Jinker
Aug 10, 2005, 11:22 AM
I'm building a fuse to go go with my Gentle Lady wing. I'll be using it for aerial photography and want to be able to put my Pentax Optio S4 and mount in the middle of the fuse on a rotating mount. I'd like 90 degrees of rotation from horizontal to vertical.
I've built two fuselage sides out of 1/4" stick, truss style. I've got a square frame around the CG point of each. What I'm thinking of doing is sheeting one side of the fuse at the box, and across the top of the airplane, with a hole on the other side and bottom of the fuselage, maybe with some sheeting on bottom and open side with cutouts for sightline for the camera.
The fuse is about the same length as the original Gentle Lady fuse, but has a curved profile to give the internal volume necessary for the camera.
My question is this:
I could frame up the two sides in a square/rectangular cross section which will give me lots and lots of room inside.
Alternatively, I could sand an angle into either the top or bottom edge of both sides and make a triangular fuselage.
Making the middle of the fuse wide enough for the camera and rotating mount would result in the triangular fuse being wider than the rectangular one. I'm assuming a triangle with the flat surface on top would be favored over flat surface on the bottom due to ease of mounting the wing on top.
Suspected advantages of rectangular fuse:
More volume
Easier to mount electronics inside
More 'normal' construction
Suspected advantages of the triangular fuse:
Less wetted area (?)
No formers necessary (lighter?)
Less glue joints (though the long one down the 'spine' of the airplane would be a killer)
'Different' look
I'm trying to puzzle out which airframe's strength would be comprimised less by the hole in the side. It would be 3 inches wide, and subtend about 120 degrees or so. Just a smidge above horizontal on one side to just past vertical on the bottom. On the triangular fuse, this would mean a gap in the 'spine', which would mean some beefing up of the structure around the gap to spread the loads.
Camera access is necessary, though, so even if I can sheet over the hole, it'll mainly be an aerodynamic improvement/camera protection, as a hatch doesn't do much structurally.
I'm probably thinking about this a little much, as this airplane will definitely be a floater, with an all up weight somewhere around 2 lbs. It'll be powered by my AXI 2212/20, which should make somewhere around 20 oz of thrust with an 8x4 and a 3s Lipo pack.
I'm wondering whether I should bother adding landing gear, or if a skid would be sufficient. It will hand launch just fine, just wondering which will protect the camera better.
Any advice?
-Greg
I've built two fuselage sides out of 1/4" stick, truss style. I've got a square frame around the CG point of each. What I'm thinking of doing is sheeting one side of the fuse at the box, and across the top of the airplane, with a hole on the other side and bottom of the fuselage, maybe with some sheeting on bottom and open side with cutouts for sightline for the camera.
The fuse is about the same length as the original Gentle Lady fuse, but has a curved profile to give the internal volume necessary for the camera.
My question is this:
I could frame up the two sides in a square/rectangular cross section which will give me lots and lots of room inside.
Alternatively, I could sand an angle into either the top or bottom edge of both sides and make a triangular fuselage.
Making the middle of the fuse wide enough for the camera and rotating mount would result in the triangular fuse being wider than the rectangular one. I'm assuming a triangle with the flat surface on top would be favored over flat surface on the bottom due to ease of mounting the wing on top.
Suspected advantages of rectangular fuse:
More volume
Easier to mount electronics inside
More 'normal' construction
Suspected advantages of the triangular fuse:
Less wetted area (?)
No formers necessary (lighter?)
Less glue joints (though the long one down the 'spine' of the airplane would be a killer)
'Different' look
I'm trying to puzzle out which airframe's strength would be comprimised less by the hole in the side. It would be 3 inches wide, and subtend about 120 degrees or so. Just a smidge above horizontal on one side to just past vertical on the bottom. On the triangular fuse, this would mean a gap in the 'spine', which would mean some beefing up of the structure around the gap to spread the loads.
Camera access is necessary, though, so even if I can sheet over the hole, it'll mainly be an aerodynamic improvement/camera protection, as a hatch doesn't do much structurally.
I'm probably thinking about this a little much, as this airplane will definitely be a floater, with an all up weight somewhere around 2 lbs. It'll be powered by my AXI 2212/20, which should make somewhere around 20 oz of thrust with an 8x4 and a 3s Lipo pack.
I'm wondering whether I should bother adding landing gear, or if a skid would be sufficient. It will hand launch just fine, just wondering which will protect the camera better.
Any advice?
-Greg