HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Aug 06, 2011, 10:15 PM
<>< AKA W4BPS
USA, TN, Tullahoma
Joined Dec 2001
2,428 Posts
BINGO!!!! . Now thats what I'm talkin' about... Brian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe W View Post
Reto,

The version that most people think of when hearing "Icon" is the F3J Icon. With an updated fuselage and current manufacturing methodologies, my opinion is that it would still hold its own against any of the current F3J airplanes...
BrianSmith is offline Find More Posts by BrianSmith
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Aug 11, 2011, 02:12 AM
Registered User
Avaldes's Avatar
United States, CA, San Luis Obispo
Joined Aug 2006
1,543 Posts
BTW, the uni "spread tow" is the same material that Martin Weberschock uses on the Radical Pro. I can verify that this material builds a very high performance model.
Avaldes is offline Find More Posts by Avaldes
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2011, 03:06 AM
launch low, fly high
New Zealand, Hawke's Bay, Havelock North
Joined Dec 2004
1,817 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avaldes View Post
BTW, the uni "spread tow" is the same material that Martin Weberschock uses on the Radical Pro. I can verify that this material builds a very high performance model.
To be accurate, I'd say that it is more likely to be "similar" than "same"...
Joe W is offline Find More Posts by Joe W
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2011, 03:29 AM
Registered User
Avaldes's Avatar
United States, CA, San Luis Obispo
Joined Aug 2006
1,543 Posts
Good point. I cannot say that Vladimir and Martin are using the same fibers (probably not), rather they are using the same techniques...two plies of very light spread tow uni oriented on a bias. I am sure that the Maxa uses a lighter layup than the Radical.
Avaldes is offline Find More Posts by Avaldes
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2011, 07:59 AM
F3B and F3K
RetoF3X's Avatar
United States, TX, Dallas
Joined Mar 2009
1,587 Posts
Quote:
One constraint that I got from Don was that the wing planform be the same, so the only variable I had was via airfoils. The 'B version was a fun plane, but maybe a bit big for windy conditions due to the amount of ballast required. It was killer (for the time) in distance and in light conditions.
Hi Joe,

I know that you had designed two wings for the Icon.

For me, designing a competitive F3B plane is the highest engineering feat for toyplanes. I am not saying designing a J plane is easy, just a B- plane is even harder.

If I recall correctly, you designed 3 F3B planes that proved to be winners at WC level:

Eagle, Diamond and Icon.

And a lightweight Diamond and the Icon F3J also excelled in J.

So the expectations are high for the Maxa.

Reto


PS: There is interesting information contained in your post. In Europe we were surprised that you designed with the Icon such a big F3B plane. It was reported that using your (Fortran?) simulation program you concluded it had to be that big. As it looks now from your post, the size was more dictated by the modular use of the Icon fuselage and tails.
RetoF3X is offline Find More Posts by RetoF3X
RCG Plus Member
Old Aug 11, 2011, 09:24 AM
<>< AKA W4BPS
USA, TN, Tullahoma
Joined Dec 2001
2,428 Posts
And the ones you designed? Brian

[QUOTE=RetoF3X;19016952]Hi Joe,

IFor me, designing a competitive F3B plane is the highest engineering feat for toyplanes. I am not saying designing a J plane is easy, just a B- plane is even harder.
BrianSmith is offline Find More Posts by BrianSmith
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2011, 09:46 AM
F3B and F3K
RetoF3X's Avatar
United States, TX, Dallas
Joined Mar 2009
1,587 Posts
Quote:
And the ones you designed? Brian
They were all lemons that no one wanted except close friends.

I have a master in fluid dynamics though, thus I have a rough idea what complexity is involved in the aero design of our toys.
And I admire those guys who are savvy enough to design winner planes, like Joe.

Enough off topic. More Maxa pics and reports please.

Reto
RetoF3X is offline Find More Posts by RetoF3X
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by RetoF3X; Aug 11, 2011 at 09:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2011, 11:37 AM
Much to my CHAGRIN . . .
machild's Avatar
Bellflower, CA
Joined Mar 2005
462 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetoF3X View Post
Enough off topic. More Maxa . . . reports please.
Disclaimer: I'm not -- in any way, shape or form -- the competitive pilot that some of the guys posting on this thread are, so take my impressions with a few grains of salt.

A small bunch of us had the opportunity to fly the Maxa during a recent weekend flying session. LJ brought his new Maxa out to do some head-to-head comparison flying alongside Tom Watson's Icon 2. Both airframes seem purpose-designed for similar conditions. They're both what I call "big and puffy." When I flew Tom's I2 for the first time, my immediate reaction was that the ailerons felt really soft (little authority), so after he spent some time tinkering with his throws and CG; Tom's plane now flies really well (but for my taste it still feels big and puffy).

The Maxa is also BIG (as in span -- lot's of span), and typical of a JW design, it just looks right. The ST cloth Vladimir used is really cool looking (at a loss for adjectives at this point). According to LJ, the cloth is proprietary and made in-house on a Vladimir-designed loom (takes DIY to a whole new level). Fit and finish is typically Vladimir; anyone who has assembled a Supra knows what I'm talking about. The center panel is huge, thus huge flaps (so do not fall in love with them too early approaching the spot); and the wing's planform looks very familiar (more on that later).

Upon inspection of the wing's underside, I noticed that LJ's servos sit under clear, flat covers (no blisters). And Larry's arms didn't appear to have been radically shortened (so thicker section?).

The Maxa appears to be a fast tow (like the Supra) probably due to its very light weight (LJ's had an empty AUW of something in the low-60-oz. range -- HELP). So, let's all pretend were on Coffee Talk; here's your thesis: BIG and LIGHT are good, but there's such a thing as TOO BIG and TOO LIGHT. Discuss amongst yourselves . . .

After a few trim flights, LJ handed the box off, and we all took our turns flying the new Toy. The Maxa is dynamic . . . REALLY DYNAMIC. The conditions were cool, overcast and somewhat flat, but the Maxa reacted to every little air burble (that's a new term: AIR BURBLE), which to me was sort of annoying (increased the pilot workload a little). The Maxa definitely floats on really light air; and when centered up in good lift, it climbs really fast.

Unballasted in fast cruise, the cruise isn't so fast. The transition from in-section cruise to fast cruise was negligible. After we all had our turns flying the Maxa, LJ disappeared and returned a few minutes later to begin another session of hand-the-box-to-the-next-guy. Something was different. The annoying puffiness was gone. The transition from normal cruise to fast cruise was really noticeable (good legs). The Maxa seemed more solidly responsive. LJ had added 10 ozs. of ballast, and the Maxa felt like an entirely different plane. So, it gets back to my thesis . . .

I can see where design philosophies are going relative to competition at world-class levels. I sense a movement toward one airframe that can compete in nearly all conditions. Unballasted, the Maxa will definitely perform when you have to scratch for 10 minutes in the light air of an early-morning first round. Ballasted (say 10 ozs.), it offers great all-around performance in normal conditions. In stiff winds? Don't know. I think ST has its limits.

As for me, I have an ST Aspire on the way that I'll probably fly with a little ballast in all the time. If I need to scratch for 10 minutes riding early-morning air burbles, I'll take the ballast out; but flying these new toys at their unballasted weights all the time seems a little pointless (read the disclaimer). Oh! And The Maxa's wing planform looks like it might have borrowed a little from the Aspire's (which isn't a bad thing). I'm hoping the other guys who flew the Maxa will offer their opinions. Tuan? Tom?

MC
machild is offline Find More Posts by machild
Last edited by machild; Aug 11, 2011 at 05:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2011, 05:09 PM
RIP MC
fnnwizard's Avatar
United States, CA, Midway City
Joined Dec 2003
3,215 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by machild View Post
I'm hoping the other guys who flew the Maxa will offer their opinions. Tuan? Tom?

MC
You sure you want my opinion Mark?
Ok, here are my ramblings.

I did get to fly the TOY and I am not surprise at all how it thermals, which is excellent. Penetration is good even at it's extremely low weight. And handling at the low weight is also good. However, flight critique is quite personal and could become skewd base on settings, so I never really like to boast or put down a design without some extended time on the sticks and in varied conditions and varied control settings.

So with that out of the way, here is my initial view on the MAXA.

Where I like to look at is the #'s, as in design philosophy. Sorry, I'm a numbers guy . And the Maxa looks to shine here. The first thing to stand out is the rather small looking stab. It may look small but is plenty adequate. I've come to realize that for a given stability, the small stab help the rudder by allowing a longer tail moment from the cg to the vertical's 1/4chord. Also ends up needing s smaller V for the same control authority. And that help keep the weight at the extremes to a minimum keeping both pitch and yaw inertia lower keeping the need for the surfaces to be smaller, etc.

The second thing to stand out immediately to me is the big vertical, and in my opinion makes the thing look uglier, but coupled with Maxa's dihedral, is extremely powerful and well designed which is what should count to most of us, most of the time.

The wing plan form looks similar to current models but the flap and ail control surface are a larger percentage. The extremely light tips and tail are going to be hard to replicate with other models and no doubt what produces the excellent handling. But the question will be is it worth it to justify the $2600 price tag?

In absolute dead air this thing at 60oz might come close to 10 minutes with minimal control inputs.

I took the plane outside it's flight envelope at 60 oz with loops and rolls and found it ok control wise, but again this is outside it's intended range and dependent on setup.

I also got to fly it with the 10oz ballast which is almost 20% of the AUW, and it is a completely different plane. Of course, because with the ballast being centered around the cg, the plane should respond almost 10% quicker and with a 10% higher speed range.

Looking at the airfoil, it is thicker than the Supra, but thinner than the Aspire in the back 1/3. Which is why it still penetrates ok at such ridiculously low weight without ballast.

The next question then is in strong winds, with ballast, will the plane be strong and stiff enough to F3J launch competitively at this current weight?

All in all, it definitely will make Joe that much more unbeatable and if it was $2000, I'd be more incline to pick up one to toy with, but at $2600, my wife starts to raise her eyebrows as now it's a $3k toy with electronics. Of course to the top competition minded pilots, $3k may not seem like much for a top shelf, high-tech sailplane, but to her, that's a lot of shoes and she buys from Nordstrom Rack !
fnnwizard is offline Find More Posts by fnnwizard
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2011, 06:06 PM
Registered User
Avaldes's Avatar
United States, CA, San Luis Obispo
Joined Aug 2006
1,543 Posts
For some reason this plane speaks to me. I really like the looks of it. I am immediately drawn to the engineering details which make me happy
Avaldes is offline Find More Posts by Avaldes
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2011, 11:03 AM
<>< AKA W4BPS
USA, TN, Tullahoma
Joined Dec 2001
2,428 Posts
Maxa

If what I'm seeing and hearing they will be worth it and one should do when we learn to properly ballast. My 2 Cents about all that.. Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All in all, it definitely will make Joe that much more unbeatable and if it was $2000, I'd be more incline to pick up one to toy with, but at $2600, my wife starts to raise her eyebrows as now it's a $3k toy with electronics. Of course to the top competition minded pilots, $3k may not seem like much for a top shelf, high-tech sailplane, but to her, that's a lot of shoes and she buys from Nordstrom Rack ![/QUOTE]
BrianSmith is offline Find More Posts by BrianSmith
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2011, 11:29 AM
Win=span\massXpractice+lu ck
webbsolution's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
2,971 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSmith View Post
If what I'm seeing and hearing they will be worth it and one should do when we learn to properly ballast. My 2 Cents about all that.. Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All in all, it definitely will make Joe that much more unbeatable and if it was $2000, I'd be more incline to pick up one to toy with, but at $2600, my wife starts to raise her eyebrows as now it's a $3k toy with electronics. Of course to the top competition minded pilots, $3k may not seem like much for a top shelf, high-tech sailplane, but to her, that's a lot of shoes and she buys from Nordstrom Rack !
[/QUOTE]

See guys its not just me. At $2600 per untit you can afford less planes, maybe no spares if you intend to buy 3 for a contest season...$7800...

I think I see a new pilot load which is going to be hard to measure but certainly well understood.... I for one will probably think twice about trying to grab that low level way down wind and low if I know I probably can't afford to just replace the plane. I am not sure how well I will be flying with my sphincter in a spasm every time I am close to another plane on launch, down really low near wing crushing structures and in general in hard scenarios...I can't be alone here. Yes I know the answer is "well dont do that" but ___ happens and we all know it.

At 16-1700 per model my current choices are not exactly pain free but an extra $1000 in that replacement scenario is without question a barrier to most budgets in North America.

Can't wait to try it out but I would be very suprised if I have a a bunch of these models in my box regarless of the performance.
webbsolution is offline Find More Posts by webbsolution
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2011, 11:37 AM
Much to my CHAGRIN . . .
machild's Avatar
Bellflower, CA
Joined Mar 2005
462 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbsolution View Post
Can't wait to try it out but I would be very suprised if I have a a bunch of these models in my box regarless of the performance.
+1 . . . Well-said. My Aspire suites me just fine.
machild is offline Find More Posts by machild
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2011, 01:14 PM
Daryl Perkins's Avatar
United States, VA, Falls Church
Joined Mar 2007
1,362 Posts
Well, yes, the price tag may seem extreme. What you guys don't realize is the amount of money and risk that goes into developing a model. It's gotten almost impossible to prototype a model these days, so you just jump into tooling. That's a huge endeavor and risk for a model that may or may not sell.

Now I haven't flown this model. But Joe knows his s#!t, and I'd be surprised if it's not very VERY good. I doubt the air performance is strides above the competition, although I'm sure it's an improvement, but time will tell just how much of an improvement. What IS strides above is the AUW Vladimir is hitting on both this model, and his ST Supras. Is it that important? Honestly? For a competitive F3J pilot, yes it is. But not for flight performance, for time on tow. Lighter models go up the line quicker, there's just no arguing that. So with regards to weight (and time on tow), the bar has now been raised. These models are about 10-15% lighter than what the rest of us are flying. I'm guessing on a full tow, that's probably good for about a second to a second and a quarter. And on a quick tow (3/4 of a second to 1 second), it's probably good for about 75 to 100 ft. THANKS Vladimir!!!

The rest of us, in order to remain competitive, will have no choice but to follow suit.

D
Daryl Perkins is offline Find More Posts by Daryl Perkins
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2011, 02:33 PM
<>< AKA W4BPS
USA, TN, Tullahoma
Joined Dec 2001
2,428 Posts
A few $ facts

My last PP ET was pro built with the best radio equipment. Shipping back and forth and all told $2950.
My last ST X was pro built with the best equipment. Like wise $2890. I assembled my last Supra pro lite myself.. I think I can do the same with a MAXA. I don't see how the few $ difference is going to make me want to go up against the best with me flying 2nd best. And Webby, when I step up to the winch in a hotly contested event, the "LAST" thing I worry about is what/how much I have invested in this model. ... Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See guys its not just me. At $2600 per untit you can afford less planes, maybe no spares if you intend to buy 3 for a contest season...$7800...

I think I see a new pilot load which is going to be hard to measure but certainly well understood.... I for one will probably think twice about trying to grab that low level way down wind and low if I know I probably can't afford to just replace the plane. I am not sure how well I will be flying with my sphincter in a spasm every time I am close to another plane on launch, down really low near wing crushing structures and in general in hard scenarios...I can't be alone here. Yes I know the answer is "well dont do that" but ___ happens and we all know it.

At 16-1700 per model my current choices are not exactly pain free but an extra $1000 in that replacement scenario is without question a barrier to most budgets in North America.

Can't wait to try it out but I would be very suprised if I have a a bunch of these models in my box regarless of the performance.[/QUOTE]
BrianSmith is offline Find More Posts by BrianSmith
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion source for hold down nut on a supra stab? charlie tasto Thermal 9 Sep 01, 2011 09:09 PM
Sold Ready to Bag Supra Wing cores includes all parts & fuse Jose E Bruzual Aircraft - Sailplanes (FS/W) 12 Jun 15, 2011 12:49 PM
For Sale Supra New Custom Dave Hauch Built Re-List icharus Aircraft - Sailplanes (FS/W) 0 Apr 21, 2011 04:33 PM
Discussion carbon push rods in teflon tubing for Supra Upvector Composites Fabrication 7 Mar 04, 2011 05:49 PM