Here is my new Ap plane. Simple, classic scratch built design 990 gr all up with the new Nikon P3. Typhon 15/10 with a 3s2100 Tp. Gives of about 200 Watt. 1.4 Span Clark Y. Test flight without the P3 worked well, with the P3 no difference in handling was observed. Hope to get some pictures this evening.

The first design was less successful. I made a mistake with the dihedral of the wing and made the plane to wide. It was big ungainly and overpowered. At 1.5m Span with the P3 it was at 1300gr. The new plane is lighter at 990gr all up. It flies much better. I lost the 1.3 kg beast over some houses in the neighbourhood and I was extremely lucky not to hit a car, house or child. That kind of shook me. (not to speak of the people I missed ) I crashed into the only patch of grass in the area. Only to be told by a 11 year old that my hobby is dangerous! Well he may be right, but I am sure he will grow up to become a teacher, if the is so sensible at such a young age. His brother was more intrested in the plane so I gave him the Tailplane as a souvenir! Anyway I learnt my lesson the camera survived and I got to build a better plane.

Looks like you have a winner! Way to go! We will all be waiting for your pictures and video's.

Nice looking AP plane and the light weight is impressive.

Looking at your wing - two things have my concern:

The ribs appear to be spaced widely apart (4"?) which may produce distortion of the airfoil (sagging between the ribs). Perhaps half-ribs (LE to spar) placed between full ribs would have been nice.

The lack of shear webs (vertical grain balsa) in the center of the wing running out at least several rib bays on each wing panel. They really help strengthen a wing.

But if it isn't broke, why fix it?

R/E

I wanted to go light on this one. Sagging can be a problem, but I have not noticed in this wing. This is my standard wing, which I have built for ca. 10 models already and have had good experiences till now. The predecessor wing had the shear webs but was heavier. More of a concern is that the first picture sortie was far from optimal from the camera point of view. 99% of the pics were not sharp but blurry. I used the sports mode but had the vibration reduction on. Since I have not had problems with the sports mode of the nikon 3700 I think I will try a flight without the vibration reduction.

Originally Posted by rud-elev

...The ribs appear to be spaced widely apart (4"?) which may produce distortion of the airfoil (sagging between the ribs). Perhaps half-ribs (LE to spar) placed between full ribs would have been nice...

Curious, I could see this as being a concern if the wing planform was being flown at relatively high speeds, but for a slow-flying aircraft, would this still be a concern?

Nice job there Kestral, always a pleasure to see a scratchbuild.

-Roger

Originally Posted by RMihara

Curious, I could see this as being a concern if the wing planform was being flown at relatively high speeds, but for a slow-flying aircraft, would this still be a concern?

Nice job there Kestral, always a pleasure to see a scratchbuild.

-Roger

May not be a concern in this situation.

I usually see it brought up relative to sailplanes, but it must distort the airfoil with that wide rib spacing.

As to the shear webs, there have been a couple of wings fold on the EZ 400 plane when loaded with AP gear. The EZ 400 wing looks very much like this one. Are the spars hard balsa or hardwood?

R/E

Sweet!!
Very reminicent of the Pilatus Porter ( my favorite full scale stol type ).

Not quite there yet, still not sharp enough for my taste. The plan does look a bit like a Pilatus Porter. After having build at least 10 of them in my hobby carrier no wonder! I just love that plane. Anyway I am starting to get usable picture. I seem to get best results when gliding down from a climb. This time the Vibration reduction was on. I thought that that was the problem at first but now it seems to work. next flight I will try without the VR but more gliding.

I am not to sure about the qualities of the newer P3. But I am still on the learning curve. The 8 million vs 3.2 Million Pix make a difference. I looked at selected areas on 3700 pictures and p3 pictures. A direct comparison is not possible due to differences in sun position, haze, time of year etc. The p3 seems to catch more detail but the 3700 pictures seem more crisp.

Which picture is a P3 image which one the 3700? Which one is better?

Y is better.

I am still fine tuning the Plane and the camera. Here are some shots of the inside and of the plane.

It is a very sweet plane to fly. Only visibility is still a problem. Gliding is surprisingly good, considering the flat bottom clark y profile. I can get real high (about 200m) and glide down nicley for making pictures. Today was not sunny enough for really good pictures (an problem with Nikons) but I used the autolevel function in adobe photshop and the pictures look quite nice. Now I will try and get some flying done in other places. On Saturday I am booked at a electric fly-in in Hutwil. Hope to make some nice shots there.

Now I am getting better picture.