Shop our Airplanes Products Drone Products Sales
Thread Tools
Jun 18, 2010, 04:41 PM
Smoke on , go !
zaguruinzasky's Avatar
... good old easystar....
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 18, 2010, 04:44 PM
Registered User
ashdec87's Avatar
Like I mentioned in sanders other thread, what about extending the nose with some blucor foam before the halves are glued? pretty easy to do and that should solve the balance issue easily.
Jun 18, 2010, 04:47 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonjp
Surely you realise you have simply overloaded the plane.
Well, I simply built it up as a typical FPV plane, nothing fancy. The reason I need two 3S/4400 packs in the nose is because it is tail heavy with the default configuration on the tail servos. Sure, I can go and move those back towards the wing etc. but that's not what the plane has cutouts for in the tail.

Frankly I find 2kg AUW with a wing such as this not too heavy. I have an AP Solution as well, that lifts 2kg of *additional* weight, hence added to the airframe weight and batteries, without issues, speeds up a little, needs a bit more throttle for level flight, but still has an acceptable glide angle. I also have had numerous TwinStars that would be loaded up to 2.5kg and would still fly well.

I think this plane has potential if they redesign it. Make the nose at least 10cm longer, slightly thicker profile wings, beef up the tail boom and vertical fin section etc. For me, that's just too much work, I'd rather just build something else I don't need to modify extensively, my time is valueable, especially my spare time.

Cheers,

Sander.
Jun 18, 2010, 04:52 PM
Smoke on , go !
zaguruinzasky's Avatar
same here..
Jun 18, 2010, 05:03 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssassen
Well, I simply built it up as a typical FPV plane, nothing fancy. The reason I need two 3S/4400 packs in the nose is because it is tail heavy with the default configuration on the tail servos. Sure, I can go and move those back towards the wing etc. but that's not what the plane has cutouts for in the tail.

Frankly I find 2kg AUW with a wing such as this not too heavy. I have an AP Solution as well, that lifts 2kg of *additional* weight, hence added to the airframe weight and batteries, without issues, speeds up a little, needs a bit more throttle for level flight, but still has an acceptable glide angle. I also have had numerous TwinStars that would be loaded up to 2.5kg and would still fly well.

I think this plane has potential if they redesign it. Make the nose at least 10cm longer, slightly thicker profile wings, beef up the tail boom and vertical fin section etc. For me, that's just too much work, I'd rather just build something else I don't need to modify extensively, my time is valueable, especially my spare time.

Cheers,

Sander.
Sander, I just weighed mine. Comes in at 1.7kgs with a 3s5000mah flight pack and 1000ma video pack.

I get about 40min flight time, at a speed of around 50kmph.

I also found the CoG was not that critical in this plane. Mine is about 2cm behind the suggested point, and it flys great.

Can I ask, why do you want to carry so much battery weight? There is of course a point where the extra weight will cancel any gains, as you know.

Out of curiosity, as you compared the twinstar, what sort of range have you gotten with one?
Jun 18, 2010, 05:06 PM
Post # 20 million
Kev.au's Avatar
Hey Wilson, how far from the leading edge is your CG?.


Cheers, kev.
Jun 18, 2010, 05:11 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonjp
Can I ask, why do you want to carry so much battery weight? There is of course a point where the extra weight will cancel any gains, as you know.

Out of curiosity, as you compared the twinstar, what sort of range have you gotten with one?
It is not that I want to, but it won't balance out with less. Frankly I didn't think it would be an issue as many folks seem to be having 2x 3S/4000 or similar in the nose, so I assumed (yes, I know, assumption is the mother ...) that this would still result in a plane that flies well.

I never liked the Twinstar much, flying brick as well, but it carried quite a bit of weight without suddenly dropping from the sky. The Protech Voyager that I have used often is even better in that regard and is much less of a flying brick. I had one with the wings extended to 2.6m wingspan that would happily lift an additional 2kg.

I can certainly put the Skywalker on a diet, I can shorten the tailboom or elongate the nose, both options mean quite a bit of work again. We'll see, for now I'm putting it aside, unless someone wants to take it off my hands, then I'd gladly part with it.

Cheers,

Sander.
Jun 18, 2010, 05:15 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonjp
I also found the CoG was not that critical in this plane. Mine is about 2cm behind the suggested point, and it flys great.
Interesting, I'm at exactly 33%, which is 77mm from the leading edge. I shifted it a little further back to about 85mm when trimming her out, but it was too nose heavy with that setting, also tried 65mm but that was twitchy and tail heavy. Where exactly do you have your CG located?

Cheers,

Sander.
Jun 18, 2010, 05:42 PM
I love FPV!
Cralis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssassen
I think this plane has potential if they redesign it.


Amm.. doesn't that go for everything on the planet!? hehe

'This Toyota would be great if they redesigned it'.
Jun 18, 2010, 05:52 PM
I love FPV!
Cralis's Avatar
Sander - to reduce weight, maybe a long (30cm?) CF tube off the nose, pointing forward, kind of like a long pitot tube... with some sort of extra weight at the LE tip... which would move the CoG forward quite a lot, allowing for the reduction in battery weight?

That may be an option?

Don't think it would effect flight charactoristics or anything...
Jun 18, 2010, 07:32 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssassen
Interesting, I'm at exactly 33%, which is 77mm from the leading edge. I shifted it a little further back to about 85mm when trimming her out, but it was too nose heavy with that setting, also tried 65mm but that was twitchy and tail heavy. Where exactly do you have your CG located?

Cheers,

Sander.
Hmm, seems my memory was wrong. I'm not 2cm back, only about 1.. CoG is at 85mm from the leading edge. Which is just about on the wing servo lead. I think the recommended is 75mm.

I have two lighter motors coming too, as I want to try and increase my flight times. This will probably change the CofG, although I will also try smaller batteries also.
Jun 18, 2010, 08:06 PM
I love FPV!
Cralis's Avatar
Looks like the Skywalker can be built to fly prtty well....

2 x 3S 2200mah packs... 45 minute flight... Nice and stable... high... What's the problem??

FPV Skywalker EPO - oblot (3 min 13 sec)


These russians... They seem to have the right idea.
(PS: Is it russian? Looks it.. Polish maybe? My foreign languages is poor)
Jun 19, 2010, 12:35 AM
Registered User
Polish
Jun 19, 2010, 01:02 AM
Houba ! Houba !!
rcmonster99's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssassen
Interesting, I'm at exactly 33%, which is 77mm from the leading edge. I shifted it a little further back to about 85mm when trimming her out, but it was too nose heavy with that setting, also tried 65mm but that was twitchy and tail heavy. Where exactly do you have your CG located?

Cheers,

Sander.
OK here we go... me no comprende .... how do you measure the CoG on an plane ?
when you say 77mm from the leading edge I understand the model should be balancing with a slight nose down attitude if you put your fingers 77mm behind the leading edge of the wing. Correct ?

-balancing the model at 85mm behind the leading edge made it too nose heavy therefore too stable and heavy to control ?
-balancing the model at 65mm made it too tail heavy and twitchy?

I would have thought it was the contrary.
Anyway, you say your optimum CoG was 77mm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cralis
Sander - to reduce weight, maybe a long (30cm?) CF tube off the nose, pointing forward, kind of like a long pitot tube... with some sort of extra weight at the LE tip... which would move the CoG forward quite a lot, allowing for the reduction in battery weight?

That may be an option?

Don't think it would effect flight charactoristics or anything...
Cralis, yes that would be an option but a dangerous one. Consider the implications if you hit someone with a plane that has an arrow shaft at the front (blunt or not) .
Jun 19, 2010, 01:11 AM
I love FPV!
Cralis's Avatar
Most probably thousands time less dangerous than a 50 sized electric helicopter throwing 600mm carbon fiber baldes at 2200rpm...

I see the point - it adds danger - but .. perspective. Who's hit someone with an FPV plane? Only time I saw it was when trappy flew into himself. Don't glue the 'arrow' in place? I'm not convinced it's such a bad plan. People have props on the nose with a steel shaft, and no one has cried too much about that...

YEah, not convinced.


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question Best plane for FPV while on vacation? patricklupo FPV Aircraft 24 Nov 23, 2014 03:56 PM
Cool FPV plane rescue with an FPV truck :-) AnthonyRC FPV Aircraft 17 Feb 24, 2008 10:45 PM
For Sale Skywalker plane and a bunch of extras moody07747 Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 8 Sep 19, 2006 09:34 PM
Discussion Aviator Skywalker RC plane given to me moody07747 Electric Plane Talk 46 Sep 12, 2006 11:45 AM