Thread Tools
Feb 08, 2011, 08:56 PM
Ken's CAD Models
dz1sfb's Avatar
Thread OP

WWI VLF Design Combat Models

This thread is dedicated to the development of a WWI models for combat, much like the SEMFF WWII Combat models. The goal is similar in the desire to produce low cost, great looking models suitable for combat.

The following list are the design paremeters;
  1. VLF Style WWI 3 or 4 channel designs from PBIII material.
  2. Wing area limited to not more than 300 sq. in.
  3. Blue Wonder 1700Kv outrunner motor. or Turnigy equivalent Another option is the Tower Pro TP2408-21 1750 Kv motor
  4. 3 or 4 - 5g servos. or
  5. 10-12A ESC or or this has a 2A BEC
  6. 2s 800-1000 Mah Battery or or or or Did not include anything that was backordered so this could change.
  7. Recommended prop for this set up is going to be an 8x4
There have been several folks interested in doing this, so lets here from you in what you would like to see.


Gallery and links to plans in next post
Last edited by dz1sfb; Mar 07, 2011 at 12:05 PM. Reason: Raised the wing area from 250 to 300 sq. in.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Feb 08, 2011, 09:09 PM
Pronounced "High Duck"
haiduk's Avatar

WWI Aircraft Plans

Planes with plans ready for building:

Ken's Models:
VLF Aviatik - design completed, flight tested, and ready to go (free plans)
IOVLF Aviatik - design completed, in testing (free plans)

Haiduk's Models:
SE5a - New 4 channel design (free plans)
SPAD XIII - 3 channel design (free plans)
SOPWITH PUP - 3 channel design (free plans)
FOKKER D7 - 3 channel design (free plans)

SGTalon's Models:
ALBATROSS - SGTalon's plans (not yet tested)
Newport 17 - SGTalon's Plans (not yet tested)
Last edited by haiduk; Nov 12, 2011 at 06:11 PM.
Feb 08, 2011, 09:47 PM
RC Adddict
Wilfor's Avatar
Had to post and give this 5 stars i love WWI planes
Feb 08, 2011, 11:33 PM
Pronounced "High Duck"
haiduk's Avatar
Here's a quick video I put together featuring a couple of my pops WWI foamies. They're a bit smaller than were talking about here, but it gives a good idea of the difference between four channel and 3 channel performance. The smaller three channel (RET) bird definitely flies circles around the four channel (ARET) one. The RET plane is a whole lot more fun to fly too. Neither hurts too bad when you get hit in the face with them, seriously.

These are flying with a small C10 outrunner.

DVII and Jaeger (2 min 52 sec)
Last edited by haiduk; Feb 09, 2011 at 03:59 AM.
Feb 09, 2011, 03:44 AM
Pronounced "High Duck"
haiduk's Avatar
Electronics layout for the SPAD XIII.

From my experience WWI Bipes tend to be tail heavy. Almost all have extremely short noses. This requires the gear to be shifted way forward. I've been toying with some gear layouts and would like some feedback.

Four channels are certainly doable, but three channels (RET) work very well with dihedral. Perhaps even better than four channels (ARET). Ailerons tend to cause a lot of adverse yaw and requires a lot of coordination between rudder and aileron. Three channels (RET) are much easier to fly and I think more fun for this type of plane. Definitely easier to lay out the gear in the fuselage. The Rudder, elevator, throttle configuration might actually better represent WWI planes. Having one less servo means less weight and stronger gear layout.

All three versions so far have the tail feather servos stacked with the tops out either side, horns up. With 5 Laminations we can cover most of the top of each servo. Allows access to the servo horn screw too. If we stick with the RET configuration, the servos can be mounted in a more conventional VLF fashion.

If we go with a pair of the Dynam 7g servos we can fit them in side to side and still have room to cover them on the outside. I've used these servos. They have plenty of torque, they're very light, and very inexpensive at $3.40 for the pair (free shipping too). No where near as "chattery" as the HXT500's or the TP 5g servos (and, over all, lighter and cost less). Downside would be the horns seem a bit wimpy, but so far, I've had no problems with them breaking. I will be using these in my WWI planes.

My vote would be for Rudder, Elevator, Throttle only. Ailerons are not needed and actually hinder the performance of these small bipes.

Last edited by haiduk; Feb 09, 2011 at 05:03 AM.
Feb 09, 2011, 04:18 AM
Pronounced "High Duck"
haiduk's Avatar
Another important concept with the foamy WWI bipes is the wing itself. The WWII AET planes are a 50% KF on the top of the wing. I'm thinking for these planes a 40% KF on the bottom of the wing with 1-2 degrees positive incidence would be a much better choice. More stable at slower speeds, less adverse yaw, and more stable in high alpha situations like pulling out of a stall. The plane would be more stable pulling a streamer. Also the overall sturdiness of the plane would be vastly superior to the flat plate style.

My vote would be for a bottom step KF 40% (KFm-1) type airfoil with as much as 3 degrees positive wing incidence for the WWI Biplanes. We have WWII combat for the AET fast paced type combat. We should go with rudder, elevator, throttle with a 40% bottom step KF and a 5-7 degree dihedral for a slower paced WWI combat.

EDIT: The Eindecker might be the exception. It is after all a monoplane and would probably be set up AET. Let's set the rule to 250-275 for bipes and maybe 175-200 sq.inch for WWI monoplanes (if they're allowed).
Last edited by haiduk; Feb 09, 2011 at 05:58 AM.
Feb 09, 2011, 07:40 AM
Registered User
plane_spotter's Avatar
Always been fond of this one Avro 504K:-

Name: avro504k.jpg
Views: 528
Size: 52.9 KB

Great thread.

Feb 09, 2011, 08:58 AM
SG Talon... Super Genius.
I think when it comes to the "Simplicity of build" department, Dihedral on 4 wings is going to get complicated.

Straight wings with a nice Carbon Tube or Dowel in the bottom wing to strengthen it up will do wonders,

Also, i think the wing cabanes should be solid rather than sticks or cutouts. You can always draw on the look but for strength and simplicity you can't have that many parts.

Albatross. My Favorite WWI Plane.

The coolest part about doing WWI planes is they had SOOOO many paint schemes. Not like the WWII stuff.

I have also included a couple WWI posters that show most of the planes from WW1
Last edited by SGTalon; Feb 09, 2011 at 09:07 AM.
Feb 09, 2011, 09:15 AM
SG Talon... Super Genius.
I have been thinking about this a bit too. I think we need to slow these puppies down. How about we do a much lower KV motor too?

I am thinking like 1000Kv or less. Think about how awesome it would be to have a nice walking pace slow battle. Everyone would be in there! Plus it would really cut down on the damage from mid-airs.

Or perhaps a nice solution would be to add those drag fences that the Indoor 3D people use to keep their speeds down.
Feb 09, 2011, 09:16 AM
Addicted to building...
Freddie B's Avatar

You know I agree with R/E/T setups. Dihedral really isn't so bad. Many production planes use 2 one piece wings, and the dihedral sort of 'flows' across the mid-section (no sharp bends).

An option to cold form, or temper an undercamber could also be considered with the FFF material planes in lieu of true KFm. But a simple 1" KFm type strip right at the LE does wonders too for strength and performance.

Spars optional. Most WWI types can be completely 'rigged' using one piece of thread and a needle, spot glued at each attachment point. Little time and effort to complete. Truss type constriuction results and the two wings become very strong with out the spar hassle.

SGTalons idea of one piece center struts (cabine) is very doable, but I find there needs to be reenforcement in that area or fratures happen often (the pylon sheers).

I also think it should be allowed to strech a nose of a radial engined design an inch or so. Hardly noticable to the eye, but does wonders for balancing an aircraft in model form.

Sopwith Pup is a sure candidate in my book. Looks great, and flys great. Some research would show it was quite a force to be recconed with in it's time. I'd take one into battle anyday, agaist any opponent!

Feb 09, 2011, 09:22 AM
JollyRogerF4U's Avatar
lurking, lurking.
Feb 09, 2011, 09:27 AM
JollyRogerF4U's Avatar
IF... If I build one of these.. IF... I need to be able to use my WW2 combat gear. So, Sgt. Alon I don't like the idea of a 1000Kv or less motor.
Feb 09, 2011, 09:29 AM
SG Talon... Super Genius.
One of the big "concerns" everyone has with doing the WW1 planes is repairs.

If they need to be "Rigged" one mid-air is going to mean a plane that takes a long time to repair. And I am not sure that a rigged system is less of a hassle than just glueing a dowel or tube in a slot.

I know it is going to take away from the scale looks of the designs but i think that some good painting will more than make up for it.

I do agree that we are going to need to do a little stretching on the noses. I don't think there is enough room in the nose for the motor and battery in front of the wings and the tails are going to be heavy. Especially if they are VLF style.

PJMass has a DR1 design that solves the strength/weight thing nicely i think.

I built one a long time ago and decided that it was too tame for me. Now i am thinking that it would be perfect for WW1 combat. Nice a slow and very aerobatic.

I may just have to try my hand at designing one myself.... wait a sec. I have too many other projects... Guess it is all you Ken

Quick Reply

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Slow Combat One Design jb753 Combat 182 Jul 28, 2012 04:16 PM
Discussion Do you know any 60" size WWI biplane models? brazdan Electric Warbirds 12 Jul 17, 2012 04:11 PM
For Sale Cermark F16 RTF & Combat models F16 Partial kit PPLJR Aircraft - Fuel - Jets (FS/W) 7 Sep 20, 2011 10:49 PM
Discussion Wanted: Slow, Floaty Pusher or Mid Motor Combat Design rcflydad Combat 4 Apr 06, 2011 04:28 AM
Sold Combat models F16N for sale thehoker Aircraft - Electric - Jets (FS/W) 1 Aug 30, 2010 04:57 PM