HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Dec 20, 2006, 05:56 PM
Just one more flight...
RCSuperPowers's Avatar
Pasadena Cal-i-Forn-I-AY!
Joined Sep 2005
1,333 Posts
Video
RCSuperPowers F-22 with Vectoring Thrust

EDIT 1/16/07: Here is a VIDEO of M-4: http://www.rcsuperpowers.com/videos/F-22_Trailer.wmv
More info comming soon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is only M-2. Probably will go to M-3 or 4 before the project is done.

So far the simple thrust vectoring system works great, and the total "close to scale" plane is only 8-10 pieces of foam that notch together, not counting the 6 pieces for the elevators, rudders, and ailerons.

26x36"
17-18 oz
HACKER A20-20L
3 cell 1300 mah
9x6
(4) HS-56 Servos

Dave
RCSuperPowers is offline Find More Posts by RCSuperPowers
Last edited by RCSuperPowers; Jan 16, 2007 at 02:44 AM. Reason: more info
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Dec 21, 2006, 08:03 AM
AKA Don
bz1mcr's Avatar
United States, MI, Houghton Lake
Joined Dec 2002
7,608 Posts
Truly awesome! Dave you have created another great new concept in model aircraft. Congratulations!

I assume this plane has maintained a high roll rate. How about some video with rolls and maybe some outside loops? Or are you still working on those aspects.

Again, congratulations on a great new concept and plane!
Don
bz1mcr is offline Find More Posts by bz1mcr
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2006, 12:55 PM
Just one more flight...
RCSuperPowers's Avatar
Pasadena Cal-i-Forn-I-AY!
Joined Sep 2005
1,333 Posts
Hey thanks Don!

Oh yeah, it rolls fast and does quick outside loops and flips!

I have to do most of the daring tricks at altitude cause it can move so much. When I take it way up and give it full elevator and full power, it will flip itself around 4-5 times! Then it starts to fall, gains airspeed, and pulls itself out of it.

I will have better shots when I get my REAL video camera back from the shop in a week or so. For now, we had to shoot low quality shots at low altitude so it could be seen.

Dave
RCSuperPowers is offline Find More Posts by RCSuperPowers
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2006, 07:13 PM
Just one more flight...
RCSuperPowers's Avatar
Pasadena Cal-i-Forn-I-AY!
Joined Sep 2005
1,333 Posts
I guess I'll post some updates here as it comes along...

Now is the point in the development stage where I have to fly it every day and see where it needs improvement.

At its current size (26x36, 18oz) it wants a 9x6 to go vertical. For me its kind of a big prop for a pusher jet. I would like to go with a prop somewhere between a 6x3 to a 8x6, ideally.

What I am going to do is take this one (M-2) and chop it down. I will take the under side body plate off (which is just one piece), cut a few inches off the nose, etc. Then see how it goes with a lighter smaller body... Much like I did with the SkyRider development to find the ideal wing loading, prop, motor size:
http://www.rcpowers.com/SkyRider/sky...evelopment.htm

Then I will put a bunch of lines every 1/2 inch on the wingtips and cut the wing tips down 1/2 inch at time (flight after flight) and see just how small I can get this thing?!

I would like to get it down to a 18x28ish size plane and be around 14-16oz... this will let me put a smaller, faster prop/motor on it.

I'll post my results in the next couple days and see how small I can get this thing...
RCSuperPowers is offline Find More Posts by RCSuperPowers
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2006, 09:48 PM
AKA Don
bz1mcr's Avatar
United States, MI, Houghton Lake
Joined Dec 2002
7,608 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCSuperPowers
Now is the point in the development stage where I have to fly it every day and see where it needs improvement.

At its current size (26x36, 18oz) it wants a 9x6 to go vertical. For me its kind of a big prop for a pusher jet. I would like to go with a prop somewhere between a 6x3 to a 8x6, ideally.

What I am going to do is take this one (M-2) and chop it down. I will take the under side body plate off (which is just one piece), cut a few inches off the nose, etc. Then see how it goes with a lighter smaller body... Much like I did with the SkyRider development to find the ideal wing loading, prop, motor size:
http://www.rcpowers.com/SkyRider/sky...evelopment.htm

Then I will put a bunch of lines every 1/2 inch on the wingtips and cut the wing tips down 1/2 inch at time (flight after flight) and see just how small I can get this thing?!

I would like to get it down to a 18x28ish size plane and be around 14-16oz... this will let me put a smaller, faster prop/motor on it.

I'll post my results in the next couple days and see how small I can get this thing...
The reason the current plane needs a 9-6 to go vertical is it has a very slow motor. The Hacker A20-20L Has a Kv of only 1022. It also weighs 57 g. I have customers flying 19 oz strykers with a 28g motor and a 6-5 prop at over 100 mph. A vertical hand launch will put it at the limits of sight in 6 seconds straight up. I admit that is extreme and beyound what you want, but you should go in that direction.

I don't think you necessarily need a smaller plane, but you definately need a higher Kv motor. And of course lighter is always good also.
I think if you tried a Komodo 2407-12 you would really like it.
bz1mcr is offline Find More Posts by bz1mcr
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2006, 02:42 AM
Just one more flight...
RCSuperPowers's Avatar
Pasadena Cal-i-Forn-I-AY!
Joined Sep 2005
1,333 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bz1mcr
The reason the current plane needs a 9-6 to go vertical is it has a very slow motor. The Hacker A20-20L Has a Kv of only 1022. It also weighs 57 g. I have customers flying 19 oz strykers with a 28g motor and a 6-5 prop at over 100 mph. A vertical hand launch will put it at the limits of sight in 6 seconds straight up. I admit that is extreme and beyound what you want, but you should go in that direction.
Wow, yes, I agree. Ideally I want this plane to fly with a prop in the neighborhood of a fast 6 inch prop. That was best for all the different motors, props, and sizes we tried for the F-117 too. A high KV on a 6 inch prop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bz1mcr
I don't think you necessarily need a smaller plane, but you definately need a higher Kv motor. And of course lighter is always good also.
I think if you tried a Komodo 2407-12 you would really like it.
Yes, the Komodo 2407-12 would be way better for this size plane than this large slow Hacker, that’s for sure…

What I am up to next is finding if this size plane (26x36, 17-20oz) is even the ideal size for such a plane?!

I found that the smaller F-117 flies better than the big one, and the larger SkyRiders flew better than the small ones, regardless of their weight, motor, or prop. Its just that certain airframes are happier at certain sizes I've learned. Which is weird and unexpected. I would have thought that a larger, lighter F-117 would fly better than a smaller heavier one… nope.

I am curious about a smaller F-22 airframe. I have a smaller faster Outrunner that flies my 12-14oz, 75% F-117 real fast with a 6x4 prop. I will be experimenting with a few different motors/props as I make the plane smaller. Its really the no power glide landing that tells me what size is best for the particular airframe.

I'll know a lot more after I chop it down and do a bunch of experiments. Then I'll get me a nice fast motor that fits it just right.

Dave
RCSuperPowers is offline Find More Posts by RCSuperPowers
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2006, 06:56 PM
Just one more flight...
RCSuperPowers's Avatar
Pasadena Cal-i-Forn-I-AY!
Joined Sep 2005
1,333 Posts
Just got back from a few hours of testing.

I cut the plane down, about 1/2 inch at time, a few ounces at a time, 4 times. What I ended up with is a 14 oz plane, with a cheap small fast outrunner with a 6x4 (enough to make it go straight up) and a 3oz, 3 cell 1300 battery.

- The airframe was much stronger being smaller and would roll lots faster.
- The pitch was very fast and steady as well.
- The "super flips" were almost too fast (I guess I can just go easy on it) as it not have the size, weight, and inertia of the larger M-2 and M-1 to slow it down and make it more graceful.
- It was very quick and flippy when you wanted it to, but steady and smooth when you flew it normally.
- Down low it would fly nice and smooth and was perfectly controllable.
- The landings were a little quicker but it still floats and glides nice with the power off.

It was just as the smaller 75% F-117 compared it to the larger one.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attac...mentid=1082754

The testing on this one ("M-2.5" I call it, cause I just chopped M-2 down) was successful enough to tell me to make M-3 at about 75-80% of the original 26x36, 18oz one...
RCSuperPowers is offline Find More Posts by RCSuperPowers
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2006, 02:12 AM
Just one more flight...
RCSuperPowers's Avatar
Pasadena Cal-i-Forn-I-AY!
Joined Sep 2005
1,333 Posts
Started on M-3 tonight...

Ok, the new smaller one is drawn out and its 30 inches from the tip of the nose to the tip of the elevators. And 22 inches wingspan.

Its using an inexpensive outrunner for now that spins a 6x4 nice and fast (15+oz of thrust) 3 cell 1320.

The total flying weight is probably going to be around 13-14 oz when its done.
RCSuperPowers is offline Find More Posts by RCSuperPowers
Last edited by RCSuperPowers; Dec 23, 2006 at 01:52 PM. Reason: wording
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2006, 07:09 PM
Just one more flight...
RCSuperPowers's Avatar
Pasadena Cal-i-Forn-I-AY!
Joined Sep 2005
1,333 Posts
M-3

Flew M-3 today. Here's the specs on it:

- 22x30 inches
- 14 oz with a 3oz, 3cell 1320
- 400F Outrunner motor with a 6x4

- It was much faster and flew real nice at half throttle.
- It had a great no-power-glide
- The roll rate was WAY to fast, even for me! I had it on dual rates most of the time.
- The thrust vectoring worked even better on this smaller, heavier per sq in plane... I'll reveal the thrust vectoring system as it gets closer to kit release. Don't say nothin if you know or think you know how it works please.
- Its only a few pieces of foam, notched together but its very strong.

I definitely like the smaller version WAY better than the bigger one. The higher wing loading made it much more jet like! When I went to do TV the plane had more weight and momentum and would "Bulldoze" through the air better like full size TV planes.

When I had the bigger lighter per sq in M-1 and M-2, they were too "kite-like" for me.

All around the flight performance is much better (in my opinion) than my larger ones. M-4 and M-5 will be off of this size class.

Still got more to do, but its dialing in real nice.
RCSuperPowers is offline Find More Posts by RCSuperPowers
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2006, 11:18 AM
Registered User
Bay Area, California
Joined Apr 2006
45 Posts
I Can't wait to see this one!!!! I have a LSPJ 3s1320 set-up just waiting for a project like this. I've really enjoyed your F-117, but it was time to retire it. (pilot error)

I think I would enjoy the lighter wing loading of this model compared to my 75% F-117.

When will the beta-plans be available?
Artwolf is offline Find More Posts by Artwolf
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2006, 01:46 PM
Just one more flight...
RCSuperPowers's Avatar
Pasadena Cal-i-Forn-I-AY!
Joined Sep 2005
1,333 Posts
Thanks Artwolf. Yes, a LSPJ would make this thing go like lighting. There is not much drag on it and it really shows in the air.

Unfortunately I won't have any plans for it. The friend who did the F-117 CAD plans for me is no longer available, and I have too many projects backed up to learn CAD right now.

Actually the wing loading is HEAVIER on this small F-22 and on the 75% F-117 compared to their larger counterparts. I thought about this, and tested this alot in the past 6 months and here is what I am going with:

LIGHTER WING LOADING: For my slow floaty 3D planes, lighter is better. It will fly slower and do its stunts much quicker. This is the objective for a slow flying SkyRider or YAK or something like this...

HIGHER WING LOADING: For my jets I like the higher (heavier) wing loading much better! When I have a jet that is too light, it wants to float around and go slow. But then, the wings and control surfaces aren't made for slow flying so it goes in and out of stalling.

When I have a jet that is heavier (or shrunken down to be "appear" heavier) the plane acts much more like a real jet!
- First, it now has enough weight, mass, inertia for better air penetration. Its not getting tossed around as much.
- It makes for a better faster smother flight. It gets moving and stays that way.
- Landing are more graceful. It wants to come in and land like a real jet. Not float in and do a little flare up, and a drop landing. Thats what I want my 3D planes to do.
- And for thrust vectoring I personally like it better heavier (or smaller) I have found. In a real scale TV plane when they jam their tail down and kick their nose up, they "walk" across the air with their bellies facing forward. They are so heavier, they are like a flying freight trains! The momentum carries them through the air:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=russian+jets

So I found with the smaller one (heavier per sq in.) I can actually get the performance that I prefer... some guys may like it the other way around and thats great! It always nice to have variety in the air. But this is what I found, what I like, and what I am going with.
RCSuperPowers is offline Find More Posts by RCSuperPowers
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2006, 04:23 PM
Registered User
Bay Area, California
Joined Apr 2006
45 Posts
My observation of "lighter wing loading" came from the picture of the new f-22 and your redesigned f-117. I thought I read somewhere that you were building the f-117 at about 83% of the original. In the picture it just looks like the f-22 has more wing area and I guessed it would have a lighter loading. And would be even "lighter" than my 75% f-117.

I was not hoping that your new design would be "floaty" in any way.

You are the man, and I'm sure it will live up to everyone's expectations.
Artwolf is offline Find More Posts by Artwolf
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2006, 07:42 PM
Just one more flight...
RCSuperPowers's Avatar
Pasadena Cal-i-Forn-I-AY!
Joined Sep 2005
1,333 Posts
Artwolf, hey thanks so much man!

Right, right I see what you are saying. Yeah, I think the F-22 does have more wing area than the F-117 of equal size... not sure yet, my buddy Al does all those exact calculations when I am all done.

I had been wanting to post that info for a few months now on the sizes and what I think is best for these types of jets... Basically I am trying to find what is the ideal airframe size that fits everyone most common equipment?

- Most guys have and want 1300 rather than 2200...
- Most guys want outrunners for 13-15 oz planes rather than bigger motors for a 20oz plane...
- Most guys use 55s and 56s servos
- Most guys prefer jet props at the 5x5 and 6x4 size, not the bigger props, etc.

So yeah, I really like how the smaller jets are working compared to their larger counter parts!
Just got in from test flying M-3 again and here is what I have concluded:

- With dual rates ON the plane is much more scale like in the air. It does its thrust vectoring thing much smoother and will "hang" in the air better like the real ones do. The extra wing loading is giving it that ability.

- With dual rates OFF the plane is now the fastest, blurriest plane I have flown. Does rolls so fast the unpainted wings disappear! Can't even see them! And the flips/loops just keep going. It will flip and flip all the way to the ground.

It has the ability to really preform. I have to fly mostly with dual rates on until I do all the tricks up high.

I just got my camera back today and hope to post some video here soon...
RCSuperPowers is offline Find More Posts by RCSuperPowers
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2006, 03:50 AM
Just one more flight...
RCSuperPowers's Avatar
Pasadena Cal-i-Forn-I-AY!
Joined Sep 2005
1,333 Posts
Up-Date

M-3 is flying real nice. I for sure like the smaller size better than the larger "lighter" one for what I am looking for. I found these vids of a big fat SU-47 that prove exactly what I was thinking:

(best one) http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=su-47&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=su-47&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=su-47&hl=en

If you look at the thrust vectoring movements of this big boy, you can see that the momentum is much more scale. I love how it flys belly first as its flipping around. Something that can only be done with a heavier plane. The light ones just stop and flip too fast. I can get a 3D foamie to flip fast, that's not what I am looking for with this thrust vectoring jet...

So M-3 is getting flown every day while I make some small changes and build M-4. Looks like everything is on schedule and I will paint M-4 nice and that will be the one for the big video. Then any minor changes will be made in M-5 if needed.

But the kit will be the same size as M-3 above.
RCSuperPowers is offline Find More Posts by RCSuperPowers
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2006, 08:02 AM
Posts: 1,784,206
santeepat's Avatar
Santee, CA.
Joined May 2006
376 Posts
Vectoring is a secret now...

I have vectored a lot of my planes...very simple...and not worthy of black outs...LOL!

I prefer flat spins to the end over ends, but I can do either method.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showa...mentid=1058870

Kids...
santeepat is offline Find More Posts by santeepat
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Build Log 6mmFlyRC Profile F-22 with Simple Thrust Vectoring tomhe Pusher Prop Jet Models 3406 Oct 20, 2014 01:08 PM
Discussion RCSuperPowers F-22 w/ Vectoring Thrust Kit RCSuperPowers Pusher Prop Jet Models 568 Sep 28, 2011 02:34 PM
Wattage F-22 with mixed surfaces & 208 watts/lb!! (video) meteor Electric Ducted Fan Jet Talk 30 Feb 09, 2005 09:57 AM
Wattage F-22 with ducted fan The Blue Max Electric Ducted Fan Jet Talk 11 May 10, 2003 01:13 PM
f-22 with jeti brushless ivorz Foamies (Kits) 14 Oct 01, 2002 08:39 PM