What's new

  • Welcome to the new Flite Test Forum home! Please note that the migration is still undergoing and certain content, user privileges or features may be missing or limited until the transition is complete. Thank you!

Tiny Trainer based Canard anyone?

Hai-Lee

Old and Bold RC PILOT
#21
Looked great for a short while.

it seems that it was definitely tail heavy. On my prototype I had a large amount of lead ballast on the nose before it would fly properly.

Another possible solution for you could be the reduction of foreplane incidence angle to reduce the nose lifting forces and thereby send the CG balance point required closer to the main wing.

Sorry for the delay in response but I have been busy building yet another project:rolleyes:
 

rockyboy

Skill Collector
#22
Thanks for the tips - I've had this hanging up in the shop for a bit as I've been distracted with other projects too :)

I'm thinking to get it modified and back in the air in a couple weeks though - before the weather turns here.
 
#23
Hm? interesting, I might give this a shot. The flight dynamics would be quite different. Your Canards look kinda small, what are the stall characterisics like?
 

FoamyDM

Building Fool-Flying Noob
#24
TTC -wow

Great job guys! The write-up is well done the build is easy looking ans the final model is something that needs to be watched. I'm curious on tue canard const. And how did it change the flight characteristics.

I'm trying canards for the first time on a robotech vf-9 scratch build here and will need all all the help/educated/experienced advise i can.
 

Hai-Lee

Old and Bold RC PILOT
#25
Hm? interesting, I might give this a shot. The flight dynamics would be quite different. Your Canards look kinda small, what are the stall characterisics like?
Like all canards it does not really stall in the conventional sense, The foreplane stalls first when the CG is correct and the nose drops causing the plane to gain speed and the stall is over. For the slowest possible landing you will need to land with almost full nose down control input but higher speed landings are possible using no control input by just letting it slow down and settle.
 

Hai-Lee

Old and Bold RC PILOT
#26
Great job guys! The write-up is well done the build is easy looking ans the final model is something that needs to be watched. I'm curious on tue canard const. And how did it change the flight characteristics.

I'm trying canards for the first time on a robotech vf-9 scratch build here and will need all all the help/educated/experienced advise i can.
The real secret to a canard is that the front mounted horizontal stabiliser is always loaded in level flight. Level flight is achieved when the wing loading figure on the foreplane is the same as for the main wing. Canards almost always are pusher designs because the prop wash would otherwise upset the balance of lift between the foreplane and the main wing making control impossible.

This prop wash induced lift differential is what also give rise to tandem wing design instabilities in tractor powered designs.

Due to the small size and low power of the version shown here there is the possibility of travel limits of the servos limiting your maneuvering but if flown mildly it flys well and gracefully.
 

rockyboy

Skill Collector
#27
For an update on my Tiny Canard...

I was tired of it hanging in my shop, taunting me in the evenings, daring me to figure out why it didn't handle as nice as Hai-Lee's....

So I took it to FliteFest East with the plan of 'do or die' - I'd either get it flying right with help from people there, or I would declare myself a failure as an RC modeler and cry myself to sleep on the cold muddy ground. :p

Before I took the trip I added a front servo and canard flaps (wasn't easily possible to make the whole canard angle adjustable). When I pulled it out at the event, I started with some glide testing by the build tent. Noticed it really wanted to point it's nose to the sky and land on it's prop. So I added a 1/4 oz of lead. And then another 1/4 oz. And then it started to glide rather than crash. So I put it up in the air with my trusty 2s800 pushed way up in the nose, and my goodness! It flew!! I had some trouble keeping it from moving downwind, but by gaining some altitude on the crosswind legs, and diving into the upwind I was able to bring it back to my flying station. Then, just for fun, I had it hover almost perfectly in place and gently brought it down for a vertical landing in wind that was tossing Tubby Cubby's all over the field!!

My next bit of fun was confirming the ESC could handle a 3s1000 battery, and adding a couple paper streamers for color. Now I can power up the field when I need to, gently float around when I'm feeling stressed, and land on a dime in the wind. Love how it's performing!!

In fact, I was having so much fun with it, I used it as my main combat flyer - flew in 3 combats, made contact in each one, and was only taken out of the sky by an enemy streamer binding up one of my elevons :black_eyed: People loved that it was a Tiny Trainer in a new life, and I think I talked a couple people into trying it with their own Tiny Trainers.

I have a friend in my local RC club who found a source for thin (2mm) coroplast, and now I'm thinking of making a Tiny Trainer Combat Canard :)

In summary, I love the design Hai-Lee! I should have pushed my way through the CG issue a long time ago - my canard angle of attack was just too high for the CG from your plans, so anyone who decides to build one of these should not by worried by the build at all - if it doesn't want to glide, start adding some weight, and you'll end up with a lovely addition to your fleet!
 

Hai-Lee

Old and Bold RC PILOT
#28
rockyboy, You sir are a legend!

You problem fighting against the wind is because the vertical fins are a little too small and too close to the CG. The fuselage length is working against them in the wind. The revised version of the wing answers that issue.

Currently I am developing a a larger span wing of greatly increased wing area, minor dihedral, and symmetrical airfoil for the project. Currently the wing is being test flown on my TT Tailless design with tricycle undercarriage.

The centre wing section has a span of 1 metre and a cord of 220 mm and sits atop the standard TT fuselage without modification.

The wing flying speed is less than the original and the landing speeds are a lot slower than the original as well. It has even outlasted the Bixlers at our field in gliding duration and ability to hover in a moderate breeze.

Your post has given the whole project a boost. Thank You!

Have fun!
 

rockyboy

Skill Collector
#29
Thank you for the inspiration and a super fun design! This was so much fun as a streamer combat ship - I could hover in place and tease people into coming after me, and then drop away to the side or (with the 3s) punch up and start a chase. And with a coroplast instead of foam board, I won't have to worry about causal hanger rash or dew on the field for morning combat sessions.

And I'm really looking forward to the new tweaks you're working on - I'll get some coroplast ordered and wait to chop into it until you're ready to share the details :)
 

Hai-Lee

Old and Bold RC PILOT
#30
The mods details might take a little time as I got a new order for my existing product line, (only one model), and a few other models I have offered. I sell through a local model shop - retail. This is part of my market research and obviously 12 models of the same type in such a small client area is unprecedented in the shops history so it says something for the design. and build quality.

I finally have won over the shop owner and he seemed eager for the first time ever!:applause:

Anyway that's enough self congratulations and horn blowing.

Now that you have it flying and I have seen you have the ability to photograph and take videos of your flights I request of you just one thing!

Document the build, record the flight, and submit it as an article. I gift it to you if you are interested. Should you feel obliged, (though you are not), you could claim it as your own design based on an idea from Hai-Lee, That is not a lie because I do not have access to the same materials you do and the majority of other FT viewers do.

Any other developments like the alternate wing, or the tricycle undercarriage I will PM directly to you when they are completed for you to add as an addendum after you have evaluated them, (if suitable).

Thanks again!

Have fun!
 

rockyboy

Skill Collector
#31
Congrats are certainly in order! Great to hear you're getting local-in-person traction with your work!

I will absolutely do a detailed, photographed walk through on my next build - that's becoming pretty standard for me on all my builds these days :) I haven't submitted for an article before, but hey - first time for everything, right? And it will absolutely be credited to you - I didn't think this up, I was inspired 'cause you showed me it could work! :)

I'm also very happy to provide input on any upgrades or ideas you have cooking for this. My interest in pursuing this design (and hobby) is purely for the enjoyment of the building, flying, and community interactions. If being public with comments on prototypes would impede your retail reputation or actions in any way, just let me know and I'll be happy to keep those comments private too.

Now if I can just remember where my buddy ordered that 2mm coroplast from.... :confused:
 

Hai-Lee

Old and Bold RC PILOT
#32
As the TT was a trainer after all I looked into my own crashes and damage done when I first started to fly the TT. It dawned on me that as a trainer the nose in impact was a cause of many days of repairs rather than flying not to mention the days of waiting for fresh props to arrive.

After doing my prototype TT based canard, (using pre-crashed electrics), I looked further into the "FAILSAFE" setup and worked out that with the dihedral and on the fixed canard a failsafe setting of cutting the motor and giving full "UP" caused the plane to settle into a slow glide descent and excluding trees and other obstacles a damage free landing EVERY TIME!

As a trainer, with a redesign of the TT power nose, (or a fresh NEW design), to reduce weight the canard could become the closest thing to a crash proof plane that is currently possible. The long fuselage lightens the canard load but increases the overall weight and makes its pitch response a little sluggish, (Ideal as a trainer).

When doing your combat version experiment with reducing the fuselage boom length, (down to 400 to 450mm), this will increase the canard loading a tad but allow for a great reduction in extra nose weight and even allow the nose to rise and fall at greater speed. The lower weight will help a little in roll but massively in pitch. CG will also be a little further rearward but starting with the CG at the wing LE and glide testing, will allow you to quickly establish where the CG should be, (by adding nose weights or shifting the battery as you have already done).

I will be watching for your post, (start your own thread), and hopefully the article if FT approves it of course!

Have fun!
 

BEEMANS

NEVER FLY WITHOUT IT
#33
Hai-Lee

I am looking at the pictures on the second page of the tread unfortunately all the other pictures and plan links are broken. I am currently drafting up a version of this plane and have a question. Would a flat canard with adjustable flaps work or does the canard need to be fixed with a fixed angle? I have an idea on how to make the flaps work with one servo and wanted to know what you think. I will post my plans here soon I can and would like it if you could look them over. let me know what you think

Thanks
 
Last edited:

Hai-Lee

Old and Bold RC PILOT
#34
Sorry that the links are broken but they used to be pics must be something done on the server, possibly space saving?

As for the general question about the angle of the canard foreplane, normally the canard design performs far better with some loading or load sharing with the main wing. As you decrease the loading, foreplane angle of attack, the CG point moves rearwards to maintain the balance.

As you reduce the loading also the pitch sensitivity also increases until you get to the point where the slightest movement or even flexing of the foreplane can cause great pitch changes.

Technically as the foreplane loading reaches zero the main wing is functioning as a flying wing with the small distance between pressure centres and so stability is reduced. I do encourage you to experiment by all means and as I type this I can see my latest canard construct awaiting my fitting of the nose wheel steering and its maiden. [Not based on the TT this time].

There is a correlation between control stability, foreplane loading, distance between wing and foreplane, and the cord of the main wing. With the TT having such a narrow cord the foreplane was made to be loaded and at a great distance from the main wing. (I use the heavier FB and that could be part of the reason that rockboy required so much ballast to get balance)!

The pics missing could be re-posted if required. The TT Canard was done using bits I had to hand in an attempt to make a 3 channel pusher without flex cables or complicated mechanical setups. Just 2 wing mounted servos and the usual Rx, ESC, motor, and battery.

If you wish any more information of the pics etc just let me know!

Have fun!
 

flitetest

Administrator
#35
Hai-Lee and Rockyboy!

Really like what you guys have done with the TT Canard plans! I have enjoyed reading and following along with everything and seeing how you can take ONE plane(even in its damaged state).. and turn it into something completely different and make it WORK! ;)

Keep on doing what you are doing and keep on inspiring others!

Blessings,
Stefan
 

Hai-Lee

Old and Bold RC PILOT
#36
Stefan, I am shocked and somewhat embarrassed.

This thread and the recent similar post on http://forum.flitetest.com/showthread.php?14491-(Das)-Little-Stick-Parkflyer-Plans/page12 are just my attempts to give great planes a boost especially in their overall life. Having said that my TT canards are currently flying from someone else's hangar.

rockyboy has been invaluable in this aircrafts development and acceptance and he is effectively a co-author and test pilot.

Perhaps, (part of my dream), is FT might evaluate some of the many different add ons for the TT and consider an "Expansion Pack" for the TT.
Bixler nose, Lightweight fuselage, and a few of the many others, (selected for performance by the TT builders).

FYI. I found getting real info and assistance very difficult when I started this time around and so I spend my time trying to give others that which I could not find. Additionally in a time where "Drones" are considered sinister the more users we can get the more our hobby will be secure from blanket and punitive legislation.

Have fun!
 

BEEMANS

NEVER FLY WITHOUT IT
#37
OK
So it took a while to get my model in order but I have some plans worth showing. Take a look at them and let me know what you think. I like the idea of the flat variable canard in front. I figure I could after I get a basic setting for the canard and after I find that mechanically set it and then tie it into the elevator with a mix.
View attachment TINY CANARD PG-1.pdf
View attachment TINY CANARD ISO.pdf
View attachment TINY CANARD PG-2.pdf




Will be building sometime in the future I have a few project ahead of this one.
 
Last edited:

rockyboy

Skill Collector
#38
Very nice looking plans!

My one comment is on the front canard servo - that's pretty much how I did mine too and it was a complete pain in the rear. :black_eyed:

For my next one, I think it will be easier to construct using a skewer straight through the fuse as a pivot for the control surface, and attaching an arm to that skewer that the servo can control inside the fuselage. I'm probably doing a crap job explaining this, but will dig up a picture - I know I saw one on a thread for a WW2 canard design in the works somewhere...

So it's not a proven idea yet, but hopefully it will make it easier to construct and tune :) I'll be building one of these in the next couple weeks and have more feedback to share then.

Thanks!
 

Hai-Lee

Old and Bold RC PILOT
#39
You could use a pair of the 1/2A Aileron control rods. (Sorry I cannot remember the exact name). They are the torque rods used when the ailerons are to be run off of a single fuselage mounted servo where one side is pushed and the other is pulled at the same time as the servo output rotates. But in this application both are connected to the same side of the servo output disk and operate in unison rather than in opposition as an aileron installation would dictate.

Have fun!