Starting a couple weeks back, I finally returned (with Phil) to the one-piece fuselage project. This is a one-piece version of the pod and boom fuselages Phil and I have been flying on our Edge planes for the past few years. Many of you have seen those fuselages in person at contests so you have a general idea of the shape and size. We've rather liked them. One difference though is the new fuse uses a hatch instead of a nosecone. It is simpler for now.

Here is the thread where the main molds were made: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1271170 I do not have a thread or pictures showing the layup of the hatch mold. Compared to the rest of the work, that's pretty basic anyway.

Time flies... I had forgotten it was so long ago that I started those molds!

Tonight we'll be laying up prototype #7 - at least that's what I think we are up to. We've been altering methods, layups, and tooling, working to get to the point where I can produce some of these.

The fuselages have threaded (6-32) hardpoints installed and ready to go. These threaded hardpoints are molded in so alignment should be exactly the same for each fuselage, on centerline. The wing saddle is not an exact fit for any particular wing but with small adjustments of the tab angle at the trailing edge and a little bit of fitting, it should work well for most wings of close to conventional aspect ratio (10.5:1). The rear bolt hardpoint is too far back for a high aspect ratio wing IMO, because that would put the bolt on the tab of the wing which just isn't a strong place. There is no horizontal tail mount. I know that some, such as myself, want to use full-flying. Others would want bolt-on. Different builders may want different tailboom lengths and mount locations/angles... By not putting a mount on, I'm leaving maximum flexability.

For those of you who have seen me fly, you know I'm not particularly easy on my planes. I don't like planes which are delicate, that need to be repaired all the time to keep them in the air. I've been extremely busy and making repairs isn't how I want to be spending my time. So I wanted a fuselage that is durable for real-world abuse. Perhaps even a little beyond that. Our two piece Edge fuselages have met that requirement and I wanted the same for this one-piece version.

The current layup uses a mix of different weights, types, and weaves of carbon, Kevlar, and glass fabrics, along with the usual carbon tow, threaded hardpoints, etc. The fabric list looks like a shopping list of "now what can I play with?" I think we are at 21 pieces of fabric... It takes a little bit to cut and lay one up. But that looks like the price for being durable without being heavy. The epoxy is MGS.

My original target weight was <= 45g and that is essentially where we sit with the recent versions. I have subjected these to squeezing and bending loads that would have crumpled or shattered any one-piece DLG fuselage I've flown or had my hands on. These are not wimpy.

We'll be making at least a few more prototypes before offering any for sale, but I do plan to make them available. I've invested too much into this project not to do that!

Oh - these are 2.4 friendly. Sized for 2x JR285 servos in the fuse plus a usual receiver and various battery combinations. There is room in the fuselage for everything but not a lot of extra room. I didn't want a big bulbous draggy fuselage. My planes generally are capable of flying pretty fast and drag hurts more when flying fast.

So my question - what do all of you think of the weight? Do you want a relatively bulletproof (for DLG at least) fuselage in this weight range, or do you want closer to the usual fuselage durability for current production planes? That is, less fabric, less weight, and don't squeeze, with some requiring a servo tray to keep the nose from breaking off (which should really be counted in the fuselage weight)?

Thoughts/desires appreciated! No, one can't have it all. I can only work with fabrics that actually exist that I can get.

Gerald

<=45g is approx. 1.15g heavier than my long skinny thing. I can live with that. Sign me up when they are available.

Gerald, the abuse your planes get during a typical contest, if they withstand you, they'll survive the Nuclear Apocalypse as well

Lets see some pictures!!

Gerald, my preference is whatever will work and not need extra weight to make it balance for the wings, tails pushrods, etc. that you expect the pilot to use in the assembly.

If you make it 34grs and I need to add weight to balance it, what was the point of making it so light? That weight might as well gone into structural integrity.

if on the other hand I need to add weight to the tail, since the typical empennage weight about 12-16 gr and your nose is light, then why not add weight.

you have a desired set of electrical components, make it suitable for the weights you expect the parts to weigh and let the buyer sort out the rest.

personally, I like a lightweight set. Too easy to overbuild wings and such that it is always nice to lose a few grams when possible.


Strong enough not to weigh too much Clear as mud!


Frank

We'll love them no matter how you make them!!

Well, I won't say that I love them yet, but we're working on them.

We were playing a bit of something like tiddlywinks with the hatches this evening. Smacking them on an end to pop them into the air over the bench... No marks.

I found a spot on the mold tonight that needs to be fixed before we can lay up another fuselage. The tooling coat broke through into a bubble under pressure from the bladder. So the mold is out of commission for the next few days as I make the repair. Phil can keep laying up hatches though if he wants.

We're still working through a couple of cosmetic issues and playing with layup. I also need to find a source for the threaded inserts we've been using. We have enough left for two more fuselages. After that I need to have more, or else the work increases as I have to grind down each insert to get rid of needless weight. I haven't found a retail supplier yet for what we're using.

Once we have everything worked out, then I'll move things to my shop and start a little production work. I still need to build a hot box. So likely we are still a few weeks out before these start to become available. I'll also have to get more fabric before many can be made. I just want to be sure of what to get before ordering, as much of it is pricy.

Gerald

These are the first two rejects. They are better now. Actually everything since this point is perfectly flyable. It is just the cosmetics which aren't 100% yet.

Gerald

Beautifull fuselage !

When I clicked on the pictures, I was surprised how it look close to mine !
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...388980&page=10
(post 146 and 149).

Olivier

Originally Posted by G_T

These are the first two rejects. They are better now. Actually everything since this point is perfectly flyable. It is just the cosmetics which aren't 100% yet.

Gerald

Is it a coincidence that I see a strong similarity with the fuselage of the Highlight ?

Originally Posted by leroyo

Beautifull fuselage !

When I clicked on the pictures, I was surprised how it look close to mine !
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...388980&page=10
(post 146 and 149).

Olivier

Since Gerald started his one piece mold mid 2010 from an existing fuse, I think the reverse could be said.

Originally Posted by Dreifach

Is it a coincidence that I see a strong similarity with the fuselage of the Highlight ?

Since the task is set, is it really a coincidence that many fuses look the same? I see about three or four families of one piece designs. The differences after that are small flavor preference.

Gerald, they look good and are strong. I would love to see the weight in the 40-42 range with the option of adding a tail mount and all carbon nose. Tail mount should be included in my weight spec. (mounted)

Perhaps I am dreaming.

Looking good.

Gerald,

As I said before, your fuselage and mine are similar in shape and, I guess, in dimensions.
Also, we don't have any pylon for elevator, and we have enough room for electronics, ballast,...

Mine usually weight between 42 and 45 gramms, using 4 bar for pressure with a Qualatex 350 Balloon.
I don't know about your layup but sure, testing different layup can make a difference on the final weight and stiffness.
I use Unicarbon 100gr and Textreme Carbon 80Gr (80/100/80), it works fine and I'm satisfied with this layup.

For the next fuselage I will make, I will try to make it below 40gr, but it will be hard.

Olivier

Originally Posted by G_T

So my question - what do all of you think of the weight? Do you want a relatively bulletproof (for DLG at least) fuselage in this weight range, or do you want closer to the usual fuselage durability for current production planes? That is, less fabric, less weight, and don't squeeze, with some requiring a servo tray to keep the nose from breaking off (which should really be counted in the fuselage weight)?

Thoughts/desires appreciated! No, one can't have it all. I can only work with fabrics that actually exist that I can get.

Gerald

Gerald,

The fuse looks nice.

Gary

Gerald,
did you leave off a mount off the elevator since it could be desired to have a flying tail and use a V-mount?

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Fly2High

Gerlad,
did you leave off a mount off the elevator since it could be desired to have a flying tail and use a V-mount?

. There is no horizontal tail mount. I know that some, such as myself, want to use full-flying. Others would want bolt-on. Different builders may want different tailboom lengths and mount locations/angles... By not putting a mount on, I'm leaving maximum flexability.

From the first post. Are you running a round timer?

Originally Posted by Dreifach

Is it a coincidence that I see a strong similarity with the fuselage of the Highlight ?

Funny. Personally, nearly all the fusleages look close enough to be clones of eachother. As I designer, I see most designs are just very minor alterations of existing designs. There are a few that one might consider really unique and original, so I am not ruling out those. Since designs have gotten down to the minor differences, sometimes just building deviations bring them even closer to another. IMHO we are not on the radical new design curve. And if the one here was started nearly 2 years ago, then it is old school already. Maybe even out of date? LOL No problem, just good designs are duplicated.

Looking good, will you be offering a stab mount to match, standard or full flying?
Have you tested tail load bending of the tail and what were the results? Is the boom oval? Do you have any more pictures and what's the price?

Paul