Register | Help | Store Account | FliteTest Dashboard
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 32 of 32
  1. #31
    Skill Collector rockyboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Alexandria, VA USA
    Posts
    2,333
    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....
    I want YOU to join us in the 2018 Flite Test Community WWII Design/Build Challenge!

    My hanger listing, build threads, conversion projects, and Taranis radio mods are Over Here....

  2. #32
    Old and Bold RC PILOT
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,593
    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!

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •