HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Feb 27, 2012, 09:57 AM
Doing Projects Differently
AzTrekie's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
216 Posts
Build Log
Update 3-12-12 on design for the Starship USS Enterprise-A

I am building what I thought was a 3D foamie but was told by a friend (Sgtalon) it is a Full Fuse type.
Started a mack-up with cardboard to test out the design ( see my blog for more info AzTrekie)
I personally seem to do things different then others but since I am new to this R/C hobby being disabled but able to do things slower then most.
I have found that with this design where the COG most likely should be,the way to turn this type of craft even though it is way to heavy in cardboard.
has anyone else used this method of testing out a design ?


Thank you all for any and all help and advise
Dave

PS putting more up on my blog about the flight test very soon
AzTrekie is offline Find More Posts by AzTrekie
Last edited by AzTrekie; Mar 12, 2012 at 03:29 PM. Reason: more pictures and videos
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 27, 2012, 10:02 AM
RC Adddict
Wilfor's Avatar
Canada, BC, Williams Lake
Joined Jan 2010
4,271 Posts
Whats SG think about getting a FullFuse version of that to balance properly ? He'd be the man to ask , i would think it may be difficult getting everything far enough forward ?
Wilfor is offline Find More Posts by Wilfor
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 02:07 PM
SG Talon... Super Genius.
Lenox, Michigan
Joined Nov 2005
3,148 Posts
Hey Dave!

I think you might be able to get it to work out but i am worried about how small the plane is. When you build small there is very little room for error the design because of weight issues. I think your Skeleton Design might actually fly better than a full fuse version.

I designed an Enterprise-A last year and never finished it. I am not positive that i can get it to fly well but I "think" i can get it to happen. My biggest concern is making sure the back end of the ship stays flying. There is not a lot of wing area there so it could act like an anchor and drag it down by the stern. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1273822

I learned a long time ago that building small just makes it harder. Bigger means more wing area. More wing area means it floats on the air better. When it comes to non-standard plane designs lighter always helps.

I think it would help to copy your posts over here. Not many people actually look at blog posts. They only are looked at when someone is your friend usually. And if you change the name to Testing out the design of my Enterprise-A you will get a lot more people looking too! I almost missed it!

Good Luck Dave!
SGTalon is offline Find More Posts by SGTalon
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 05:27 PM
Doing Projects Differently
AzTrekie's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
216 Posts
Talon:
I will do as you suggest to changing the name to get more attention and to put posts over here ( I just may re post all my older blog entries over here in fact) I have mostly solved some problems even how to get it to turn fly with a light toss about 20 ft with my design taking some aspects from the Tyco model, your Eterprise As and MicroBuilder's.
With my design the skeleton floats nicely and the version with open nacelles but when the wind catches it it almost flips it. (I guess i should test it under 7 mph winds)
The design of the saucer section has a low dihedral and been playing with the idea of slight downward flaps on the back end of the saucer section to give it more lift.
The COG when it was very floaty is right before the back end of the saucer section as it seems was the best for the cardboard mock-up.

Question should I be experimenting with a cardboard mack-up before to hone my design or using the exact material I will be using?
NOTE: ( mack-up is just a bare bones skeleton before installing the motors and electronics)

P.S.
I could use anyone's help or ad vise on this matter
AzTrekie is offline Find More Posts by AzTrekie
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 05:54 PM
treefinder
springer's Avatar
SE MI
Joined Oct 2004
9,755 Posts
AZT: you had me going there for a while, until I got to your blog (SGT is right, we don't tend to look at blogs unless directed to). It wasn't apparent that you were making a full fuselage Enterprise rather than a profile version like Dennis does. He's certainly the expert on all the space planes, making all sorts of things thought unflyable actually fly well!

Unfortunately, while you are essentially correct in your 2d vs 3d comments, the jargon around here is Profile and full fuse respectively. Also, a 3D plane is typically a very lightweight profile plane using very large control surfaces with large throws that can be flown in all sorts of unnatural ways, like hovering on the prop, high alpha, rolls and loops within the plane length, etc. Not mentioning it as a full fuselage Enterprise, won't alert the other space plane aficionados to even look at the thread.
springer is offline Find More Posts by springer
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 28, 2012, 02:00 AM
Registered User
slebetman's Avatar
Malaysia, Selangor, Kajang
Joined Jun 2009
1,407 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzTrekie View Post
Question should I be experimenting with a cardboard mack-up before to hone my design or using the exact material I will be using?
NOTE: ( mack-up is just a bare bones skeleton before installing the motors and electronics)
A cardboard mock-up is a perfectly fine way of designing things. It's what I do when I can't figure out a design in my head or on paper or in CAD on the computer screen. Sometimes you just need to see the thing exist in the real world to understand how to put things together.

That being said, for CG test I usually make a smaller version of what I intend to build out of foam (sometimes paper and tape) then put some paper clips in the nose and throw. Finding the CG involves adjusting the nose weight and elevator deflection until she flies like a paper airplane. Once she flies right I just measure where the CG is and scale up the position on the real model.

Sometimes you can figure out other stability issues with the smaller model. Tweak the rudder and ailerons/elevons and make the plane turn to check out spiral stability. Throw the plane by pushing on the inside of one wing to see if it develops dutch roll. If it does then you need a bigger vertical stabilizer (or sometimes less dihedral). Hold the plane by the tail with the nose pointing down and drop it from a height. How far does it take to recover from the dive and level out tells you roughly how much pitch stability you have (It shouldn't recover too early or it will behave as if it was tail heavy but it also shouldn't hit the floor at the bottom).
slebetman is offline Find More Posts by slebetman
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2012, 08:47 AM
SG Talon... Super Genius.
Lenox, Michigan
Joined Nov 2005
3,148 Posts
One problem with using cardboard as your design medium is the density. It is so different from the final product that it is hard to be sure you are getting the same results.

I was thinking about what you said with it working in your living room but not outside. It could be that the small size of your prototype is working against you. It could be that the mass of the cardboard prevents the air from actually effecting the wing surfaces. Basically it is just falling through the air and not actually flying. You can toss a brick in a way that it stays level during the flight, but it doesn't mean it is flying. Know what i mean?


The fact that the plane flipped up when you tossed it in wind leads me to believe that i am on the right track here.

If you are looking for a cheap and easy way to test it out though you could always use foam plates, meat packing trays, or go to the dollar store and pick up a foam poster board for $1. This would give you a better example of how this thing will actually fly.

I definitely like that you are doing so much experimenting. Good luck!
SGTalon is offline Find More Posts by SGTalon
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2012, 03:38 PM
Doing Projects Differently
AzTrekie's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
216 Posts
Up date on the Enterprise

I found out I was wrong about what material I will using. On one of my first threads I asked the question on what dollar tree foam was, was lead to believe that it was depron but I have found out differently, Redi-Foam is is lighter and softer. (per Experimentalair)
The type of foam is exactly what I am using for the finished product, not sure that I can make a smaller size craft as the weight distribution would be different also as the thickness of the foam would not be relative.

I will probably l do the bare craft as Talon did with his first Enterprise-D before the graphics and skin.

What does everyone think?
AzTrekie is offline Find More Posts by AzTrekie
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2012, 04:29 PM
Doing Projects Differently
AzTrekie's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
216 Posts
profecting the Enterprise-A design

Quote:
Originally Posted by SGTalon View Post
One problem with using cardboard as your design medium is the density. It is so different from the final product that it is hard to be sure you are getting the same results.

I was thinking about what you said with it working in your living room but not outside. It could be that the small size of your prototype is working against you. It could be that the mass of the cardboard prevents the air from actually effecting the wing surfaces. Basically it is just falling through the air and not actually flying. You can toss a brick in a way that it stays level during the flight, but it doesn't mean it is flying. Know what i mean?


The fact that the plane flipped up when you tossed it in wind leads me to believe that i am on the right track here.



If you are looking for a cheap and easy way to test it out though you could always use foam plates, meat packing trays, or go to the dollar store and pick up a foam poster board for $1. This would give you a better example of how this thing will actually fly.

I definitely like that you are doing so much experimenting. Good luck!
Talon
I understand what you are saying however with that in mind with adjusting the the weight in the front thus changing the COG from one flight to another, not only made the fight more lengthy but also landed differently (using the cardboard model of my design which incorporates a dihedral on the saucer section and stabilizer type flaps on the nacelle pylons)

thoughts on this should I still work with protecting my design with cardboard?
AzTrekie is offline Find More Posts by AzTrekie
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 07:02 PM
SG Talon... Super Genius.
Lenox, Michigan
Joined Nov 2005
3,148 Posts
When it comes to foam planes. I think that lower weight is one of the most important things. With that in mind, i would do it out of foam. Any kind will work. But i think you will have more luck doing it in something lighter than cardboard.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with. It could save me a lot of development time with my Enterprise.
SGTalon is offline Find More Posts by SGTalon
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 01, 2012, 08:50 PM
Doing Projects Differently
AzTrekie's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
216 Posts
update on the USS Enterprise

Quote:
Originally Posted by SGTalon View Post
When it comes to foam planes. I think that lower weight is one of the most important things. With that in mind, i would do it out of foam. Any kind will work. But i think you will have more luck doing it in something lighter than cardboard.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with. It could save me a lot of development time with my Enterprise.
I am working on making my design smaller out of foam plates and paper plates to see if the design with different mediums make a difference and will show a short video of my experiments soon.
Talon I will try the experiments with only the skeleton then with the full version only being of foam plates (just might help you in your Enterprise-A like you stated)
What do you think of my way of thinking from a design standpoint?

Any and all comments on my endeavors appreciated from all

Dave
AzTrekie is offline Find More Posts by AzTrekie
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2012, 11:42 AM
Doing Projects Differently
AzTrekie's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
216 Posts
Update on my StarShip USS Enterprise-A

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzTrekie View Post
I am working on making my design smaller out of foam plates and paper plates to see if the design with different mediums make a difference and will show a short video of my experiments soon.
Talon I will try the experiments with only the skeleton then with the full version only being of foam plates (just might help you in your Enterprise-A like you stated)
What do you think of my way of thinking from a design standpoint?

Any and all comments on my endeavors appreciated from all

Dave
sorry for the post over here new to using the forum
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1608675

Re posted over here and will be from now on

To test out my design of the USS Enterprise-A
Talking to my friend SGTalon stated it would be better to test out my design by making it smaller and out of something light like out of foam.
I have started to make two exact smaller models of the design,one out of paper plates and the other out of the exact material I will be using on the full scale Enterprise. (RediBoard)
My design incorporates a dihedral (incidentally the same angle as the Blu-Baby uses for the wing) with a slight downward slope on the rear of the saucer section with trim flaps on the nacelle pylons.

What does everyone think of the Enterprise-As design and comments all will be helpful
AzTrekie is offline Find More Posts by AzTrekie
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2012, 11:55 AM
SG Talon... Super Genius.
Lenox, Michigan
Joined Nov 2005
3,148 Posts
I have found that putting the battery and electronics on the bottom of the plane does more for stability than Dihedral. You might not need the extra complication that dihedral adds.

Glue all that stuff together and do some test gliding. That will really tell you how it is working out.

Keep in mind that the CG for a plane like this is probably on the front half of the saucer.
SGTalon is offline Find More Posts by SGTalon
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2012, 02:14 PM
Doing Projects Differently
AzTrekie's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
216 Posts
on the Dihedral and COG

Talon I understand what you are saying however the dihedral angle I am using is the same one use on the tyco Enterprise as well is the downward slope at the back of the saucer section, it also is the same exact one I used on my cardboard mock-up. The actual battery on that ship is at the top front of the saucer section.
I will be doing tests on the design with paper clips for weight as was suggested by slebetman to find out the COG and elevator deflection to be used on the ship.

But I will be doing more testing and hopefully a short video on the cardboard model which I have now just need to cut and past flight to flight then download it.

The to do one showing the tyco design compared to mine. (ASAP)

as always any and all comments and suggestions is very helpful and appreciated

Dave
AzTrekie is offline Find More Posts by AzTrekie
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2012, 04:44 PM
Registered User
klausi0's Avatar
Germany
Joined Dec 2009
88 Posts
Hi Dave,

possibly you will need "transparent aluminum" between the nacelles to move the CG back. Then it is much easier to place all necessary components.

Klaus
klausi0 is offline Find More Posts by klausi0
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion GWS 30XXBL out runner brushless motor with APC and GWS prop testing GWS4CEO GWS (Grand Wing Servo) 2 Jan 18, 2012 09:44 AM
Discussion Custom Aircraft Design and Testing shwan Modeling Science 10 Jan 15, 2012 05:51 PM
Discussion Has anyone built a WW Scrappy design out of Derpon? zagimon Flying Wings 1 Aug 05, 2011 07:02 PM