anyway, it would be a simple matter of "Y"-harnessing the tail surfaces to the vane controls. I could have elevator and two rudders with only two servos! The tail would undoubtedly be stronger and lighter as well! Great idea, butI made the control surfaces too big on the first try. The plane is already close to critical on the CG in forward flight, and this made it unpleasant, to say the least! And, any cross wind at the tail while in hover would cause a pitch-up as well as the weathervane effect, and this was too much for the gyros of choice at the time. (And the pilot! I decided to sort out hover later, and proceed to forward flight). After two flights with a conventional take-off and landing, I cut the tail off and returned it to the original design. The plane now flew much better, even with only one rudder (a must!).

@907704:Tilt Motor Installed.
@907705:Tilt Battery Installed.
I cut the lightening holes in the wings and booms as per the plans.( I will include them before covering next time.) The holes all occur aft of the CG. This allowed me to move the tilt battery (three 1500ma sub-c cells) from the nose pod to the hollow area in the balsa at the front of the boom opposite the tilt motor. This also allowed me to remove the lead from the wingtip that offset the tilt motor. I made an "extension cord" to make the modification easier; the next planes will be wired for the battery from the start. A thin fiberglass hatch covers the opening. I did not include any sort of charging jack for the tilt battery, so I had to remove the nose cone and plug in at the extension to charge.

@907706:I used a male mold made from white foam to make the nose pod.

I waxed the foam until the pores were pasted shut with mold release, and used two layers of 5oz glass crowsfoot cloth and epoxy resin. When this had cured, I sanded it smooth and fixed the thin spots before I cut the pod into the front and rear halves. I dissolved the foam out of the parts with Acetone. Next time, I'll cut the slot for the wing center section in the rear half before I remove the foam!

@907707:Something else I did was to replace the balsa sheeting on the bottom of the center wing section with a bonded layer of Carbon-Kevlar hybrid cloth.

I spread waxed paper out on the glass table top and laid the cloth out on top of it. Then, I wet the cloth out liberally with epoxy resin, set the foam wing section right onto it, and weighted it evenly. This, when cured, offers much more strength than 1/32" balsa glassed with finishing cloth, and weighs the same or less. It looks kinda neat, too. I left it unpainted.

!Equipment -- Then and Now
The first thing I encountered by waiting eight years to build Vertigo was the tremendous advances made in the engine and radio equipment available! The newer version of the O.S. .46 DF engine is no comparison to the older one. This engine rocks!!! The Futaba 8UAS transmitter has everything you need to run this model, and then some! And now there is the 9C! I am sure that there are other radios capable of flying this plane. All you really need is V-tail mixing and at least 3 P-mix functions, unless you want to replicate the A-tail.

The vanes and the A-tail move in opposition! To solve that problem, I used the V-tail mix to run the tail, assigned the hover vanes to channels 6,7,& 8, and slaved them to the flight controls. This way, I could select each vane's direction and amount of travel, and assign a common switch to enable the mix, or not, allowing them to be switched off for forward flight. This was good in theory, and worked just fine until one day, I left the ground on a VTO and the vanes had been accidentally switched off. Obviously, I had no control input to the vanes, but the flight surfaces were still operating. The gyros did not know or care that the mix had been switched off! Luckily for me, the plane was trimmed out well, and climbed out nice and level, making slow pirouettes on the way up. I waited until the plane turned into the wind at a safe altitude, and hit the tilt switch. Outbound transition was a non-event, and it was not until I landed safely that I found out what I had done! I deleted the option of switching off the vanes after that, but found that there are times that I would like them to go away, like at the bottom of a loop when the power is applied.

In the next planes, I am going to try a servo multiplier/driver, like the Futaba MSA-10, to individually link the gyros' gain adjustments, (which are not remotely operated now), to the tilt channel. I want to be able to set the gain individually, and make the gyros go away in forward flight. I could then re-assign the switch that enables and disables the P-mix. Then, the gyro's and the pilot's input to the vanes would be gone until the nacelle tilts down. And that brings us around to the most frustrating phase of this project...the gyros. This plane was published in 1994, and was researched for some time prior. The gyros on the market then were not the same as the units available today. Bottom line is, today, they are smarter. They think they are in a helicopter, though, and most of them will not work in this application! On the recommendation of the designer, I located and am using Arcamax gyros in this plane.

Arcamax is out of business, though, and their gyros are getting harder to find. E-bay and the other R/C forums are the best bet for finding them. Although they both work fine in my helicopter, the Futaba GY 240 and 401 will NOT work in this model! Heading hold is not used in any instance.

!Flying
@907708
@907709
As I mentioned before, if you can fly a chopper, the VERTIGO IS A BLAST TO FLY!!! If you are not "chopper-friendly", you can get by with a crash course on a simulator to learn the fine art of hover. You must know how to hover something before attempting to fly this airplane!! That's half the fun.

My airplane came in at just over the designed weight of nine pounds. At that, VTO is limited to a day when the temperature is below 80F and the humidity below 70%, and this is at sea level. I doubt this plane would fly in Denver in the summer! Weight IS a critical issue.

@907710:Max. available r.p.m. on the engine is essential to a true VTO.
@907711:I have "assisted" the plane's launch by pushing from the tail to get it to leave the ground in the summer, but shaving a half pound out of the airframe would be the ultimate cure!

Forward flight with this airplane is almost straightforward...(no pun), although power-on maneuvers are assisted (or hindered) by those pesky hover vanes that are still controlled by the gyros, but ignorant of the fact that the plane is NOT hovering! To add power and up-elevator at the bottom of a loop results in the whole plane being forced down. Close the throttle or hit the ground! Once you get used to their input being there, the problems they cause are minimal.

All of the servos and gizmos sticking out all over the plane equate to drag...lots of it! When you close the throttle, the plane slows down like it is towing a banner! To land conventionally requires throttle right up to the threshold.

Conventional take-off is almost automatic. The power is there, and climb-out is awesome! Rolls are easy enough if you stay off the rudder.

@907712:Assisting a VTO launch.
@907713:And a vertical touch down!
Outbound vertical is easier than it seems. On a cold day, I just taxi out to the middle of the runway, tilt the nacelle down, and jazz the throttle. You need to get the plane up off the runway as soon as possible, so it can level out. Then, climb like crazy to altitude, give the plane some forward stick to establish forward motion, and hit the tilt switch. Anytime the nacelle is tilted, the plane will pitch up. This is a manageable condition if you are ready for it. Allow the nose to level out before correcting the pitch-up. Make sure you're upwind! The plane will weathervane strongly. Yaw control is there, though. Transitions are a piece of cake when you get the hang of it!
Inbound transition is a little more involved if you want to avoid the inherent loop that comes with the maneuver. I have developed a technique that works like a charm if you get past the fear of doing it. Most everyone I have talked with that has built and flown this aircraft has mentioned the loop inbound, including Mr. Hunt. He explains the reason for the pitch-up in the construction article, so I will not waste the space here. I looped the plane on it's first inbound, but, as advertised, at the bottom of the loop the plane is in stable hover and waiting for the next command. Not my nerves, however, and the quest began to tame this tiger!! I tried a couple of things. First, I tried gliding up to the stall and dropping the nose as I hit the switch. Boy, what an adventure!! Try this at altitude, if you must!

@907714:That first hover....wow....
@907715:And a short field landing.
It is possible to approach hover like a car at a stop sign, but the odds of success are not good enough for me! A pitch-up always occurs, and to level out without the loop is very hard and not real pretty. So, I said to myself, "self....the pitch-up is not going to go away", and thought about how use it to advantage. Brainstorm!! Off to the flying field I went, armed with the solution to the problem!

This is how you do it... as you fly the pattern for landing, establish the altitude at which you wish to transition while on the downwind leg. Turn onto the base leg and reduce the power slowly to idle. As you turn onto final, roll into the turn slightly nose down. Hit the switch as you bank over, and let the pitch-up pull the plane through the turn, like you would with the elevator. Stay ready with forward stick as you roll out level onto final. The plane is now still flying forward on the wing, and the nacelle has completed the transition. All that is left to do is wait for the speed to bleed off, and gradually replace the wing's lift with the advancing throttle. This truly works like a charm! I did it again and again to confirm the technique, and jumped for joy at my success! This is how inbound should be!!

I have been flying my plane for a year now, and just overhauled the engine. I must say, I like it even better since I have had it all apart! New bearings, and piston and sleeve were needed. The speed at which this engine turns, and the fact that the intake is right in the sand, probably account for the loss of the chrome plating below the ports, but it ran well right up to the day I hauled it down. It runs like new now! I anticipated wearing it out in is airplane when I bought it, so I bought the spare parts then as well. It worked out to about half the cost of a new engine.
I will be a little more careful about where I crank up and hover from now on, though!

I am using 15% Omega fuel, and have been happy so far with the performance. I am using an OS #5 glow plug at the moment (because the hobby shop was out of Mc Coy # 9's). It has two flights on it now, and seems to be hanging in there. I prefer the colder plug in the high-output engines. I have yet to experience an engine-out VTOL situation...I'm not sure that it's a survivable event. I hope I don't ever find out, and this is where duct-fan experience is helpful. Like a chopper, a duct-fan model needs meticulous care taken to ensure that the engine remains reliable throughout the entire flight, especially the landing! Vertigo requires a reliable engine to fly safely. Like I have said, I really like the O.S. engine. It has proven itself to be just that.

Eventually, I am going to have to replace this airplane. I have already begun to collect the parts for two more airplanes. (I intend to keep at least one of these flight-ready in my hangar from now on.) Improvements are the order of the day for the next models. I'm going to put them on a diet. I want my A-tail back. I know I can make that work now. I want to make those pesky hover vanes go away in forward flight, and I want to bury all the servos and the tilt motor.

I am ever so grateful to Tom Hunt for publishing this plane, and the plans for it. I have really enjoyed building and flying it, and the people I have met during the course of the project. They inspired this article!

In addition, I have become a helicopter pilot. (My friends will tell you that I did so kicking and screaming). That being said, I wish I had started it all sooner and missed less of the fun! So all of you fence-sitters out there, here's your push....GO FOR IT!!! I'm glad I did! I can't wait to fly it again!!!

+907716:Video of the Vertigo, including forward flight, hovering, a VTO and a conventional landing. (1.6MB)

eparkflyer
May 17, 2004, 08:35 AM
I saw someone fly one of these here in Florida a couple years ago... Very neat!

Guinea_Pig
May 18, 2004, 11:53 AM
im going to try a small electic VTOL very similar to that :D

hover dude
May 18, 2004, 02:51 PM
guinea pig what do you plan on using to power your electric version. i am very interested because i am considering somthing similar

Jaffray
May 21, 2004, 12:10 AM
I saw someone fly one of these here in Florida a couple years ago... Very neat!


I would bet that it was my airplane you saw. Two years ago, there weren't any other Vertigos flying in FL.

Where were you?


Jaffray

Thorleif
May 21, 2004, 03:02 AM
I received my Vertigo plans one month ago, and is in the early construction phase. This will certainly be my most ambitious RC-project so far... Thanks to Jaffrays exellent construction article, as well as many good advices from him i hope i will succeed! :D I will think about substituting the nacelle tilt solution with a microcontroller based stepmotor solution. I think that will save some weight, and also reduce the complexity of this function, time will tell.. In addition, this solution it will give me variable nacelle speed, wich will be a very good thing. It will also be interesting if i could make some electronics to stop the nacelle vanes action in forward flight. I will post some pictures as the project is moving forward!

eparkflyer
May 21, 2004, 07:12 AM
I would bet that it was my airplane you saw. Two years ago, there weren't any other Vertigos flying in FL.

Where were you?


Jaffray


Yup... I wouldn't forget the name! It was at dunedin middle school, back when we used to fly there.

Guinea_Pig
May 21, 2004, 05:42 PM
Etec 3s2p on himax 2015 on GWS D gearbox 13X6.5 prop drawing 9 amps AUW of equipment including servos 300g or less thrust produced = around 800grams :)

should be doable :D

http://guinea.rchomepage.com/VTOL1.jpg

http://guinea.rchomepage.com/VTOL20000.jpg

eparkflyer
May 21, 2004, 05:48 PM
looks cool... but is that factoring in the gyros, a way to have the motor pod(?)
rotate, and the vanes behind the motor?

Guinea_Pig
May 23, 2004, 07:15 AM
that is not factoring in the gyros or vanes i couldn't be bothered to draw them in :p i will use vanes and a heading lock gyro to control the yaw ;) but the only real complex thing is that pod part, i may just try constructing that pod and experiment with how much vane is needed to get a good counter torque rotation and off course see hom much thrust i loose :rolleyes:

eparkflyer
Jun 02, 2004, 09:50 PM
http://www.corpcomp.com/weeks1/Rig/Moter_moves.html

Check out how he moves his "motor" (ok.. its a turbine!).

This has got to be WAY better than using a motor/switch/batteries !!!

TexAcoon
Sep 28, 2004, 09:38 PM
Jaffray. W. Stephenson did an EXCELLENT job on the article of the Vertigo.. Would enjoy reading more about the "A" tail configuration and if there was an improvement over the model's handling.

I now have my plans for the Vertigo and this article has me excited and ready to build it. Have most of my components now, and will start building the fuse and wings in the next month or so..

Hopefully I can add to this article to keep Tom Hunts Vertigo alive! ...

Doug Crawford
AMA District II Webmaster
http://www.amadistrictii.org

King_Ice_Flash
Oct 25, 2004, 11:43 PM
I attempted to make a foamie vertigo VTOL out of the blue Dow foam, however, it was too heavy with all of the radio gear to work. I used one servo to tilt the motor, no gear drive. I was running a 12x6 GWS prop on a himax 2015 4100 with 3s E-Tec 1200 LIPOs. You could hover it at full throttle with a full battery, but it weighed about 17oz. I only used one gyro, on the yaw axis. On the next model, I am going to get rid of all of the ducting around the motor, go with a built up wing, and use two carbon rods for the tail booms. Hopefully this one works better than the last one. That was a lot of work to make something that didn't. Atleast it made for a nice fire :D

eparkflyer
Oct 25, 2004, 11:49 PM
got any pics of it??

a more powerful lift motor and better battery and it should be able to be done these days!

Thorleif
Oct 26, 2004, 04:18 AM
I attempted to make a foamie vertigo VTOL out of the blue Dow foam, however, it was too heavy with all of the radio gear to work. I used one servo to tilt the motor, no gear drive. I was running a 12x6 GWS prop on a himax 2015 4100 with 3s E-Tec 1200 LIPOs. You could hover it at full throttle with a full battery, but it weighed about 17oz. I only used one gyro, on the yaw axis. On the next model, I am going to get rid of all of the ducting around the motor, go with a built up wing, and use two carbon rods for the tail booms. Hopefully this one works better than the last one. That was a lot of work to make something that didn't. Atleast it made for a nice fire :D

Any pictures of it (before the fire :D )? Just one gyro you say, why not three gyros, as in the original Hunt design, to get yaw pitch and roll stability? Im currently working on my Vertigo, based on the original design, added with the updates from Jaffray. I have still not decided wich gyros to select, any suggestions?

Thorleif

King_Ice_Flash
Oct 26, 2004, 09:17 AM
got any pics of it??

a more powerful lift motor and better battery and it should be able to be done these days!
I got a picture of it after I ripped all of the servos out of it and the motor out of the ducting. I also got a picture of it in flames.

I ordered the pre-production RZ-H2 from Razor, but they sent me the rz-3650. My speed controler could not handle this, otherwise i would have tried it. I ordered another RZ-H2, so hopefully they send the correct one this time.

Either this, or I will take the Hacker B20 22s out of my hornet. That could of lifted it.

I only went with one gyro because the other ones we have were too heavy. I had a generic micro circut board gyro, so I used that. I figured I would not need the other ones, because I fly micro helis, I could handle it. 3 heading hold gyros would be sweet.

The next version, I calculate will have 2:1 thrust, more than enough.

King_Ice_Flash
Oct 27, 2004, 07:56 PM
As you can see, it looked a little like the real vertigo. The first picture is from the first crash, broke the landing gear and veins off on a hard landing, then it smashed into the garage door full throttle, after the motor pivot broke free. I ripped the motor out and all the servos. I only had servos in the ducting, no flight control surfaces. It made some great napalm!

Edit: I thought I would save you some file space, and put them on my own site.

http://www.geocities.com/gljimbo/foamievertigo.html

You guys better not DOS my site.

King_Ice_Flash
Sep 06, 2005, 10:51 PM
I hope someone could help me under stand this, but why are the motors not pointed vertically? I am in the process of designing a small electric version, and could use help with any calculations, such as the vertical motor angle.

Is it related to the CG and thrust position?

Thanks for your help.

buaastar
May 19, 2008, 02:40 AM
I am making a VTOL model plane too,but I don`t know use what autopilot.

HellRazor_77
Feb 03, 2009, 03:20 PM
I recently received my plans for the Vertigo and started building right away. I don't understand why Jaffray thought that the GY-240 would not be acceptable. It does allow the AVCS mode to be turned off, and it is a high quality gyro.

I'm also working on an alternative nacelle tilt setup involving air-driven retracts. The retract mechanisms rotate 85 degrees, which is perfect for the nacelle on the Vertigo, and since they have positive locks in the up and down positions, I don't have to worry about binding or slipping in the mechanism. Also, according to the author, the speed of the nacelle transition is a major factor in the 'pitch-up' behavior that the plane exhibits. A faster transition results in less 'pitch-up'. I have adjusted the air system to allow for a transition time between 1 and 1.5 seconds. This is about twice as fast as the 'worm-drive' tilt mechanism on the original Vertigo. This setup, if successful, would also cut down on weight, since the retract mechanisms are significantly lighter than the motor/screw arrangement. It also eliminates a lot of the wiring that the original setup uses and the extra battery.

I have a JR X9303 2.4Ghz radio and a 9 channel receiver for the airplane, which will make it easy to 'turn off' the vanes in forward flight, by using channel mixing instead of y harnesses between the elevator and the pitch vanes, and the ailerons and the roll vane.

I'm planning to use HS-85s for the vanes, HS-65s for the throttle and nacelle tilt valve, a DS-821 for the elevator, and a pair of HS-125MGs for the ailerons. Power will be provided by a 7.4v 2500mAh Lithium-Polymer battery and regulator. For the moment, at least, I plan to use 3 GY-240 gyros for stabilization in the hover. To make life easy, I'll probably run the same 30% heli fuel that I run on my T-Rex 600.

Thorleif
Feb 03, 2009, 03:40 PM
I have been planning my Vertigo for several years, and I will stick with Tom Hunts original worm-drive for nacelle rotation. That is because its a very sturdy construction. But as you say, a variable (and faster) nacelle tilt speed is needed to reduce the inbound-transition-pitch-up problem :).. To solve this I will use a brushless motor, with direction and speed control. I will also use a small microcontroller to detect end positions, by means of small Hall or Opto detectors. This combined with a common LiPO power source for all "Avionics" as well as tilt motor power, will save a lot of weight.

Im not sure why the GY-240 could not be used, but there are other gyros (CSM) that Jaffray has tested to be good. But I will be very interested in your results if you end up using the GY-240'.

To turn off the vanes in forward flight, mixing can be used, or a Futaba MSA-10 servo controller.

Will you make Aluminum parts for the engine-mount, and stator parts, or will you go for hardwood/plywood?

HellRazor_77
Feb 04, 2009, 12:56 PM
I had not considered the CSM gyros, but now that you mention it, that would probably work well. I know they use the CSM gyros to provide stabilization data to the mixer units on flybarless helis.

My primary reasons for wanting to use the Futaba series gyros is that I've used them on my helis and had very good results. I realize that using a heading hold gyro on this airplane is not an option, but with the heading hold mode turned off, the GY-240 should be just right.

I think that with a 9 channel receiver, mixing the vanes' action to the flight mode switch should not be a problem.

I'm planning on making the motor mount and vane cores out of aluminum, and then using foam and balsa to 'fill in' the gaps.

HellRazor_77
Feb 12, 2009, 10:27 AM
After a fair amount of research into gyro selection, I am going to go with a Futaba GYA351 gyro for the pitch vanes and a GY240/401 for the roll vane.

One of the really nice things about the 351 is that it is a single-axis, dual-input/output gyro. This means that with a transmitter-based v-tail mix, I will only need one gyro to control both pitch vanes.

All of these gyros support both normal and AVCS modes, so turning off the heading hold function will not be a problem.

I have almost finished my motor mount design, and hope to have it cut sometime next week.

yellow13
Feb 12, 2009, 12:39 PM
I may build a small electric version (my dream project). It would use two BP Hobbies outrunners with APC 9x3.8 SF props back-to-back in the nacelle. Each motor would be powered by its own 3S 800 LiPo and 10A ESC. The motors would be set up to contra-rotate, eliminating torque. Additionally, yaw control would come from a differential throttle mix on the radio (like on many small coax helis). Two BMS-380MG servos would be used to drive the exhaust vanes to control roll and pitch in hover mode, and yaw and pitch in flight mode. Futaba S3114s would control spoilerons on the wings (both surfaces would pop up during descent, hopefully reducing wing rocking by killing any lift that might occur) and an elevator on the tail. I might use a KFm2 airfoil on the wings. A standard-size digital metal gear servo would probably be strong enough to rotate the nacelle. The gyros would be mounted inside the nacelle so they would always be oriented correctly regardless of flight direction, solving the problem mentioned earlier. The combined thrust of the motors should be at least 24 ounces. Construction will be Dow Protection Board III sheeted with packing tape, reinforced with strategically placed CF rod.

I have no experience with these types of models, so any input from seasoned builders would be invaluable. If this works out, I'll post pictures and plans. It may be a while, though- I'll have to build up some more plane and heli time before I'll be comfortable taking this on.

HellRazor_77
Feb 15, 2009, 01:00 PM
Mounting the gyros in the nacelle will cause a crash. When you rotate the nacelle, the gyro will sense the movement and 'think' that the airplane is tilting and attempt to compensate, and a crash will result. The reason for 3 gyros in this airplane is that there are two vanes that are used to counteract pitching motion, and one vane to counteract roll. Thus, there are two gyros that are mounted to sense motion on the pitch axis, and one to sense motion on the roll axis.

To make a counter-rotating prop system work, the prop in front must have a larger diameter and a smaller pitch than the prop in the rear, and they must be mounted close to one another. Also, the prop in the rear must be a 'pusher' in order for this to work. Mounting the motors 'back to back' will not be a viable option. Also, because the prop in the rear is turning in a low-pressure slipstream from the prop in front, the battery driving the front motor will discharge faster than the battery driving the rear motor. Whenever you make an electric airplane with multiple motors, it is best to have the motors draw on a single battery to prevent the loss of a single motor in flight. On the Vertigo, aluminum sheet vanes are used to help compensate for the P-effect, and this really is the best solution for a craft of this type.

Contrary to popular belief, in hover mode the airplane does not rock because the wings are generating lift. The rolling motion is caused by variations in the thrust from the shrouded prop. Spoilerons will not counteract this.

Finally, the idea of using a servo to 'direct-drive' the nacelle will its own set of problems. Your battery will be drained quickly, because the constant strain from the nacelle against the servo will cause the servo to 'bind' constantly. This will also result in accelerated servo wear, and possibly cause radio interference.

I don't want to bust your bubble here, but you asked for input, and I would hate to see you invest a lot of time and money in a project just to have it crash the first time you try to fly it.

yellow13
Feb 16, 2009, 09:46 AM
Thank you for your input.

The gyro issue makes sense- I suppose you have a point there. Adjustable gain would render that modification unneccesary anyways.

About the prop system- I knew about the larger diameter/ smaller pitch thing; I forgot about it when I was posting because I was in a hurry. I also knew the back prop would be a pusher running a contra-rotating prop. You mentioned, though, that the props had to be fairly close together. I had no clue about that issue; what is the acceptable distance between the props (expressed as a pecentage of the prop diameter)? I also didn't think about the uneven battery drain. However, it makes perfect sense.

Thank you for pointing out that the wing rocking isn't caused by high-alpha issues. I never would have figured that one out on my own.

So, a simple servo-operated tilt mechanism wouldn't work. Are there any small, lightweight mechanisms that would lock in both up and down positions? Obviously, I can't use any of the heavier methods already mentioned. My goal is a wingspan under thirty-six inches. Any ideas?

Do you think my concept of a small, electric Vertigo is doable at all?

Finally, thanks for all your input. I appreciate you taking your time to help me out. You have saved me a whole lot of time, money, and frustration.

HellRazor_77
Mar 05, 2009, 10:05 AM
I think an electric VTOL is doable, but I think you need to break the problem down a little. Try a simple vertical take-off foamie with no nacelle or tilt mechanism. Stick the gyros on it and see what happens. Experiment as cheaply as possible, and use the results to put together a design that works for you. You might want to get a set of the original vertigo plans, or a copy of the original article. Lots of good info there.

yellow13
Mar 05, 2009, 10:55 AM
Thank you very much for your input. I think I'll try what you suggest and see what happens. I'll also see if I can get one of those articles.

Mecha
Mar 05, 2009, 11:02 AM
Hello all, I am getting ready to start building an electric version of this plane with a coaxial motor. This build is for my senior design project for a BS in Mechanical Engineering

I am planning to use a coaxial electric motor spinning a 10x4 or 10x5 and 9x6 using a GY190 for Yaw, and the Futaba GYA352 2 Axis Gyro for Roll and Pitch. I am not sure what to use for the nacelle since weight is a major concern. Any objections on the GYA352?

The motor I have can output 1.3 kg static thrust so i have to make the plane 1/3 the weight of its fuel counterpart, yet keeping just about the same wing loading, this means that that the airframe should weight no more than 600g, and with electronics just under 1100g.

I have already built a variation of the plane but failed in the stability portion (still troubleshooting), I am not using a nacelle and my control system do not use vanes but rather a vector thrust setup using a gimbals mount. Plenty of power for hover 3/4 sticks using 2 1050 30c batteries for just under 3 minutes of hover. When I built this model I had no idea of the Vertigo, though I had search like crazy for something like this, perhaps because I was looking for real size experimental aircraft, not so much RC models.

in my case if I decide to use a nacelle it would not have to be as robust since the vibrations are minimal compared to the .46. The wings will use the same NACA 2412 or the Clark Y not sure yet, and will be all wood construction to keep weight down. I am thinking a wing span of 36" not counting the center section of 12", with a wing area of about 300sq. in. this should be doable and weight about 80g-120g per wing section.

Does any body have an extra copy of the plans for the vertigo? Or is willing to sell or photocopy them (about $5 per sheet at Kinkos)? I will of course pay the shipping and the copy price. I have order a set of plans but they will take 4-6 weeks for delivery, by then I’ll be graduated… or not :eek: . Any help is really appreciated and comments and questions are welcome. The more information I have on this plane the better chances of success I will have.

HellRazor_77
Mar 14, 2009, 11:06 AM
I finished the design about a week ago, and managed to have it cut and the results were spectacular!

With a total weight of only 3 oz., this will provide a significant weight savings for this part of the airframe. I had to machine my own drive hub for the motor, and this has worked out very well.

My next step is to start on the nacelle structure. I haven't found a GYA-351 yet, but I am optimistic about the odds of getting hold of one. Up to this point, the hardest part of building this airplane has been cutting the foam cores. This is a new process for me, and I have gone through 6 wing blanks without a single success. Thankfully one of the guys I fly with has done a lot of foam cutting, and he has agreed to help me with this project.

I'll keep updating my progress as I go.

Mecha
Mar 23, 2009, 10:19 PM
HellRazor_77 great work on the motor mount. How did you machine that? I machined a mount out of PVC and it took me like 3 hours. I can not imagine how long that took you.

I am about half way in the construction of the electric version, and the wings were one of the first things I cut. If you are interested PM me and I will send you some pictures of the tools I made and how it can be done vey easily.

Some of the steps:

1. Cut a 2" foam block in the shape of the wing
2. Then make the templates out of 1/32 plywood and mark the center line (I left the LE and TE on the template)
3. Using a drill bit (any size small than a thumb tags tip) drill out about 10-15 holes in a zigzag pattern from LE to TE
4. on the foam block draw a centerline for both the root cord and tip cord
5. Place thumb tags in the template and secure the template to the wing panel aligning the center lines.
6. At the top and bottom of the foam panel make 6 tick marks 2" apart along the root cord and 6 tick marks 1" apart along the tip cord (this will serve as timing guides).
7. Using a wire cutter no smaller than 30", set a low heat setting (10V @ 2.5A for 30” NiCr wire)
8. Start cutting from the TE, making sure you match the tick marks as you cut thru. Keep a firm and steady motion and some downward pressure. This step is best done between two people so that each keeps an eye on one side. Hold the foam down with your hand and do not apply too much force down, enough to just hold it in place.
9. As you approach the LE make a straight down motion with the cutter to the end of the foam.
10. Flip the foam and repeat steps 8 and 9 for the bottom part

Make sure you mark the template with a right and left side so that you do not end up with to right wings.

I hope this helps you in getting those cores cut out.

Keep us informed of your progress.

Xnaron
May 21, 2009, 11:12 AM
HellRazor_77 great work on the motor mount. How did you machine that? I machined a mount out of PVC and it took me like 3 hours. I can not imagine how long that took you.

I am about half way in the construction of the electric version, and the wings were one of the first things I cut. If you are interested PM me and I will send you some pictures of the tools I made and how it can be done vey easily.

Some of the steps:

1. Cut a 2" foam block in the shape of the wing
2. Then make the templates out of 1/32 plywood and mark the center line (I left the LE and TE on the template)
3. Using a drill bit (any size small than a thumb tags tip) drill out about 10-15 holes in a zigzag pattern from LE to TE
4. on the foam block draw a centerline for both the root cord and tip cord
5. Place thumb tags in the template and secure the template to the wing panel aligning the center lines.
6. At the top and bottom of the foam panel make 6 tick marks 2" apart along the root cord and 6 tick marks 1" apart along the tip cord (this will serve as timing guides).
7. Using a wire cutter no smaller than 30", set a low heat setting (10V @ 2.5A for 30” NiCr wire)
8. Start cutting from the TE, making sure you match the tick marks as you cut thru. Keep a firm and steady motion and some downward pressure. This step is best done between two people so that each keeps an eye on one side. Hold the foam down with your hand and do not apply too much force down, enough to just hold it in place.
9. As you approach the LE make a straight down motion with the cutter to the end of the foam.
10. Flip the foam and repeat steps 8 and 9 for the bottom part

Make sure you mark the template with a right and left side so that you do not end up with to right wings.

I hope this helps you in getting those cores cut out.

Keep us informed of your progress.


Any more details on the electric version? I'd love to see your progress!

Brendin