Ugly Stick 3D - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Oct 07, 2017, 10:08 AM
Registered User
Discussion

Ugly Stick 3D


I have recently acquired an Ugly Stick with 68 inch wingspan and 12 inch cord minus ailerons my plan is to use a 17CC gasser on it. I want to turn this into a 3D plane my question is how do I determine the size for the control surfaces elevator rudder with flaperons. Is there some type of formula or seat of the pants ?
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Oct 09, 2017, 09:05 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secondranch
I have recently acquired an Ugly Stick with 68 inch wingspan and 12 inch cord minus ailerons my plan is to use a 17CC gasser on it. I want to turn this into a 3D plane my question is how do I determine the size for the control surfaces elevator rudder with flaperons. Is there some type of formula or seat of the pants ?
In my experience, "Sticks" can be acrobatic as all get out, but don't do well when it comes to 3D because of all sorts of weird coupling issues. It's like trying to 3D a Cub or something.

That said, if I were going to try, I'd have a close look at other planes in this size range that were designed for 3D, to get an idea of proportion. I don't think I've ever seen any formulas that might be of any use.

Best of luck!
Oct 17, 2017, 02:05 PM
Registered User
A Stock Stik should hover with adequate power and a large low-pitch prop. I don't consider that anywhere close to 3D however. In the attached video, I enlarged the elevator cord, but it wasn't much better than stock.
kcrc BradB 160820aa Hand Launch (6 min 3 sec)
Oct 17, 2017, 08:56 PM
Registered User
I was reading one article where they added 6 degrees anhedrial for more neutral upright to inverted being a high wing and wing plates for slower stall speed. Still digging for more mods to encourage a more 3D type flying.............. Just because
Oct 17, 2017, 11:04 PM
Registered User
Like you, I toyed with the idea of improving the Ugly Stik, but ran out of ambition.

I flattened out the dihedral on one of my GP Big Stik's. It totally ruined the ability to flat-spin. I wish I had just reversed the spar and gave it some anhedral instead. I've had better luck with relocating the elevator and rudder servos to the rear. The Stik can take some rather extreme rear CG locations without getting too squirrely. Stop when it starts to climb inverted.

The Stick really needs larger ailerons and rudder. It's easy to run out of control response when hovering.
A good figure is 50% larger that stock. You will want to upgrade to hi-torque servo's and linkage if you go this route.
Prop selection is important if you want to hover. Get the largest lowest pitch prop that will turn normal rpm's. An APC 13x4W worked pretty well for me on a two-stroke 61

Look up some posts by Ed Moorman. He loves his anhedral Ugly Stiks and he can get a Stik to fly without pitch or roll coupling.

Good Luck
Nov 01, 2017, 10:25 PM
Registered User
DGrant's Avatar
Sometimes it's not about "enlarging" the control surfaces, there's alot to be said about "reducing" the stabilizer surfaces. If you look at a hor.stab/elevator and vert.stab/rudder, the total surface on a Stik, the elevator and rudder is only about 25% of each whole surface.... with slight exception to the rudder... which means 75% of that whole surface that does nothing but stabilize(this is hypothetical, but you get the idea?).. So.. make the stabilizer surfaces less.... as that's the whole premise in 3D right. Enlarging the control surface itself will move more air... and give more force to move the plane.. but it won't necessarily make it less stable.

Not saying at all here a Stik is a great 3D'r, but they can hover, harrier, etc.. I'm sure there's much easier planes on the market. I'm not any big 3D pilot either... but I can do the above manuevers pretty easily with my Stik... Put a foamy in my hands though then the game is on.... those are much easier... . and take a look at the stab/control surfaces... and the ratio's they're designed.... Many of them have rudders and elevators that are 75% of the whole stab area.
Nov 02, 2017, 09:20 AM
Registered User
In my experience with Stiks, next to moving the CG way back, the next best modification would be to increase aileron size. The little elevator is surprisingly effective once the CG has been moved back an inch or so. I've also discovered that squaring the wingtips flush with the last rib will dramatically increase roll-rate. Of course you really cant call the plane an Ugly Stik any more...
Last edited by warhwk; Nov 02, 2017 at 09:34 AM.
Nov 02, 2017, 10:43 AM
Registered User
Thanks for all the input it is going to be my winter project, Planning the changes and how to accomplish how I want it to fly is taking time and guessing to a point. Being I have not done any true building since late 60`s is not helping any either.
Nov 02, 2017, 10:47 AM
Registered User
Re: the building part, that's like riding a bike. You don't forget, but you do keep getting better and better!


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Techno RC folks..need answers. Fastest ARF wing, most aerobatic, before/after UG's Fly200 Flying Wings 4 Nov 13, 2005 12:16 PM
Went and bought an XRB... Now have questions. Ug! The Commodore Coaxial Helicopters 7 Feb 18, 2005 01:35 AM
Question HB UG's - LiPo, Motors - Questions iparaglide Micro Helis 5 Nov 24, 2003 08:39 PM
Ug!!! Hummingbird basically tipping over :( Sambryan Micro Helis 14 Oct 25, 2003 11:55 PM
ugli zagi contest ukbuckeye Foamies (Kits) 8 Sep 28, 2001 10:11 PM