HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jan 27, 2013, 07:52 AM
more balsa please!
dcloin's Avatar
Princeton, In
Joined Jul 2007
793 Posts
Indoor News and Views October 1976

Here it is....
dcloin is online now Find More Posts by dcloin
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jan 27, 2013, 03:26 PM
B for Bruce
BMatthews's Avatar
The 'Wack, BC, Canada
Joined Oct 2002
11,622 Posts
THAT'S THE ONE ! ! ! !

Thanks to all that helped us find the article and to dcloin for posting it.

Note that this is a step up over the usual fixed neutral point as it produces a chart which provides for a flexible tail and nose length so you can simply move the wing this way and that instead of fixing the wing then moving the CG with added weight.

The only catch is that it requires that the wing can be either balanced on the fuselage stick or the posts tack glued for measuring to get the final balance point correct as given by the positioning chart.
BMatthews is offline Find More Posts by BMatthews
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 04:08 PM
Wonderfully Wicked
The Don's Avatar
Willoughby, Ohio
Joined Jan 2002
13,280 Posts
What I do is cut a stick of balsa from say 3/32" or 1/8" square and ballast (ballast in the middle of the stick) to the same weight as the wing. Then you can slide it around to get the correct cg then you know where the wing should be.

The only issue with this method per this INAV issue is it makes some assumptions. One is that the drag of the wing times the wing height above the motor stick is zero. In many full size aircraft this is true or nearly true as L/D of airfoils is very high like 30 to 1. However for indoor model L/D is much worse, about 5 :1 so that term is no longer "near zero" also undercambered airfoils have a negative pitching moment that this method does not take into account. I use a spreadsheet that has these additional factors added and also allows you to input the weights of the sub components (wing stab etc) and it will give you approx location of the wing as well. I would post it but Excel files are not supported as an uploadable file type on RCGroups.

Don
The Don is online now Find More Posts by The Don
RCG Plus Member
Old Jan 27, 2013, 07:41 PM
B for Bruce
BMatthews's Avatar
The 'Wack, BC, Canada
Joined Oct 2002
11,622 Posts
Don, I'm not so sure that this is the case. Normally by setting the CMOS to 0% stability the model would not recover from a dive. But in the case of duration indoor models I think the idea was that one could safely set the stability margin to 0% and rely on the high center of drag force combined with a low center of gravity to provide the otherwise missing nose up pitching needed for stable pitch response. The pitching due to the drag being proportional to the flying speed it would substitute nicely for the neutral aerodynamic pitch stability.
BMatthews is offline Find More Posts by BMatthews
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 08:54 PM
Wonderfully Wicked
The Don's Avatar
Willoughby, Ohio
Joined Jan 2002
13,280 Posts
In the spreadsheet I use you do not set the model up for 0% stability margin. You typically fly from 5-15% margin depending on the event. For EZB ~10% stability margin is good. All I am saying is that the equation to calculate the neutral point location really should include some terms which are missing in the INAV article method. The method in the INAV article is a classical version of the NP equation found in most Aero Engineering text books and is the way I was taught in my aero classes as well. But that equation has been simplified by assumptions to make the equations easier to work with and those assumptions are valid for many situations but the missing terms can add up when you have a model with low L/D airfoils and wing posts. Many current indoor classes, such as F1D have the stab located below the tail boom which will act opposite of the wing above the motorstick. By including all the terms in the equation then you have a more accurate NP calculation. For example on my old 65cm F1D, if I neglect the wing post height, then the calculated NP is 63.4% with the wing height added in the NP then becomes 69.8%. Yes it is only 6.4% difference but that is .58" difference in location and on a 50 minute flight that will result in about 45 seconds of lost time. I am not saying the INAV method is wrong and should not be used, just making people aware that it is not entirely 100% correct in the way it does the calculation, but it is way better than guessing a correct CG location.
The Don is online now Find More Posts by The Don
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by The Don; Jan 27, 2013 at 09:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 11:24 PM
B for Bruce
BMatthews's Avatar
The 'Wack, BC, Canada
Joined Oct 2002
11,622 Posts
Don, I can only relate what I saw in the article I used some 35 years back. It definetly called for setting the model up to 0% and rely on the high drag center. And it worked fine that way for a number of my models at the time.

I would also suggest tht 15% is going to be FAR too stable a margin value for the best performance. Heck, by free flight standards even a 5% margin is high. Setting it up with that much is going to produce a strong power to pitch result which would have to be counteracted by putting the wing and tail at high positive angles so that the motor stick produces an effective downthrust amount to counter that much pitch stability under power.

You are very right about the equations we use for model stability being a greatly simplified set. But that's what we've got.

I can only suspect that trying to evaluate the drag to include that in the set would be a horrendous job since there's so many things that are going to affect this based on so many variables. For example data for a single surface arc shaped airfoil with Gurney flaps front and rear is singularly hard to come by.... But as they say, if it were a perfect world we'd have this sort of thing at our fingertips.
BMatthews is offline Find More Posts by BMatthews
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 12:49 AM
Wonderfully Wicked
The Don's Avatar
Willoughby, Ohio
Joined Jan 2002
13,280 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMatthews View Post
I would also suggest tht 15% is going to be FAR too stable a margin value for the best performance.
Most indoor models are 5-10% margin and in some cases due to layout or other reason 15% has to be used for a stable model. Pennyplane models are short coupled and running less than 10% will make them very squirly at launch torque so you run ~12-15% to keep hem stable through the flight range then add a degree or two of downthrust if needed to hold the nose down at launch torque. Current EZB models weigh ~270 mg and have too much structural flex due to the rule restrictions to allow less than 10% margins. The tailbooms flex upwards which adds incidnce to the model so you have to fly a slightly forward CG This is not speculation this is real world indoor flying, the 37 minute EZB record set a few months back required a 17% margin due to the models flexibility. Additionally what you call 0% margin is not my 0% margin because the method used to calculate are different so we get a different neutral point location. In my previous example, the INAV method says my NP is 63.4% but in reality the real NP is 69.8% so the INAV 0% is actually 6.4% stability margin to me. So whatever "margins" you learned by using the INAV methods are not the same "margins" used by the rest of the indoor community as the INAV method is no longer used for at least 15 years now. So my 5%-15% range by the new method is really more like say 0-10% of the INAV method (the actual difference depends on model layout).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMatthews View Post
You are very right about the equations we use for model stability being a greatly simplified set. But that's what we've got.
I am trying to tell you that a spreadsheet for indoor models exists that is better than the INAV version. Many people in the indoor community have the same spreadsheet I have and we all use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMatthews View Post
I can only suspect that trying to evaluate the drag to include that in the set would be a horrendous job
Not at all, it only involves adding back in the terms that were initially "assumed" away as being close to zero. All you have to do is add the missing moments back into the equation: the upward pitching moment from wing drag times wing post height, the downward pitching moment from wing airfoil and stab airfoil and downward moment of stab drag times stab distance below the stab (if the stab is mounted below the tailboom). These small corrections fix the issues and has been done. So when indoor guys talk about stability margins this is the software/program they are using, not the INAV verison from ~40 years ago. So 10% margin on the old method may indeed be too much, but my method will not say 10% it will say something like 17% or higher due to the math differences so we are comparing apples to oranges due to methodology as well as I suspect also acceptable outdoor margins to acceptable indoor margins.

If you want to have a more in depth discussion on this topic I suggest we start a new thread as I don't really want to derail this EZB thread over NP calculations more than it already has. If anyone is interested in the spreadsheet, shoot me a PM with your email address and I will email the Excel file to you.
The Don is online now Find More Posts by The Don
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by The Don; Jan 28, 2013 at 07:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 01:31 AM
TheyreComingToTakeMeAway!
derk's Avatar
USA, ID, Coeur D'Alene
Joined Dec 2003
5,482 Posts
well, i altered my model a little bit, i lengthened the tail boom, moved the wing posts farther forwards and made a prop slightly larger diameter and the normal rotation so i could use my pitch gauge to set it. according to the prop calculator i found, i set the prop to 32 degrees at 3" from the hub which came to 12.55" of pitch. it flies across my living room quite nicely, gaining height on as little as 50 turns
so i am hoping to get a good chance to fly it at the next indoor flying this wednesday.
derk is offline Find More Posts by derk
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 02:38 AM
TheyreComingToTakeMeAway!
derk's Avatar
USA, ID, Coeur D'Alene
Joined Dec 2003
5,482 Posts
some pictures of the changes. i tried something i read on another forum and dyed the prop green with food coloring when i wet them for baking. i think it looks good and will help distinguish mine if its ever flying with many aircraft like it
the new dimensions are:
13.5 overall
1.25 nose to leading edge of wing
7 wing trailing edge to tail leading edge

also i bought a powered winder with a counter on it. including a pic of the pitch gauge i built too.
derk is offline Find More Posts by derk
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 06:13 AM
more balsa please!
dcloin's Avatar
Princeton, In
Joined Jul 2007
793 Posts
Derk, I like the colored prop idea. I'll be waiting for some pics after Wednesday, or how about a video....
dcloin is online now Find More Posts by dcloin
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 07:27 AM
Wonderfully Wicked
The Don's Avatar
Willoughby, Ohio
Joined Jan 2002
13,280 Posts
Looking good! Nice job. With the modifications I calc a CG about 1/4" from the trailing edge as a good place to start which it seems you have.

Don
The Don is online now Find More Posts by The Don
RCG Plus Member
Old Jan 28, 2013, 11:41 AM
B for Bruce
BMatthews's Avatar
The 'Wack, BC, Canada
Joined Oct 2002
11,622 Posts
It sounds very encouraging from what you're saying about those tests.
BMatthews is offline Find More Posts by BMatthews
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2013, 12:04 AM
TheyreComingToTakeMeAway!
derk's Avatar
USA, ID, Coeur D'Alene
Joined Dec 2003
5,482 Posts
here you go guys, took some video at work
EZB flying at work (5 min 2 sec)

none of the flights had more than 400 turns on it
derk is offline Find More Posts by derk
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2013, 12:54 AM
Wonderfully Wicked
The Don's Avatar
Willoughby, Ohio
Joined Jan 2002
13,280 Posts
Trim looks really good. Nice job! I think you could up your prop pitch some. I typically run 12-14" diameter and 24-28" pitch on the full span EZBs, looks like your prop is about 10", so 20" pitch will still work OK.
The Don is online now Find More Posts by The Don
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by The Don; Jan 29, 2013 at 01:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2013, 01:15 AM
Wonderfully Wicked
The Don's Avatar
Willoughby, Ohio
Joined Jan 2002
13,280 Posts
Here is my current EZB which is almost finished just need to put the wing posts on. I spent today rolling some tissue tubes.

Don
The Don is online now Find More Posts by The Don
RCG Plus Member
Reply


Thread Tools