Thread Tools
Feb 09, 2011, 09:33 AM
SG Talon... Super Genius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyRogerF4U
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.
The main reason for the slower motor is to keep the speeds down and the thrust up Dave. It is also more of a scale thing. Think about it. The fastest WW1 Planes were able to do about 200 mph.. in a dive! That is about half the speed of our WW2 stuff. So a motor that is around half the KV would give us about half speed with the same prop.

Aside from the build/repair aspects of this, you are going to love low speed combat Dave. There will be a lot less accidental kills and mid-airs and a lot more real dogfighting.

Don't be scared!
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Feb 09, 2011, 09:33 AM
Registered User
kdahlhaus's Avatar
Hmmm. Rcgroups says I rated this thread already (in a previous life? parallel universe?) so I can't give it the 5 it deserves.

I built GPW's Simple Fokker with ailerons, no dihedral, and KF2 wing on top. It flew great, and you guys are right, adding ailerons demands a rudder on these. I'm in the minority though - I like the idea of ailerons and no dihedral as I found it more fun to fly than my Tiger Moth (RET). Just a counterpoint, it's your design so go for what makes you happy! Really looking forward to seeing these develop.
Feb 09, 2011, 09:58 AM
SG Talon... Super Genius.
We definitely should establish a motor class for this. Are we talking the 26g motors? The wing area is decent i think.

As to the airfoil stuff, seems to me that most WW1 planes had little to no airfoil. Rounded leading edge, tapered trailing edge was how most of them went.

I am wondering what scale control surfaces would look like. Most of these planes had limited aileron size. Could be interesting to put "scale" roll control into them

I think that this could really help everyone on their flying skills too. Getting in there and mixing it up is going to be awesome.

BTW, it says i rated it too. I didn't.
Feb 09, 2011, 10:23 AM
Addicted to building...
Freddie B's Avatar
I have used the 1700KV Blue Wonder (Hextronik) motor on this size biplane many times. 8" x 6" GWS prop rules. It will fly slow, very slow. It also will almost hang on a prop for a bit. Best part instead of two blazing Sapndau's we have a quick burst of zoom potential to nip or evad. Trust me it won't give unlimited nose up climb out, but does make for a fun airplane that would round out the performance envelope.

Keeping the gear similar to the WWII designs makes tons of sense for our friends that already partake in the combat builds and flying. The propeller should be specific to these designs (won't be WOT most of the flight, and the BW can handle it). A 2cell 800mah will give good 6-8 minutes flights on this setup flying like an airplane should, using the throttle as a flight control! Proof will be in seeing a prototype take to the air.

Rigging isn't bad. Just got to try it! As the great Andy Lennon stated, most model designers over design and over build their biplane wings, instead of considering the strength of a biplane wing and building light. When a mid air happens, IF you loose a wing section, it usually stays with the plane while you LAND, and SURVIVE! Most of the time, the beauty of foam, it's no different than a monoplane, put the parts together at the field with a little CA or Epoxy and get back in the action. The rigging usually also 'fits' well during the repair. Slightly loose rigging still functions better than none! I can build with rigging faster than spars and glue, besides saving weight.

I've seen several mid air crashes where a biplane meets monoplane. Most of the time the biplane comes home, even if only on one wing, and the monoplane needs a large (or small) body bag.

I think a rule could be written that a builder could option to add ailerons on a case by case basis, their discrecion. I would do battle R/E/T against any A/R/E/T Biplane. I'll let the adverse yaw, complicated stick movements, and weight give me an advantage. Why not?

Monoplanes should also be allowed. Many WWI pilots proved that it's more the pilot's skill than the airframe that determines the winner. Go figure.

I think you might end up getting a larger spectator interest in these designs because WWI types in battle is truely art in it's own right. Trick will be to make the designs foolproof enough to make them quick and easy to build. Cheats and 'artistic lattitude', once finalized into an 'official design' should be fair to all since they will all be building from the same design.

I could whip out one in fairly short order, but I am behind the curve on the CAD and other design softwares. Hard to share a design made from shaop sketches and posterboard templates.

Fred
Feb 09, 2011, 10:24 AM
Ken's CAD Models
dz1sfb's Avatar
Thread OP
If we are to stay with the same gear as the WWII models, and they are RET, I thinking that I would stay with 9g servos. If we build full house then I am for a smaller servo.

The BW motor we are presently using swings a 8 x 4 with ease and gives lots of low end power. I am using an 8 x 3.8 on my 36" Rascal which is around 9 oz. and has enough power to vertical (and this is a much more draggy airplane than the WWII models). Just not as fast. So, I believe that power wise we are good.

I like Duk's equipment arraingement, and believe that we will be able to attain a good CG with the battery directly behind the motor, then the ESC and RX, followed by the servos before we get to the rearmost TE of wings. Also 3 laminations only from TE of wing to tail.

Dennis, my research leads me to believe that most airfoils of that time were of the undercamber variety.

I am wondering about being able to soft mount the wings as an assembly. Upper and lower tied together at interplane struts, then the lower rubber banded to the fuselage, and the upper with cabane structure banded to the top of fuselage. I agree about keeping the structure simple and would like to dispense with rigging (though it looks great). If we go with a simple flat wing with a CF tube, you might think about using EPP for the wings and tail surfaces.

Sure is sounding complex. Lets see what develops. Lets get more input.

Ken
Feb 09, 2011, 10:27 AM
Addicted to building...
Freddie B's Avatar
Test to rate the thread.

Go to quick reply.

Type something, anything.

click on go advanced.

Last option, under advanced options, reads 'Rate Thread'.

Now you can give it a 'five Stars"

Works for me, try it.
Feb 09, 2011, 10:31 AM
Ken's CAD Models
dz1sfb's Avatar
Thread OP
Okay, I am pretty well sold on the RET setup. Simpler and stronger, all the gear is in the fuselage, and if the wings take a hit, your not tearing up control surfaces.

Ken
Feb 09, 2011, 10:35 AM
Addicted to building...
Freddie B's Avatar
Ken,

The rubberband idea is always a great one. I think almost required if you want a mass following.

BTW. WWI types did mostly have thin, undercambered wings, until later in the war. Flat plate, and undercamber work well on these smaller biplanes. The flat plate makes ailerons easier, but glide angles get steeper. How about builders option rule? the undercambered wing is stronger, and will slow down further. Trade offs any way you slice it. Got to love it though!

This idea has been on my back burner for a while. However the Nebraska/Iowa crowd has threated this for awhile, no one made a decision on materil, size, or design standards. A '400' class motor, in the 400 (+/-) SqIn range may be looming soon too!

Fred
Feb 09, 2011, 10:39 AM
Addicted to building...
Freddie B's Avatar
Sorry for so many posts. I have debated the landing gear issues for a long time. Hope the decision is to go 'non-scale' on that, so a simple 'V' type can be bent and fuselage mounted.

You will be using landing gear right? No retracts in the Great War, and it just wouldn't look right without something!

Fred
Last edited by Freddie B; Feb 09, 2011 at 11:13 AM.
Feb 09, 2011, 10:44 AM
Ken's CAD Models
dz1sfb's Avatar
Thread OP
Fred,

Agree, a UC wing would work nice and require very little reinforcement. FFF would be my choice in the case of a UC wing. Like you said, it could be left to the builder. JollyRogerF4U combated quite effectively with his Oshkosh Special against the heavy iron.

Ken
Feb 09, 2011, 10:45 AM
Ken's CAD Models
dz1sfb's Avatar
Thread OP
Landing gear is a must! Lets hear some proposals on how to do it. I would like it a bit more than simple, but that should be a builder preference also. One of the challenges is getting it strong enough for use and have enough give for some biffing. I know Duk has some ideas in this area.

.060" music wire might be a good place to start.

Ken
Feb 09, 2011, 11:19 AM
treefinder
springer's Avatar
This setup seems to be working well on the two versions of the OneSheetBipe: .050 or 1.4mm wire, soldered, hooked over a tab on lower wing, and wing rubber band holds it in place.
Feb 09, 2011, 11:19 AM
Addicted to building...
Freddie B's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dz1sfb
Landing gear is a must! Lets hear some proposals on how to do it. I would like it a bit more than simple, but that should be a builder preference also. One of the challenges is getting it strong enough for use and have enough give for some biffing. I know Duk has some ideas in this area.

.060" music wire might be a good place to start.

Ken
.062, agree, at least for the main legs. Problem Is so many designs have the rear struts mounted mid wing. The rubberband, removable wings make hard mounting gear a problem. I have used a hardwood cross piece that rubberbands 'capture' when mounting the wing, but sometimes you loose people with all the extra build details. Optional should also be a rule on scale, non scale landing gear.

Next is the wheels. Plenty exist that would work, even to the inexpensive GWS Slow Stick type. I got a great 'home-built' technique I'd use, but some standard 'minimum' should be picked so a builder could order off the shelf, ready available types.

Fred
Feb 09, 2011, 11:22 AM
Addicted to building...
Freddie B's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by springer
This setup seems to be working well on the two versions of the OneSheetBipe: .050 or 1.4mm wire, soldered, hooked over a tab on lower wing, and wing rubber band holds it in place.
Nice idea. Looks like the spar and tab are absolute need for landing gear mounting strength. Really not hard to make such a gear though, and simple considering the great looks.

I don't know if I can find pictures of some things I've tried, but I'll look.

Fred
Feb 09, 2011, 11:28 AM
treefinder
springer's Avatar
I've found on the OneSheets that the straight wings without much dihedral don't like to turn, or will do flat turns if just RET. Sweep helps a lot, and if even just the lower wing has dihedral (as many did) it will roll better into the turn, but will still need correcting out of the turn. I added ailerons to lower wing on that setup and it works better for "normal" flight. Also, my Vstab/rudder is fairly large, but doesn't seem to have a lot of authority. I'd expect that we will need to increase size proportionately toget more agressive handling.


Quick Reply
Message:

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