Thread Tools
Feb 10, 2011, 01:56 AM
Ajutor de băgător de seamă
Haiduk,

That was very, very fast! and she's a beauty!

Regarding the struts, would just 8 bits of bamboo skewer be enough to keep the upper wing steady? What about the tabs? It looks like their purpose is to give the back struts an extra layer of foam to hold on; would some other material (strips of balsa etc) be better suited for the purpose?

Cheers,

Şerban
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Feb 10, 2011, 02:09 AM
Pronounced "High Duck"
haiduk's Avatar
Şerban,
Thanks for the positive comments. Yeah, the bamboo proves to be more than strong enough to hold the wing in place. The tabs are simply to help keep the skewers from popping through the wing during collisions. They do give the skewers a bit more "meat" to hold onto. You could substitute balsa for foam there, but it's proportionally heavier. I'm quite sure the foam tabs are more than enough.

Dollar Tree Foam SE5a (2 min 26 sec)


I made this SE5a last year and is still in one piece after much abuse. It's a porker. Quite heavy for its size. I think it's over a pound for a 315sq.inch bipe. A pig for sure. The bamboo struts hold up just fine. The skewers on this one are simply pressed through the foam and hot glued in place. No tabs there. Problem is they do tend to "pop" after running into things like dogs, birds, small rodents (that are 6-10 inches underground) and chain link fences. Even if the struts do pop, it's a quick field repair with a hot glue gun or a small dab of epoxy. No messing with rigging.

This "new" SE5a is a modified form of the old thoroughly tested one. Scaled down a bit with the KF, the Strut Tabs, and the vertical laminated fuselage the new one should be quite sturdy and more than capable of satisfying the "durable" requirement of the WWI combat criteria. The upgrades to the old design should prove to make this an amazing design for combat. Much lighter and stronger than the old design. Similar to the WWII designs in structure and build.

Now the question is, do I build this new SE5a design right away or let other folks give it a go and rely on feedback so I can get more of these planes designed sooner?

-duk
Last edited by haiduk; Feb 10, 2011 at 04:33 AM.
Feb 10, 2011, 02:59 AM
Pronounced "High Duck"
haiduk's Avatar
Here's a photo of the landing gear set up as used in the new SE5a design. I'm using it in several of my planes now. It works quite well. Most importantly, it gives way when it should (rather than levering the nose off the plane).

EDIT: You can see the KF's taped under that wing. I've gotta say, the 40% bottom KF is amazing for slower speed planes. Could tell the difference in stability almost immediately compared to the flat plate. All but eliminated any adverse yaw it exhibited before. The wings acted like they had a moderate undercamber with washed out tips. A noticeable improvement over the flat plate airfoil.
Last edited by haiduk; Feb 10, 2011 at 03:43 AM.
Feb 10, 2011, 07:33 AM
Ken's CAD Models
dz1sfb's Avatar
Thread OP
Duk,
I got the dxf file in SU and am setting up the cut file.

Don,
Would you like to beta test the SE5a?

My schedule is a bit tight right now, but I would cut and donate that beta kit for the sake of development.

Ken
Feb 10, 2011, 09:07 AM
Proudly 2.4GHz free!
dstrout's Avatar
One easy solution for the question of re-using the 1700 BW motors is to just settle on a given prop (8x3.8 or 8x4) and a max RPM, which you adjust with a tach and your radio endpoint control. Then everybody has the same thrust, and the only real advantage you can gain is by building light, which is a good thing to encourage anyway.
Feb 10, 2011, 12:10 PM
'scuse me while I kiss the sky
Lafayette's Avatar

WWI aviation Links and videos


I know this post is taking a bunch of space, but i thought it would nice to see a bit of history, pictures, and videos of the ww1 fighters. May help some with paint schemes or...
Ken you can delete this if you want, I could always put the info somewhere else. Let me know.

http://www.encyclomedia.com/video-br...echnology.html

http://www.encyclomedia.com/video-fi...ft_of_wwi.html

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...r-One-Aircraft

The most Fokker triplanes in the air since ww1-VeryCool:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-Lef...ighter_planes/

World War 1 Aircraft - Sopwith Camel F.1
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-NDz...ith_camel_f_1/

http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft...r_timeline.php

WWI - World War 1 Aircraft (8 min 22 sec)


DH2 aircraft from WW1 flying
DH2 aircraft from WW1 flying (1 min 7 sec)


Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a - WWI Fighter
Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a - WWI Fighter (1 min 40 sec)


Nieuport 11 Bébé - WWI Fighter
Nieuport 11 Bébé - WWI Fighter (1 min 19 sec)


1913 Etrich Taube Aeroplane, 1st airplane to drop bombs in ww1, over Paris.
1913 Etrich Taube Aeroplane (1 min 52 sec)


Why Not Land Your Fokker Triplane in a Crosswind?
Why Not Land Your Fokker Triplane in a Crosswind? (1 min 44 sec)


Sopwith Triplane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLdhh...eature=related

Sopwith Pup
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lM__...eature=related

Sopwith Camel and Spitfire flying in formation
You can definitly hear the only throttle control, On or OFF.
Sopwith Camel and Spitfire flying in formation (8 min 49 sec)


Le Rhone Rotary Engine Startup on 1917 Thomas-Morse Scout
Le Rhone Rotary Engine Startup on 1917 Thomas-Morse Scout (4 min 8 sec)


c. 1913 Caudron G.3 flying at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. Listen to that throttle control!!!
c. 1913 Caudron G.3 flying at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. (0 min 42 sec)
Feb 10, 2011, 12:58 PM
Registered User
Printed out the plans and will build as soon as the wife leaves town on sunday
I have been waiting on this thread as long as the idea has been floating around the WWII thread was excelent and caint wait to see what this one turns into
I also like the WWI bombers the show how ambitious we are as a race and they are truly works of art
Feb 10, 2011, 01:00 PM
\__(O)__/
JollyRogerF4U's Avatar
Here is a photo I took at Selfridge. They restored this & it is now in their museum.
Feb 10, 2011, 01:02 PM
Proudly 2.4GHz free!
dstrout's Avatar
Ack! I am so buried under piles of 8 1/2 x 11 paper waiting to be taped together and turned into airplanes. Must focus! Finish Zero, then SE5a.

I think Ken & Duk need to go on vacation.
Feb 10, 2011, 01:48 PM
Registered User
kdahlhaus's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looking_Up
I also like the WWI bombers the show how ambitious we are as a race and they are truly works of art
I was just having some fun, but if someone is serious about a WWI bomber I have a good reference book and I can scan some info from it. It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure it had 3-views.
Feb 10, 2011, 05:05 PM
Pronounced "High Duck"
haiduk's Avatar
I've been scaling a bunch of WWI planes to 250 sq.inches. Average wingspan is less than 26". I'm thinking that's a bit small. 265 seems more appropriate and most look like they'll fit on a single sheet of PBIII. The wing alignment jigs take up a good part of the sheet, but they're critical for an easy build and I would consider them part of the design itself. I think we can safely bump the limits on the wing area up to 275. Much bigger and they just wont fit onto a single board.

Let's bump the wing area "rule" to 250-275 sq.inches for bipes.
Feb 10, 2011, 05:15 PM
Addicted to building...
Freddie B's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by haiduk
I've been scaling a bunch of WWI planes to 250 sq.inches. Average wingspan is less than 26". I'm thinking that's a bit small. 265 seems more appropriate and most look like they'll fit on a single sheet of PBIII. The wing alignment jigs take up a good part of the sheet, but they're critical for an easy build and I would consider them part of the design itself. I think we can safely bump the limits on the wing area up to 275. Much bigger and they just wont fit onto a single board.

Let's bump the wing area "rule" to 250-275 sq.inches for bipes.
Not to step on any toes. This thread was started quickly just a few days ago. Ken has set the standard based on the initial theory, but I do agree in building and testing at the early stage the 'rules' can and do need to be refined so they work.

Haiduk, you are doing most of the initial design work on the first prototype. I think you would get the best feel by doing this. I still feel the 'rule' should be 250-300" myself. So many plane, so many designes back then, and 250" on a biplane is SMALL, period. Even the little old GWS Tiger Moth IPS had more!

Someone doesn't like it? Well than do battle with them and their larger wing area 'caouse you may think that to be a handicap. You need some good enough wing area to get the WWI performance most would be looking for. No EDF WWI Biplanes for me, LOL.

Off my box.

Fred
Feb 10, 2011, 06:15 PM
Pronounced "High Duck"
haiduk's Avatar
300 is a bit large to fit on a single sheet. That's where the 275 number came from. That's about the biggest I can get to fit on a single sheet of PBIII with the alignment jigs on the same sheet.

One thing is very true. As wing area increases, the amount of weight they can carry increases exponentially.

So far, with the planes I've scaled. It looks like most fit nicely in the middle of the 250-275 range. The SE5a is at 262. The SPAD I'm working on is right at 260. I am not opposed to as much as 300 sqin. for any reason other than it being a bit big to fit on a single sheet of board.

EDIT: I'm going to up my recommendation too, 250-300 for bipes. I just scaled a few more planes to 300 sq.in. They should fit on a single board with an average wing span between 28-30 inches. I rescaled the SPAD I've been working on to 300 and it's much easier to get the gear to fit where it needs to go without sacrificing strength. With most of the WWI planes having such a short nose, it will be easier to get them to balance without having to stretch the lines as much by scaling them a bit bigger.

Ken and I talked on the phone before he set this thread up. The 250 sq.in. "rule" was kind of arbitrary at that point. Bumping the limit up to 300 shouldn't be an issue, but I do want to hear from others about it too.
Last edited by haiduk; Feb 10, 2011 at 08:18 PM.
Feb 10, 2011, 08:13 PM
SG Talon... Super Genius.
That is interesting. My Albatros is 29" Span and it is only 230" or so.... It does have a pretty small lower wing though.
Last edited by SGTalon; Feb 10, 2011 at 08:51 PM.


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