Testbed for Head Tracker

[Zaviation]

This is going to be my test aircraft for the Head Tracking unit we are working on. I test flew it today in 10-15 knot crosswind and it flies great. It is a funscale version of a 1930s German Dornier Do-11 medium bomber. Wingspan is 62 inches and it is very lightweight. I am running two 400 brushed motors from a common 25A CC ESC. I will be able to put the video camera in any of three positions and put pilot figures in the others. I should get some pretty good video. Matt is waiting for the prototype PCBs to come back, maybe by the end of this week, and he will get a couple of test units to me.

Regards, John

[Tonystott]

John, with multiple positions for the camera, you now also have the perfect opportunity to link the flight crew to the controls so they behave like the famous Teddy Bear. Now THAT I would love to see in the foreground of the video! :)

[Zaviation]

That's pretty tame, I'm looking for something more exciting than that. First things first but then watch out!

Something from this would be more exciting!

John

[Myron]

Nice Extra, does the 3W-80 pull as well as some of the 100's like they claim?

Myron

[Canada Goose]

"Looking" forward to the results.

Mike

[Zaviation]

does the 3W-80 pull as well as some of the 100's like they claim?

Myron,
Some do. When Dave Johnson at Desert Aircraft was still the distrubutor for 3W he would rework the 3W-80 into what he called the TOC version. He would balance everything (static, dynamic, volumetric) and do a great polish and porting job with radiused edges. These engines had red cylinders instead of the stock aluminum.

I have never had the chance to check mine against a DA-100 but it is equal to a Keith Baker BME 5.8 (100). A flying buddy had the BME and an aircraft the same size and weight. We both ran 26-10 props and hovered at about the same power setting. Not bad considering it is a 4.8ci against a 5.8ci. I am sure the stock 3W-80s could not match that.

I actually have this one sold as I am moving more toward electrics. I am getting weary of hauling around the 17ft enclosed trailer and 25-30 lb airplanes to set up. It is also hard to justify $6,000 tied up in one plane when an electric that can do the same thing can be set up for about $600. Sorry I led us OT.

Regards, John

[PeteSchug]

That's pretty tame, I'm looking for something more exciting than that. First things first but then watch out!

Something from this would be more exciting!

John

After the first sentence I though you were going to try precision bombing!

A large aerobatic plane is the way to go. Loops and stuff happen very fast with small airplanes. In fact, it may take you a while to get used to how quickly you can do a 360 degree turn at a slight bank angle with a slow flying plane. From the ground it looks normal, from the on board view things happen very fast to a person used to full scale.

With a big, fast plane things should happen at a more leisurely pace as far as turns and loops go.

Nice looking bomber.

Pete

[Zaviation]

I agree, and have always agreed that size makes a difference, even in airplanes. However, within reasonable limits, size can be compensated for by various factors. Things get pretty frantic sometimes in full sized aircraft. The full sized Pitts S1S I used to fly had 180HP, 4 ailerons, and a wingspan of 18 ft. That thing had a roll rate of 360 degrees per second and I thought that was fast. Now they are running 540HP monoplanes with a wingspan of 26 ft and the roll rate is 540 degrees a second.

I think most model pilots do not make a serious study of flying and tend to use less expensive radios with less functions or don't know how to use them properly. The process of trimming an aircraft to fly precisely and smoothly is a tedious one and requires considerable knowledge and experience. It has long been my contention that if you reduce the size of the aircraft by half you must fly it twice as precisely to make it look realistic. To to this requires constant attention to doing it. I don't mean you can't just go up and bang the sticks around now and then but when precision is required you have to be able to deliver.

Getting the aircraft trimmed right and then using the proper degree of control movement, dual rates, exponential, mixing, and then practicing with the aircraft enough to really know it can produce an amazing degree of realism in smaller aircraft. If you want more precision you also have to consider the wind. Smaller aircraft do not handle the wind as well because there is little inertia involved and they bounce around more. I would say that if you want to achieve the same precision and smoothness with an aircraft half the size you should also fly in wind no more than half the speed. I have flown aircraft as small as 24 inch wingspan with surprising smoothness but only in calm conditions. The aircraft can handle more wind than that but if I you want precision to make a video you have to have the right conditions.

Once you take all this into consideration if the aircraft us still jumpy and eratic it is because that is what the pilot is telling it to do. Flying is not an easy thing to do. Precision flying is something else altogether.

Regards, John