SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Nov 17, 2004, 09:41 PM
DON'T KILL THE MESSENGER!
NCQ3's Avatar
Washington DC
Joined Sep 2004
523 Posts
AP Slow Stick Bi Plane? Anybody?

Im curius to know has anyone modified a slow stick to a bi plane and used it for AP with a nikon 3700 type or Optio s4i type size camera? I've seen Boomerace and others make some crazy bi plane but they never mentioned doing AP on it. Is it practical? Would it be a better workhorse for longer slower flights high up? More air time?? If anyone knows or plan on doing a bi plane AP project let us know, Im intrested in making one also.
NCQ3 is offline Find More Posts by NCQ3
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Nov 17, 2004, 11:09 PM
Look! Up in the sky!
eBird's Avatar
Grand Junction, Colorado
Joined Jul 2002
4,636 Posts
Well, I went the SS Bipe route and it was a great flyer. It would definitely tote a heavy camera no problemo. It would not do as well on a windy day, however, with all that wing hanging out there...


The bipe:
eBird is offline Find More Posts by eBird
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2004, 11:15 PM
Been There! Done That!
boomerace's Avatar
Eugene, Oregon, United States
Joined Sep 2001
19,187 Posts
Yep it wouldn't take much wind!
boomer
www.boomerseflight.com
boomerace is offline Find More Posts by boomerace
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2004, 11:46 PM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,854 Posts
Boomer already did it again.
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2004, 11:56 PM
Been There! Done That!
boomerace's Avatar
Eugene, Oregon, United States
Joined Sep 2001
19,187 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickegan
Boomer already did it again.
Flight Video on my website.
boomer
www.boomerseflight.com
boomerace is offline Find More Posts by boomerace
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2004, 12:42 AM
Registered User
lvspark's Avatar
Walla Walla
Joined May 2002
2,639 Posts
Those are great! Should be in the GWS hall of fame!
lvspark is offline Find More Posts by lvspark
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2004, 01:26 AM
Look! Up in the sky!
eBird's Avatar
Grand Junction, Colorado
Joined Jul 2002
4,636 Posts
Video of my SS Biplane tooling around:

http://rcgroups.com/gallery/showphot...cat=500&page=1

I may yet put a camera on this thing and do some AP...
eBird is offline Find More Posts by eBird
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2004, 01:58 AM
Registered User
Tenino WA.
Joined May 2004
1,195 Posts
Hey Boomer and Steve....

Can you guys give some details on your Bipes ???

I'd like to try one, but at a complete lose as to the set up's..

You know all the details on the wings, spacing, off set, and all that good stuff..

Thanks Jack
CRASHED AGAIN is offline Find More Posts by CRASHED AGAIN
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2004, 03:50 AM
Always "Out to Lunch"
stupot's Avatar
Northamptonshire, Great Britain (UK)
Joined Jun 2004
21 Posts
We've just finished (my father and I) a bipe similar to steve's and was wondering what power system would be best. I have flown it once with a typhoon micro 15 brushless and 1050mah KAN pack and a 12 x 8 APCE prop but there seemed to be a clear lack of power.

I am also carrying camera, video transmitter etc and the AUW is about 44ozs.

I am not sure that the prop is correct either (was good when it was a monoplane) so any help would be much appreciated.

Many thanks
stupot is offline Find More Posts by stupot
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2004, 11:48 AM
Been There! Done That!
boomerace's Avatar
Eugene, Oregon, United States
Joined Sep 2001
19,187 Posts
On mine the wings were 9 inches apart at the front and 9-3/8 inches apart at the back with the lower wing set in its usual position on the fuse. Also the top wing was about 4" in front of the lower wing. To get the balance point I used an average between the 2 wings and set it at 6-1/8 inches back of the LE of the top wing and it flew great.
I also tried it with one brushless in the usual position and it wouldn't fly as the top wing drag compared to the position of the motor made it impossible to get enough down thrust to overcome the upper wing tendency to throw the plane into vertical every time I tried to apply power. The motor for a single would have to be installed somewhere close the the center point between the 2 wings to overcome this.
boomer
www.boomerseflight.com
boomerace is offline Find More Posts by boomerace
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2004, 03:43 PM
Registered User
Tenino WA.
Joined May 2004
1,195 Posts
Thanks Boomer....
CRASHED AGAIN is offline Find More Posts by CRASHED AGAIN
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2004, 03:50 PM
Always "Out to Lunch"
stupot's Avatar
Northamptonshire, Great Britain (UK)
Joined Jun 2004
21 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomerace
On mine the wings were 9 inches apart at the front and 9-3/8 inches apart at the back with the lower wing set in its usual position on the fuse.
I had read somewhere that biplanes required at least the cord size between the wings (12" cord approx) so we set the wings 12" apart with a 2-3" stagger. This was to supposedly reduce aerodynamic interference between the wings. However, both wings are set parallel rather than setting a different incidence on the top wing so whether this is a problem I'm not sure.

As with steve's bipe, we have made the fuselage doubled so that the bottom wing is lower in relation to the tail and motor. This still however does not place the motor in the centre of both wings. I take it that's why you mounted 2 motors top and bottom to counteract each other and provide more power (obviously

After the first flight, it was quite windy and it struggled to get to any height which seemed a power issue as the drag is considerably more. After looking at motocalc it seems that a different prop would be better but I can't see how it would make that much difference.
stupot is offline Find More Posts by stupot
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2004, 04:16 PM
Been There! Done That!
boomerace's Avatar
Eugene, Oregon, United States
Joined Sep 2001
19,187 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by stupot
I had read somewhere that biplanes required at least the cord size between the wings (12" cord approx) so we set the wings 12" apart with a 2-3" stagger. This was to supposedly reduce aerodynamic interference between the wings. However, both wings are set parallel rather than setting a different incidence on the top wing so whether this is a problem I'm not sure.

As with steve's bipe, we have made the fuselage doubled so that the bottom wing is lower in relation to the tail and motor. This still however does not place the motor in the centre of both wings. I take it that's why you mounted 2 motors top and bottom to counteract each other and provide more power (obviously

After the first flight, it was quite windy and it struggled to get to any height which seemed a power issue as the drag is considerably more. After looking at motocalc it seems that a different prop would be better but I can't see how it would make that much difference.
Because the plane flys so slow and the wings are so thin the 9" between the wings worked fine. I originally was using 12" and it looked like a stork on steroids and was very unstable on the wheels. It's bad enough at 9" If you have downloaded the video from my website you can see how well it flew. I tried a triplane as well and it never did fly right so I gave up on it Cross wind ROGs were real bad as you can seein the video when a gust hit while ROGing.
boomer
www.boomerseflight.com
boomerace is offline Find More Posts by boomerace
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2004, 03:28 AM
Always "Out to Lunch"
stupot's Avatar
Northamptonshire, Great Britain (UK)
Joined Jun 2004
21 Posts
thanks boomer

I guess I just need to play a great deal more with the model until it flies right.

I'l post some pics when I've taken some...
stupot is offline Find More Posts by stupot
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion 2nd Ver AP Slow Stick type plane & Video TaSaJaRa Aerial Photography 13 Jul 30, 2008 02:07 AM
twin motor ap slow stick... a brushed plane with 35.5oz of thrust. building soon jswjimmy Aerial Photography 10 Dec 31, 2004 09:16 PM
AP Slow Stick is dead Flybyguy Aerial Photography 11 Aug 17, 2003 01:33 PM
Canard Slow Stick Camera Plane RMason Aerial Photography 4 Oct 10, 2002 01:08 AM
Slow Stick camera plane RMason Parkflyers 2 Aug 31, 2002 06:45 PM