Thread Tools
Jul 21, 2019, 05:43 PM
fools? at least i'm honest :)
korakora's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer55
Thanks Mark.

If I can nail into it, I might get it into the air in the next week or so...
not intend to freak you out, but in every mistake with new user with mini talon is they always seen this mt are like an "easy" plane to launch, but unfortunately need experience user to launch it to the air

so my point is, take your thr a little bit more than you feel it enought when you launch it, and tossing it with also a little bit hand power! don;t expected this mt can leave your hand by it self without some effort

mine have 7 mt from 5 years a go, so i know a lot what should i do & not to do with mt, just make sure you not making any mistake like i did, mt is a pretty good looking plane, don't put any scar on it

good luck !!
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jul 23, 2019, 04:06 PM
Registered User
Ver2 - what would you change?

» Mini Talon Version 2 ? (8 min 14 sec)
Jul 23, 2019, 11:32 PM
KG7TTQ - Las Vegas
mark_q's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stunt Double
Ver2 - what would you change?

https://youtu.be/xevYolimSh8
Since most of us fly this plane between 1500 and 2000g AUW AND we don't all get to land on golf course quality grass, here are a few suggestions...

SKIDS! Add front and rear skids (throw out the lame wood skid!)
Wing Tip skids
Slightly larger diameter motor mount to more easily accomodate 28XX motors
Add side fuse NACA scoops to get more air to the motor
Get rid of the "mystery" step on the bottom of the fuse
Add a clear front Canopy
Throw out the silly wheel or replace it with one that will last more than one landing
Make the wing a single 2 piece unit that sits in a saddle rather than plugs into the fuse and move it forward 8mm
Add a hollow wire channel in the wing, maybe even two
Strengthen the rear tail spars
Make the tail removable
Throw in a tow hook
Offer a twin
A little more depth/access to the front would be nice for larger forward packs
Get rid of the wood center box and go with my MT5 center kit or something like it


Make parts actually available and when they are ordered PACKAGE THEM APPROPRIATELY to avoid shipping damage!! (I have 6 unusable shipping damaged wings from 4 re-orders)

ONE DON"T - Don't change the foam material, it is tough and wonderfully repairable (do not go with the crap foam like in the Nano Talon)

That's all for the moment, I'm sure I'll think of more

Mark
Jul 24, 2019, 12:56 AM
Flyer of the Lands
NJFPV's Avatar
Just picked up a MT from a guy. AUW was 1776. Looking on the MT site, it states the motors you should use for each weight class - sub 1600g, 1600 - 1800 and +1800. There were green, yellow and red brackets for good motor choice, inefficient and poor. Since it was just about 1800, the motor that was on it (SunnySky 2216 1250) was in the red, so I pulled it. It also didn't feel like it had enough static thrust in my hand and I was concerned about throwing it. I dug around and found a monster - an SK3 3542 1000 (they use can dimensions, so it's really a 2820 1000kv) and I threw a 10x5 prop on it. It certainly feels like I have enough thrust now... Anybody else have a big motor on theirs? Thanks.
Jul 24, 2019, 01:18 PM
KG7TTQ - Las Vegas
mark_q's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJFPV
Just picked up a MT from a guy. AUW was 1776. Looking on the MT site, it states the motors you should use for each weight class - sub 1600g, 1600 - 1800 and +1800. There were green, yellow and red brackets for good motor choice, inefficient and poor. Since it was just about 1800, the motor that was on it (SunnySky 2216 1250) was in the red, so I pulled it. It also didn't feel like it had enough static thrust in my hand and I was concerned about throwing it. I dug around and found a monster - an SK3 3542 1000 (they use can dimensions, so it's really a 2820 1000kv) and I threw a 10x5 prop on it. It certainly feels like I have enough thrust now... Anybody else have a big motor on theirs? Thanks.

A Sunnysky 2216 will fly your plane just fine at 1770g but it won't be a rocket and you'll have to be a little careful. A 2820 is huge at ~148g for this plane and will make it difficult to balance unless you have some heavy gear on the front and a heavy pack. A 10x5 is essentially a Sport/3D or MR prop and is all wrong for a fixed wing FPV rig as you will burn tons of power making thrust you don't use unless you like going vertical slowly A 9x6 or 9x7 would be better assuming you are running a 4S pack. You might even get away with a 10x8 if you have decent motor and ESC cooling just be careful here. A 10x8 should also work OK if you are running a 3S pack.

Mark
Jul 24, 2019, 07:36 PM
Flyer of the Lands
NJFPV's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark_q
A Sunnysky 2216 will fly your plane just fine at 1770g but it won't be a rocket and you'll have to be a little careful. A 2820 is huge at ~148g for this plane and will make it difficult to balance unless you have some heavy gear on the front and a heavy pack. A 10x5 is essentially a Sport/3D or MR prop and is all wrong for a fixed wing FPV rig as you will burn tons of power making thrust you don't use unless you like going vertical slowly A 9x6 or 9x7 would be better assuming you are running a 4S pack. You might even get away with a 10x8 if you have decent motor and ESC cooling just be careful here. A 10x8 should also work OK if you are running a 3S pack.

Mark

Thanks for the reply. Yes, it balances well with a 4s 4000 graphene in the nose. I wouldn't go as far to say that 10x5 are all wrong for fixed wing - I've been using them for many years and often times after extensive prop testing thy have worked out as the most efficient for the setup. I ran it through ecalc for this setup and the 9x6 did slightly better - a minute more of flight time and a bit more speed, naturally. I went and gathered all the 9xX
Jul 24, 2019, 07:41 PM
Flyer of the Lands
NJFPV's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark_q
A Sunnysky 2216 will fly your plane just fine at 1770g but it won't be a rocket and you'll have to be a little careful. A 2820 is huge at ~148g for this plane and will make it difficult to balance unless you have some heavy gear on the front and a heavy pack. A 10x5 is essentially a Sport/3D or MR prop and is all wrong for a fixed wing FPV rig as you will burn tons of power making thrust you don't use unless you like going vertical slowly A 9x6 or 9x7 would be better assuming you are running a 4S pack. You might even get away with a 10x8 if you have decent motor and ESC cooling just be careful here. A 10x8 should also work OK if you are running a 3S pack.

Mark

Thanks for the reply. Yes, it balances well with a 4s 4000 graphene in the nose. I wouldn't go as far to say that 10x5 are all wrong for fixed wing - I've been using them for many years and often times after extensive prop testing thy have worked out as the most efficient for the setup. I ran it through ecalc for this setup and the 9x6 did slightly better - a minute more of flight time and a bit more speed, naturally. I went and gathered all the 9xX props I had and it looks like the 9x8 does best (according to ecalc) with this setup. Flight time is the about same as the 9x6 and 9x7, but the speed and thrust increase for the 9x8 is a lot better. I'll give it a shot and see if she comes down hot. I'm surprised that the sunnysky can handle this thing... it is a tiny motor. This site: http://www.itsqv.com/QVM/index.php?t...otor_Selection says don't do it, but ecalc says it should be fine. Either way, thanks and I'll post back about how it was. It is a monster motor, but hopefully it goes well...
Jul 24, 2019, 11:06 PM
KG7TTQ - Las Vegas
mark_q's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJFPV
Thanks for the reply. Yes, it balances well with a 4s 4000 graphene in the nose. I wouldn't go as far to say that 10x5 are all wrong for fixed wing - I've been using them for many years and often times after extensive prop testing thy have worked out as the most efficient for the setup. I ran it through ecalc for this setup and the 9x6 did slightly better - a minute more of flight time and a bit more speed, naturally. I went and gathered all the 9xX props I had and it looks like the 9x8 does best (according to ecalc) with this setup. Flight time is the about same as the 9x6 and 9x7, but the speed and thrust increase for the 9x8 is a lot better. I'll give it a shot and see if she comes down hot. I'm surprised that the sunnysky can handle this thing... it is a tiny motor. This site: http://www.itsqv.com/QVM/index.php?t...otor_Selection says don't do it, but ecalc says it should be fine. Either way, thanks and I'll post back about how it was. It is a monster motor, but hopefully it goes well...
It doesn't say "don't do it" it just gives recomendations based on itloads of testing as well as a bit of experience.

I know this because it is entirely my site

Mark
Jul 25, 2019, 01:37 PM
Registered User
mike_o's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJFPV
... I wouldn't go as far to say that 10x5 are all wrong for fixed wing...
But they ARE all wrong And especially for a fast moving plane like the MT.
Jul 25, 2019, 03:12 PM
KG7TTQ - Las Vegas
mark_q's Avatar
One way to look at this is to do a bench test to get some static numbers on power vs. RPM vs. speed. I ran three APCe props this morning on a Cobra 2820-1170kv motor at the same power (input) of 60 watts.

Todays shop weather - 94F(34C), 3%RH, 2550ft(777m) ASL

9x6 @ 60w makes 5800rpm = 33mph(53km/h) pitch speed
9x7.5 @ 60w makes 5200rpm = 37mph(60km/h) pitch speed
10x5 @ 60w makes 5600rpm = 27mph(43km/h) pitch speed

OK, now, assuming a perfect airframe where the airspeed = pitch speed and a desired cruise speed of 37mph(60km/h)

The 9x6 consumes 73w
The 9x75 consumes 56w
The 10x5 consumes 127w

It appears from this the 9x7.5 should be the best choice and for many people this is true (even a 9x9 in some cases!) depending on their airframe set-up, the way they like to fly, speed, altitude, etc. In no case, cruising straight and level, should the 10x5 ever be more efficient than the other two.

Of course this is a static test so it doesn't show the drop in input power you would see in an unloaded, moving airframe flying straight and level. In all cases this unloading favors the deeper pitch props. It also doesn't indicate where relative drag fits in as in all cases the prop must first produce enough thrust to overcome drag AND have a prop speed in line with the desired airspeed.

The only way to really tell is to fly a pile of props with an accurate way of measuring flight efficiency at an accurately determined flight speed.

In my case, using a Cobra 2221-1250 and a 9x7 AF prop, I can cruise at 35mph(54km/h) at around 60watts which gives me a capacity drain of ~115mAh/mi(70mAh/km) while cruising. Yes, there are, more efficient set-ups and props but they all take something away with regards to how I like to fly

For anyone interested in really going crazy with all this efficiency testing madness, I've just written a bit on a DIY tool that logs rpm and two temp probes while in flight. This tool also includes a programmable governor so while in-flight you can set the motors RPM at a steady state (like a cars cruise control) and collect good comparitive info on the different props you use. The article is linked in my blog here on RCG or just go here-

https://www.itsqv.com/QVM/index.php?...re_Data_Logger

Two things to note on this project are it is still a work-in-progress and it doesn't work with a 1.2G VTx(!).

Cheers - Mark
Jul 25, 2019, 03:14 PM
Flyer of the Lands
NJFPV's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_o
But they ARE all wrong And especially for a fast moving plane like the MT.
Yeah, no. Application is a factor, and an important one. If speed and distance covered per revolution with the most efficiency is your goal, then higher pitch, lower diameter is the solution in most cases. I'm sure you can think of other applications where lower PD ratio is paramount... Like aircraft where a high rate of climb is more important than speed, aircraft that have a lot of inherent drag they need to overcome due to fixed apparatus, aircraft where the importance of reaching airspeed with a high amount of thrust is a necessity...
Jul 25, 2019, 03:42 PM
Registered User
Mark, I am after changing my vtx to a matek hv one and was going to use your vtx mount for it. Would it be possible to tailor your mount to the matek one at all ???
Jul 25, 2019, 04:23 PM
KG7TTQ - Las Vegas
mark_q's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rommie
Mark, I am after changing my vtx to a matek hv one and was going to use your vtx mount for it. Would it be possible to tailor your mount to the matek one at all ???
Sure, that's an easy one
Send me the dimensions or a link to where I can find them.

Mark
Jul 26, 2019, 02:29 AM
Registered User
mike_o's Avatar

V2 requirements


Quote:
Originally Posted by mark_q
Since most of us fly this plane between 1500 and 2000g AUW AND we don't all get to land on golf course quality grass, here are a few suggestions...

SKIDS! Add front and rear skids (throw out the lame wood skid!)
Wing Tip skids
Slightly larger diameter motor mount to more easily accomodate 28XX motors
Add side fuse NACA scoops to get more air to the motor

Get rid of the "mystery" step on the bottom of the fuse Check
Add a clear front Canopy
Throw out the silly wheel or replace it with one that will last more than one landing Check
Make the wing a single 2 piece unit that sits in a saddle rather than plugs into the fuse and move it forward 8mm
Add a hollow wire channel in the wing, maybe even two
Strengthen the rear tail spars

Make the tail removable Check
Throw in a tow hook
Offer a twin

A little more depth/access to the front would be nice for larger forward packs Check
Get rid of the wood center box and go with my MT5 center kit or something like it
Some very good points. A few comments:
- I have access to soft landing areas, so skids aren't important to me
- My (28mm outside can dia) motor doesn't even get lukewarm, so "don't care" to the scoops
- Saddled wing...hmm... I can't see what advantage that would bring. Easier cable/wire routing? I only have two servo wires
- Removable tail? Yessir! It would make my MT a favourite travel plane. The fixed V-tail prevents that from happening now
- Canopy cover? Dunno, at least keep the stepped nose/platform, it's so much easier to put a camera on than the big Talon
- Ditch the wood center box. Yeah, it has a width tolerance issue with the fuse, and it's a pain wrt FC mounting. Redesign?
- Better nose compartment access? Yes, please. And something for strapping in the battery
Jul 26, 2019, 02:55 AM
Registered User
RocketMouse's Avatar
The last question - will X-Uav ever going to do this?
They need to redesign the plane and make a new moulds. This is quite expensive.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools