But I am not in an ideal position both financially and geographically... it is summer but my car has sat in my driveway for five months.. have to fix that, my pizza tossing job and not paying rent for five months... will delay my projects.
I have spent the last five months learning to develop websites, front and back end, I tried to freelance, tried to come up with sites... it is hard as it turns out.
I have a lot of ventures to get into.
My ideal thought is to buy property somewhere where it is always warm... then I will produce content for what I would like to be my online magazine Foam FLight RC "Pittance flies gold" the catch phrase probably needs work...
Anyway, maybe it's an ego thing but I've always preferred to build planes, whenever I have bought planes I just never felt that happy with them. Such as the Parkzone Radian Pro with the flaps (had this awful tendency to tuck) and the Flyzone Calypso... was not very good aerodynamically eg. draggy.
I did love the original Parkzone Radian which members of RC Groups gifted to me. Unfortunately I lost it in a thermal very far away.
Anyway, I'm in the process of monetizing much of my content... I've made my first $100.00 from Google Adsense after 5 years, definitely not going to be able to quit my day job anytime soon haha.
Anyway, it's fun though being able to draw something on paper and then produce it for a website.
I know, you can't use words to substitute the real thing so I have to stay away for a while until I can actually produce models. God I have SO many ideas... I'm just waiting, financially and vehicular. But to stay true to FFRC, pittance flies gold eg. innovation from lack of funds.
I'm also interested in developing terrain-mapping navigation systems "phased-array radar" hahaha, I read too much...
This would be cool, varying power rates like 300 Watts for instance
Would require some soldering specifically the pins for the receiver.
You're not really making anything per se, just unifying a bunch of parts. The servo plugs wouldn't all be on one side, the design would differ for use, for example quad copters would have some kind of symmetry / different shape.
3D print the plastic casing or injection mold them.
I intend to perfect this plane one day. The main problem is the instability when the aircraft loses speed, for example, going into a vertical climb then slowing the throttle down so that the airspeed becomes zero. The washout for the most part got rid of this problem. I think that the flaps are basically useless but I have found that simple split flaps are quite effective. At least on aircraft with tails. I think someone told me that flaps on flying wings are useless, that really they are just airbrakes.
I still like the functionality and having 6 surfaces is just cool to me.
If you want to see videos, I have two accounts on YouTube both under my real name. You can find them by searching GreenAce92 or just use these channel links.
Normalbus focuses more on the gull wing flying and in general model airplanes. I really like the Samara variant which uses only two servos. Using a 2 cell battery, an AXI 2808/16 and an 8x7 glass fiber propeller, this plane flies really nicely. The airfoil is fully symmetrical though. This was GT-10.
The manual for this plane is attached below though the manual is for the Blue Fin model which has the pointed wing tips and six control surfaces. Overall this project failed because I can't produce that many for one, but mainly it is the fact that it was too complex and not needed.
Gahh I miss model airplanes! I haven't flown in a while, sold my stuff because I have poor financial management. Example, bought a Lenovo Ultrabook and additional software for a price totaling over $1,000.00, then what did I end up doing? Selling it for $500.00 on craigslist because I needed the money for rent. Not too long ago I had an Aurora 9. True, I could fly with a simple DX5e but it is almost like an obsession, you see something you want and you have to have it.
I'm going to start flying again once I settle my finances and life in general.
This is my drug. It is simple. I find myself fighting the concept that they are just toys. They aren't "real airplanes" so they aren't as good. But, I think that's not true in my own opinion. Model airplanes are directly maleable so I can shape it, design it however I want within a budget that I can currently achieve.
This is more of a self-serving blog entry to remind myself that this is one of the things I want to have again in the end.
Interesting note, this airplane was perfect for what it was at the time. I destroyed it because one of the gull joints were uneven in relation to the other. Not sure why I do that. This was a great plane.
It was a beautiful day, blue sky, sun was shining, green trees, green grass and a new plane; twin boom, 275 watts of power.
600TVL camera, 400mW tranmsitter, 7inch LCD TV.
So, after a very successful maiden despite the tape coming off and acting as a spoiler, the Mantis v2 was ready to fly. I strapped on my expensive components and off I went. I flew for about ten minutes, just cruising around...
One feeling was in my head, disappointment.
I'm not saying that FPV sucks, but with the equipment I had, FPV sucked. Even if I had goggles, the footage is still choppy. Sure, I believe HD transmitters do not exist yet or if they do they may be expensive but that's just a guess of course. I just had a thought though, people who produce FPV videos with secondary cameras really have to "re-live" the moment in order to create the content. Of course some have pre-defined ideas for the video to be made but flying FPV kind of takes away the fun of flying model airplanes.
I enjoy watching the physics act on the aircraft, flying straight up, putting the aircraft into a death spiral, then resuming control and flying around again. When you put FPV on it and you see all those videos and you get this sense of an expectation... you can be let down.
It's not like "flying" and in fact, it gives you an uneasy feeling because you can't see or hear your plane. If I wanted to fly and I didn't want to spend $8000.00 on a pilots license, I would build an ...Continue Reading
First, I just love this shot!
(...and of course the subsequent shots... but maybe it's just the plane )
This isn't really a discussion as I will most likely be doing it either way (should I have the funds to do so) but I wanted to ask your opinion if you think that a dual piloted "drone" is a good idea.
Not so much the piloting itself as in control of the aircraft but one guy pilots the plane and another controls the camera itself, so that's four different frequencies operating at once on one aircraft: Two different video frequencies and two different controlling frequencies i.e. flight transmitters.
The other alternative which isn't that expensive is to buy an Ardumega for $199.99 and occasionally place your aircraft under autonomous flight while you man your camera.
This is an aircraft I designed to carry large HD cameras, the reason for the design is to allow the camera to hang below and have a "motion/impulse-free zone" by isolating the camera from the rest of the aircraft.
The prototype varies from the conceptual sketches by the addition of two structural members to keep the lower skid/wheel system from flexing apart from each other. Normally this is prevented by placement of brackets on the very nose of the aircraft, where the wheels are located, and by the tail feathers (where the skid joins the tip of the tail feathers).
Still I do believe that the additional members will be required for proper function.
Ideally this aircraft is built from 0.38" x 0.38" spruce which when combined with a hot wire cut cambered airfoil, makes for a rigid platform.
This is however just a brief prototype to test out if the inverted split v tail was sufficient for flight control which it was. The main downfall of this particular prototypes was the power system, it was severely underpowered, in the flight video you will see that the aircraft lost its wheels at one point to lower the weight as well as the AA battery located on the very nose. That's really the only reason the Revolvet got off the ground.
This is just a blog entry for a plank plane I came up with. Initially I was trying to sell it for $9.99 however I am currently unable to make them. Still, true to my word on Foam Flight RC, I try to help those who are financially not able to afford performance capable planes. If you know how to do it, you can do it. So I'll teach you.
This isn't a tutorial, just a collection of films which occured in chronological order
275 Watts provided by an E-flite Park 480 rotating a 10x7 APC E
2 3300 mAh Cheetah 3S 35C packs
36A Castle Creations Thunderbird ESC
2 HS-55's run the ailerons
1 HS-65 for V-tail (due to 5ch receiver and external BEC)
1 HS-65 for split flap
5Ch 72mHz receiver
10 Amp Castle Creations ESC
RC length: 9.25"
TC lenght: 5.25"
Area: ~1.67 sq. ft
Airfoil: Blend of flat bottom and fully symmetrical
Washout: Yes. 2 degrees
So while I am aware or became aware that the bec's can be parallel wired with a servo thereby no taking another servo slot themselves on the receiver, I did not implement this fact on this model hence I had to switch from originally having 4 HS-55's and no split flap, to the current specs mentioned above.
This model in my opinion is a scale flyer. It looked incredible in the sky, reminiscent of a Republic P-47 Thunderbolt with the shape of the wings and geometry of the aircraft (how close the motor was to the leading edge of the wing).
It was a bit difficult to launch due to the torque from the motor and the short wingspan / lack of vertical surface. Once flying however the aircraft was extremely rigid as if flying "on rails" as people say.
The very last flight of this aircraft struggled at 41oz. The struggle came primarily from the torque of the motor. While it was four oz heavier than the comfortable...Continue Reading
I could argue that this is pointless to post but one day I can see many people coming together at some desolate location to race only it's not a race by LOS but racing by video piloting like the Reno Air Races.
To give you an insight on what that is like, here is a video taken from YouTube.
I must admit that since our aircraft generally don't even exceed 100mph, this kind of racing isn't really what our models would achieve however we can get close to it.
The race would be complex and in some ways require variable flight capability on the aircraft, for example to slow down and hover in order to fly through a tree-dense portion.
This race is something which can combine a lot of subjects, parts, antennas, piloting skill, monitors, aircraft design etc... it is a very ambitious project but should be no different than those glider competitions which gather a lot of a attendees.
Yesterday I maidened an FPV racing aircraft I had designed. This is not the finished product but rather a prototype testing the rigidity of the tail structure and control effectiveness. If anything one can argue that this aircraft was stupid however it performed better than I expected.
In order to show you how the racing would be structured, I will take a portion of the videos collected yesterday and edit the "guiding" part of the race which would tell everyone where they are supposed to go.
Today I tested the 21st prototype which tested a multi-pod wing locking system.
While there were hickups such as losing the main propeller in flight and incorrect weight distribution, the overall conclusion was a success.
Now one can fly three different styles while using one pair of wings.
As stated before, this aircraft is designed for advanced users with intermediate and above piloting skills as well as good radio knowledge though everything required to know about this model is provided in the manual.
Anyway, with one pair of wings, you can fly three or more different aircraft. In the videos below, I fly a light class (23oz) and a heavy class (44oz) span of aircraft is 48-50" with a wing area of 2 square feet.
This was a proof-of-concept type aircraft, it will be revised for production.
I was trying to film with a tripod and fly at the same time, not a very good combination when flying a highly responsive aircraft which happens to be underpowered and also flying very low to the ground.
So at one point I just smashed it into the ground. Oops...
I had a few decent shots though as far as the aspect of filming
Yesterday I maidened the GT-17, the flight experience was phenomenal.
At one point I almost smashed it into the ground on a very low full
speed dive pass. Using the flaps as a method of changing the aircraft's
angle of attack, I was able to achieve this stunt only skimming the propeller
on the grass.
Why I titled this blog entry this was because this airplane is aerodynamically
stable when flying, but in 0mph of airspeed, the aircraft loses stability,
much like anything else that flies since rudders do not work without airflow
of course excluding exotic aircraft such as the F-35 Lightning II or Harrier
So one of the things I performed with this aircraft yesterday was putting it
into a vertical climb and then cutting the power, it was interesting to watch
the aircraft lose control and sort of just do its own thing.
Then by "dirtying-up" the airplane, I could regain control by enaging the flaps
and apply throttle, it is very safe to do this, I even performed it when
the airplane was only 30 feet from the ground.
Of course having about 180 - 220 watts / lb helps out a lot.
Overall I am pleased with its performance, the elevator does not lose authority
in full speed dives, the flaps even better... the climbs are astounding.
I can not tell you how fast this model flies, but with a 3 cell pack and 1800kV
motor its speed is more than respectable. The sleek profile of the tailless gull
wing flying wing is fantastic.
The pictures and video will tell the rest.
I have now achieved my acrobatic, wide speed envelope, endurance aircraft.
Endurance is achieved by having a larger battery pack and flying with flap deflection.
As is the current flying weight is 33oz with a 2200 mAh battery pack which was too light hence positioned far forward to attain proper cg.