HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Oct 22, 2011, 03:44 AM
Me a long time ago
Flypoppa's Avatar
London N.E. UK
Joined Jan 2007
5,838 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozair View Post
FP what utter rubbish. I can't believe that an intelligent man like you believes in this supersticious hoo-ha. Just as well it wasn't Friday the 13th.
In my other life when I was working for a living. I had a vehicle that had a 666 registration. Oh boy was it unlucky. I even had some cloves of garlic hanging from the rear view mirror.
One of my clients whom was a man of the cloth, even tried to exorcise the vehicle.
I was glad when I had to replace it.
Flypoppa is online now Find More Posts by Flypoppa
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Oct 22, 2011, 05:21 AM
Registered User
The Netherlands, NB, Eindhoven
Joined Sep 2011
27 Posts
Had the maiden this morning and it went as expected
First landing was quite OK and I only lost the canopy but the next two 'landings' were far worse as I managed to break the CF spar and tear the foam at the base of the wing a little. Also the fuselage split along the line were it is glued together. So for anyone starting with this plane, you really have to reinforce the CF spar or have a spare one, as it breaks really easy.

I might try it out again if the wind drops with a wooden spar (I don't have another CF one), anyone that has tried this before? Good idea or am I going to wreck it even further?
Rennuh is offline Find More Posts by Rennuh
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 05:53 AM
The figure "9" Specialist
aeronca's Avatar
A Barrier Island in New Jersey, USA
Joined Oct 2003
3,407 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennuh View Post
Had the maiden this morning and it went as expected
First landing was quite OK and I only lost the canopy but the next two 'landings' were far worse as I managed to break the CF spar and tear the foam at the base of the wing a little. Also the fuselage split along the line were it is glued together. So for anyone starting with this plane, you really have to reinforce the CF spar or have a spare one, as it breaks really easy.

I might try it out again if the wind drops with a wooden spar (I don't have another CF one), anyone that has tried this before? Good idea or am I going to wreck it even further?
Sorry to hear about your mishap.

Wooden spar should be OK but is heavier so make sure your CG is adjusted properly.

Best option would be a stock reinforced carbon fiber spar or thicker-walled 6mm carbon fiber tube, next best would be an aluminum or carbon fiber arrow shaft, wood would be my last choice.

Good luck!

Aeronca
aeronca is offline Find More Posts by aeronca
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 06:04 AM
Why so serious?
2500GENE's Avatar
United States, FL, Cape Coral
Joined Dec 2007
5,967 Posts
Off to Fl.
2500GENE is offline Find More Posts by 2500GENE
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 06:38 AM
Earthbound Skyhound
StarHopper44's Avatar
United States, NC, Richlands
Joined Jun 2011
4,447 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
The question is not specific enough. It depend if part of that 10mph ground speed has a sideways component, meaning you are being swept along with the wind. Or, are you crabbing against the wind and keeping a ground trajectory that is 90 degrees to the wind. Different scenarios and different answers.

The first scenario really isn't possible, as you are doing at least 15 mph ground speed, even if you are in a hover.

If you mean the latter scenario, the plane is ALREADY turned 56 degrees into the wind to crab against the 15mph wind speed. In this scenario your TAS would be 18 mph. As you turned into the wind your 10mph ground speed vector would shift 90 degrees and your ground speed would reduce to 3 mph and the plane would be none the wiser, having made a constant speed 34 degree turn. I can detail the math if desired.

EDIT: BTW, I know I'm not Gene. But it is an interesting scenario to think about.

EDIT EDIT: There, I think THAT's it. As I say... interesting scenario.
You guys can bob & weave any way you want to, but when a plane traveling at X groundspeed turns into a wind of X+1> mph, and maintains the same altitude (to prevent another dodge), the insurmountable fact is that plane is going to be blown backwards or farther away, and won't make progress traveling directly into that wind without increasing power to the engine. That increase of power will register on the log of power consumption, ergo will show on the EagleTree chart....which is what we were talking about in the first place. And I just won't believe anything else so, end of discussion for me.
"But the EagleTree could burn up or explode, then you wouldn't see anything". Yeah, right.....you win.
StarHopper44 is offline Find More Posts by StarHopper44
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 06:58 AM
Earthbound Skyhound
StarHopper44's Avatar
United States, NC, Richlands
Joined Jun 2011
4,447 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozair View Post
SH so much for your buddy codes You get me all excited and then nothing. As a result of your actions and Gene's wanting to finish off his pool I just cannot afford this unit any more
...
Seriously dude? They weren't any good at all?? I know it wouldn't have been much, and still don't understand why I didn't get a code (the '2 people' icon didn't show beside the logger on my receipt as it did for the others) for my purchase, but they should've allowed you the discount if you got them in in time. That sux! Let me know if true or you're just kidding, & I'll at least say something to 'em about it.

While we're on the subject of customer treatment, lemme tell y'all about Banana Hobby's latest shenanigans. I engaged their Online Chat to ask about getting that clear canopy, only, rather than the complete canopy assy I wanted....and I asked what I had to order to get the whole thing since nothing else showed on the spare parts listing - just 'Canopy'. They answered promptly at first ring, took my question, said (in effect) "Let me check", kept coming back saying "I apologise for delay, am waiting a reply from another department", me replying "OK, thanks" and after about 20-25 minutes of those exchanges, suddenly disconnected without ever answering. 2 immediate attempts to get 'em back, followed by another ~1 hour later, and another the next morning....and they just won't "answer the phone". The subsequent contact attempts aren't running like the first....different screen results, etc. It's like at seeing my name or the order # from the log-in process, you're automatically cut off.

So, it appears their legacy of "Send us your money, then forget you!" is still alive and well, and hasn't improved at all since the early days. Well.....can't say I wasn't warned.

Anybody need a clear V2 canopy?
StarHopper44 is offline Find More Posts by StarHopper44
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 07:18 AM
Earthbound Skyhound
StarHopper44's Avatar
United States, NC, Richlands
Joined Jun 2011
4,447 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennuh View Post
"... landing was quite OK and I only lost the canopy ...
.......Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... quite ok????
.
.
.
.



Seriously tho, congrats on at least gettin' it up once.
Wood's good....but not there. Better things, as Aeronca advised.
StarHopper44 is offline Find More Posts by StarHopper44
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 07:19 AM
Registered User
The Netherlands, NB, Eindhoven
Joined Sep 2011
27 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeronca View Post
Sorry to hear about your mishap.

Wooden spar should be OK but is heavier so make sure your CG is adjusted properly.

Best option would be a stock reinforced carbon fiber spar or thicker-walled 6mm carbon fiber tube, next best would be an aluminum or carbon fiber arrow shaft, wood would be my last choice.

Good luck!

Aeronca
Thanks!
I wanted to go with wood because that was the only thing I thought I had available but I found an old kite with some CF rods so now I put one of those in. It's only 5mm instead of the stock 6mm but with some tape around it, it fits perfectly and it should break less easily since it's solid.
Rennuh is offline Find More Posts by Rennuh
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 07:26 AM
Earthbound Skyhound
StarHopper44's Avatar
United States, NC, Richlands
Joined Jun 2011
4,447 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2500GENE View Post
Off to Fl.
Fl reacts:



StarHopper44 is offline Find More Posts by StarHopper44
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 07:57 AM
Gravity impaired
jrjr's Avatar
United States, NY, Wolcott
Joined Nov 2004
1,496 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarHopper44 View Post
You guys can bob & weave any way you want to, but when a plane traveling at X groundspeed turns into a wind of X+1> mph, and maintains the same altitude (to prevent another dodge), the insurmountable fact is that plane is going to be blown backwards or farther away, and won't make progress traveling directly into that wind without increasing power to the engine. That increase of power will register on the log of power consumption, ergo will show on the EagleTree chart....which is what we were talking about in the first place. And I just won't believe anything else so, end of discussion for me.
"But the EagleTree could burn up or explode, then you wouldn't see anything". Yeah, right.....you win.
Sorry but they are right when talking about air speed vs ground speed. If you keep the power at 3/4 stick and do not change it, the power demand will not change.

If in this scenario you are going down wind you will travel pretty fast. If you then turn and go into the wind without changing the throttle stick, the power demand will remain the same yet the plane will slow down in relation to the ground. The plane's speed will remain the same in relation to the air....... it will have the same amount of air rushing by it but will achieve less ground speed since the air itself is in motion.

Think of releasing a baloon in a 20mph wind. The baloon will travel at 20mph in relation to the ground but in relation to the air it will be traveling 0mph since it is not powered.

Another way to think about it is the plane sitting stationary on the ground with a 20mph head wind. The planes ground speed it 0 while the air speed is 20.

If you plane flies 30mph at 3/4 stick with no wind, and you now have a 20mph wind, when flying into the wind you will be doing 10mph in relation to the ground but still 30 mph in relation to the wind.

Now I believe that you are thinking that on the upwind run with your plane you have to increase power to keep the plane flying. You do not need to however the plane will slow down in relation to the ground or even be going in reverse in relation to the ground. In fact in a brisk wind you can actually achieve 0 ground speed (the hover that you mentioned, or even a negative number) with the plane still flying since the air itself is moving. That is a very good lesson, try it sometime, its pretty cool. Just keep it up a ways in case of mistake. If you just want to hammer the throttle up wind to get it back faster of course the power demand will increase. Therein lies the communication issue here me thinks.


Check this out
jrjr is online now Find More Posts by jrjr
Last edited by jrjr; Oct 22, 2011 at 08:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 08:16 AM
The figure "9" Specialist
aeronca's Avatar
A Barrier Island in New Jersey, USA
Joined Oct 2003
3,407 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrjr View Post
Sorry but they are right when talking about air speed vs ground speed. If you keep the power at 3/4 stick and do not change it, the power demand will not change.

If in this scenario you are going down wind you will travel pretty fast. If you then turn and go into the wind without changing the throttle stick, the power demand will remain the same yet the plane will slow down in relation to the ground. The plane's speed will remain the same in relation to the air....... it will have the same amount of air rushing by it but will require less ground speed to do so since the air itself is in motion.

Think of releasing a baloon in a 20mph wind. The baloon will travel at 20mph in relation to the ground but in relation to the air it will be traveling 0mph since it is not powered.

Another way to think about it is the plane sitting stationary on the ground with a 20mph head wind. The planes ground speed it 0 while the air speed is 20.

If you plane flies 30mph at 3/4 stick with no wind, and you now have a 20mph wind, when flying into the wind you will be doing 10mph in relation to the ground but still 30 mph in relation to the wind.

Now I believe that you are thinking that on the upwind run with your plane you have to increase power to keep the plane flying. You do not need to however the plane will slow down in relation to the ground or even be going in reverse in relation to the ground. In fact in a brisk wind you can actually achieve 0 ground speed (the hover that you mentioned, or even a negative number) with the plane still flying since the air itself is moving. That is a very good lesson, try it sometime, its pretty cool. Just keep it up a ways in case of mistake. If you just want to hammer the throttle up wind to get it back faster of course the power demand will increase. Therein lies the communication issue here me thinks.


Check this out
Sorry, I can't keep out of this. I BELIEVE the confusion is around the word CONSUMPTION as it relates to power used upwind and downwind.

Assumming the plane has a 20mph ground speed with no wind, in a 10 mph wind the plane will cover 30 miles in a downwind flight in one hour. Turning around and flying into that 10mph headwind, the ground speed will be reduced to a 10 mph ground speed meaning it will take 3 hours to make the return trip back to the starting point. The power CONSUMPTION will be 3 times the downdwind CONSUMPTION on the upwind flight. In the example above, the airspeed remains a constant 30 mph in both directions.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Aeronca
aeronca is offline Find More Posts by aeronca
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 10:09 AM
Registered User
United States, CA, Sebastopol
Joined Dec 2010
6,308 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarHopper44 View Post
You guys can bob & weave any way you want to, but when a plane traveling at X groundspeed turns into a wind of X+1> mph, and maintains the same altitude (to prevent another dodge), the insurmountable fact is that plane is going to be blown backwards or farther away, and won't make progress traveling directly into that wind without increasing power to the engine. That increase of power will register on the log of power consumption, ergo will show on the EagleTree chart....which is what we were talking about in the first place. And I just won't believe anything else so, end of discussion for me.
"But the EagleTree could burn up or explode, then you wouldn't see anything". Yeah, right.....you win.
I'm not "bobbing and weaving". It's Newtonian physics. And you present yet another scenario above. The "insurmountable" fact of the previous scenario is that if an aircraft is traveling 90 degrees to the wind at a ground speed of X in a wind of Y, its TAS is SQRT(X^2+Y^2). And then, the angle of flight (important when making that turn into the wind) is COS-1(X/TAS))

But in the scenario you present above, you are correct. However, you make it up flying the other direction. And, in RC, flying in the other direction is usually a good thing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarHopper44 View Post
And I just won't believe anything else so, end of discussion for me.
You too? Sheesh... truth by declaration... sounds like politics!
erkq is online now Find More Posts by erkq
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 12:53 PM
Registered User
Chilliwack, BC Canada
Joined Mar 2010
1,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeronca View Post
Sorry, I can't keep out of this. I BELIEVE the confusion is around the word CONSUMPTION as it relates to power used upwind and downwind.

Assumming the plane has a 20mph ground speed with no wind, in a 10 mph wind the plane will cover 30 miles in a downwind flight in one hour. Turning around and flying into that 10mph headwind, the ground speed will be reduced to a 10 mph ground speed meaning it will take 3 hours to make the return trip back to the starting point. The power CONSUMPTION will be 3 times the downdwind CONSUMPTION on the upwind flight. In the example above, the airspeed remains a constant 30 mph in both directions.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Aeronca
Thanks Aeronca! That certainly lit the bulb for me.

If a plane flies at 20 mph and, with no wind, covers one mile (ground) out and back, it will have covered two miles. Two miles at 20mph = 1/10th of an hour or six minutes.

If there is a 10 mph wind, and it again flies at 20 mph airspeed, it will fly one mile (ground) downwind at 30 mph (airspeed + windspeed) which would take 1/30th hour or two minutes. Then it would return one mile (ground) upwind at 10 mph (airspeed - windspeed) which would take 1/10 hour or six minutes. Eight minutes total. So even though we are saving time downwind, we are loosing time three times as long upwind, so it does take an extra two minutes to cover the same ground path in the 10 mph wind. No throttle changes at all (so no changes in current - the 'rate' of consumption), but greater total consumption (in mah).

Of course we all know this never would have worked because we could never see it after the first half mile or so, so it would have crashed. But the numbers work out nice and even, and it could be done with FPV!

Gord
Gordks is offline Find More Posts by Gordks
Last edited by Gordks; Oct 22, 2011 at 03:02 PM. Reason: Get more specific on 'consumption' - thanks erkq.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 01:16 PM
Registered User
United States, CA, Sebastopol
Joined Dec 2010
6,308 Posts
Thank you for all your input on this, SH, Aeronca, Gordks.

I believe it's a failure to communicate. It is a very difficult subject to specify because there are so many variables, scenarios and non-specific terms, for example "consumption"... do you mean a consumption rate (watts) or total energy consumption (Whr)? When discussing this, you have to specify the dimensions of your units and understand what they mean, and be rigorous about specifying it. Otherwise the discussion goes haywire.

And Gordks makes a very good, and non-intuitive point about the net effect of wind. Any full-scale pilot who has done flight planning knows this. But it does not HAVE TO effect how HARD the motor works (watts), it can just change how LONG it works (Whr). Or, it can change how hard it works but NOT how long it works. Or something in between. Yet another variable AND it is time dependent, so it all gets integrated over time. So... it's tough to be specific.
erkq is online now Find More Posts by erkq
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2011, 01:52 PM
Me a long time ago
Flypoppa's Avatar
London N.E. UK
Joined Jan 2007
5,838 Posts
All this is a puzzle for me and I am getting confused.
All I can work out is... I am flying in a 10mph wind. So if I fly into wind for 5 minutes, then turn downwind for 5 minutes.
So now I have lost LOS and maybe lost RC range, so I have to get into my car and drive 30mph at least to try and follow it and find it..
If and when I find it. I now have to take it home and repair the resulting damage.
Moral... Just fly it normally and don't bother how much AMPS it is drawing if flying into wind.
Flypoppa is online now Find More Posts by Flypoppa
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale Cyber Sky Parachute (Sky Surfer) shv2sail Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 6 May 28, 2013 02:14 AM
Discussion Sky Surfer nickwayne11c Electric Plane Talk 15 Nov 18, 2011 02:36 PM
Discussion Banana Hobby Sky Surfer Problems cavy92 Electric Plane Talk 56 Nov 02, 2010 02:49 AM
Question Sky Surfer LiPo mod, help... Freight Dog Power Systems 0 Aug 17, 2006 01:45 PM
Swashplate Assembly with Center Ball; is this the swash with ball mod i want? tekforce Micro Helis 4 Feb 08, 2004 05:28 PM