1 Sheet Plane

[Mad_Mechanic]

So I slept on this (literally) and did some thinking. I would like to investigate design changes that will enhance low speed/low altitude flight characteristics.

While I'm no barnstormer, I get very nervous about gaining altitude, so I try to keep my planes lower.

 

[bracesport]

let it climb a bit more and see what happens when you further off the ground!

 

[Headbang]

Love this design, nice trainer under the dreaded 250g legal limit. In Canada it is can legally be a true park flier.

 

[bracesport]

@Mad_Mechanic - if you make an under camber wing it will have more slow flight ability!

 

[Headbang]

As far as aileron linkages. Any reason one can just not make a giant z bend out of slightly heavier wire, maybe 2mm. Set it up for shortest wire length possible. Use threaded on one end rod and nylon clevises maybe. Z bends or quick links on the servo. Not sure if the heavier wire would win for wieght savings tho. Just my few thoughts.

 

[BATTLEAXE]

@Mad_Mechanic - if you make an under camber wing it will have more slow flight ability!

I like the under camber wing idea, it widens the speed envelope. Plus as a 1 sheet plane it will end up using 3/4 of a sheet instead. Advantage on saving weight to, leaving even more possibilities. As an under camber wing the easiest place to Mount it would be to the top of the fuse. This would give you even more stability with not only dihedral, but also from the mechanical pendulum effect of the fuse hanging below the lift surface, easier to find CG as well. Wouldn't be any harder to build either.

So I slept on this (literally) and did some thinking. I would like to investigate design changes that will enhance low speed/low altitude flight characteristics.

While I'm no barnstormer, I get very nervous about gaining altitude, so I try to keep my planes lower.

You have the new pilot just built my plane syndrome. I had it bad too. I was to scared to take up the plane on take off because i didn't want to break anything. I would take off and it would get height and i would freak out and drop the throttle and crash it every time. Not enough airflow moving over the lift and control surfaces. Or I would end up being a stick banger in the air and over compensating for every move the plane made, the plane would fly me instead of me flyin the plane. what i found tho is that if i stick to half throttle on a hand launch and give a solid toss to get it going, then whem my hand get back on the sticks i give it a notch more throttle for assurance, then it gains altitude enough to be able to correct anything weird before it hits the ground. Do that a few times and you get the hang of it. I am self taught in person but this is advice i have gotten from many on this forum and it did take awhile for it to click in for me. I just had to take my balls outta my pocket and lean on the throttle more, just let the plane fly itself and only make minor corrections to keep it out of danger.

 

[Mad_Mechanic]

I appreciate all the continued feedback and encouragement on this project.

Call me stubborn, but I would like to keep this design a low wing.

I'm going to work on design tweaks for Revision 2 tomorrow on my lunch break. From there I may decide to start building a new airframe this week. I feel like I've cut and patched too many holes on this first airframe, but that's all part of the R&D process.

 

[bracesport]

just thinking out loud - maybe a bigger plane could get you flying quicker (possibly a bit more stable)?

 

[CapnBry]

It stopped raining for a bit yesterday so I sloshed out into my field and stood in water to fly again. I think it flies great as a trainer, although you have to get past that impulse to go very slow. The wing loading isn't too high that you'll need a lot of speed, but with the 1806 6x4 prop 2S setup, you're going to want to be at 60-70% throttle. The plane is light enough and has enough power to really be able to throw it around and make tight turns when you get in trouble. If you're at 50% throttle and need to react, you'll be fighting to stay in the air as well as avoiding your obstacle.

The quickest way to check the balance on this 1 Sheet Plane is to use the bend that's the front of the spar bend in the wing. If you hold the plane with two fingers supporting the plane by the bend, it shouldn't want to tilt backward at all and should even want to tilt slightly forward when lifted at that point. It flies well even up to the point that my finger is fully in front of that crease when balanced.

I'm tellin ya, this thing is really stable as is and doesn't need to be changed to high-wing to get that minor stabilization benefit. I'll go cut the wingtips off mine before I fly it today to see how it handles the undercamber. When I flew yesterday I was remarking about how great it was since it is very nimble and can do tons of tricks, but the light weight means I can crash it and not do much damage. I've hit the ground on every flight so far I think and all I've got to show for it is that the fuselage is starting to bow out and one of the wings has a little play in it now.

 

[CapnBry]

Well shut my mouth, I guess you can break one of these things.

Although that was a 80+ degree dive going at full throttle where I misjudged the pullout speed. Flight characteristic-wise, I prefer it without the undercambered wingtips. Pro: it can fly a bit slower, like 45% throttle on a fullish pack. Con: When you go into turns at low speed, you're going to need to bump up the throttle to keep from dropping out of the sky, which is something a beginner is unlikely to have coordinated yet. The stall characteristic is actually more harsh as well, since it stalls at a lower speed and you've got less control when it happens. Flying upside down is more of a challenge too since you need more down elevator to maintain altitude so you end up flying with the tail hanging low.

I like it better with the full length flat bottom wing, since the stall is super gentle already. It doesn't make a huge difference either way though. It seemed slower all around, but we've got some wind this morning so I would attribute it to that. I ended up flying at lower throttle most of the time but had some trouble in the corners where it had plenty of throttle for going straight, but just barely enough to keep flying and had to use less rudder or even opposite rudder as the wings lost lift and the nose started to drop. That's really just a function of flying too slowly.

For the record, I cut the wingtips off 10mm / ~0.5" past the end of the aileron on each side. This nose could be easily repaired with some hot glue, but I prefer the original wing, and I'd swap out this dumb one-servo aileron system. It works but it has like built-in dual-rates. The faster you go, the less they work because my wire is too thin to apply enough force against the higher wind resistance. The same stick travel gets me less aileron the faster I go.

 

[BATTLEAXE]

Well shut my mouth, I guess you can break one of these things.
View attachment 140017

Although that was a 80+ degree dive going at full throttle where I misjudged the pullout speed. Flight characteristic-wise, I prefer it without the undercambered wingtips. Pro: it can fly a bit slower, like 45% throttle on a fullish pack. Con: When you go into turns at low speed, you're going to need to bump up the throttle to keep from dropping out of the sky, which is something a beginner is unlikely to have coordinated yet. The stall characteristic is actually more harsh as well, since it stalls at a lower speed and you've got less control when it happens. Flying upside down is more of a challenge too since you need more down elevator to maintain altitude so you end up flying with the tail hanging low.

I like it better with the full length flat bottom wing, since the stall is super gentle already. It doesn't make a huge difference either way though. It seemed slower all around, but we've got some wind this morning so I would attribute it to that. I ended up flying at lower throttle most of the time but had some trouble in the corners where it had plenty of throttle for going straight, but just barely enough to keep flying and had to use less rudder or even opposite rudder as the wings lost lift and the nose started to drop. That's really just a function of flying too slowly.

For the record, I cut the wingtips off 10mm / ~0.5" past the end of the aileron on each side. This nose could be easily repaired with some hot glue, but I prefer the original wing, and I'd swap out this dumb one-servo aileron system. It works but it has like built-in dual-rates. The faster you go, the less they work because my wire is too thin to apply enough force against the higher wind resistance. The same stick travel gets me less aileron the faster I go.

Good job @CapnBry, you pushed her to her limits, and got proven results. The testing you have put it through confirms or expends a lot of speculation in the design phase. Of coarse because of the planes design it lends itself to so many possibilities as it pertains to the individual flyer and the flight experience they are looking for determined by their skill level. That's prototyping if I have ever seen it. @Mad_Mechanic did say he was looking to leave some options up to the individual who is building it and that's exactly what someone who builds can look forward to.

I wish I really had the chance to fly the one I built. Bad decisions in windy weather in a small field and lost line of sight behind trees into a farmers canola crop yielded me a lost plane and the electronics. GROUNDED for now, till payday i guess, then wait for the online order to show up. I lived, and learned, and have to deal with the consequences.

I am proud to be a part of this though and I look forward to the next step, or plane...

 

[Mad_Mechanic]

just thinking out loud - maybe a bigger plane could get you flying quicker (possibly a bit more stable)?

I actually have a larger plane with a high wing already built: an FT Explorer. And I do need to get it out and fly it, but I think I will need a larger, more open area than the park I was flying at over the weekend (far too many trees for my liking).

 

[Mad_Mechanic]

Regarding the suggestion of transitioning this design to high wing, that's not something I want to do. My goal was to design this as a low wing (again, call me stubborn), and I'm hoping that what I learn from this experience will transition over to when I design and build my PT-19 (which will be a larger plane intended for either a B-pack or C-pack size motor with somewhere between an 8in and 10in prop).

@CapnBry - your flight feedback is invaluable. Of the 3 of us that have built this design so far, I completely agree with @BATTLEAXE's assessment that you are a more experienced and more capable pilot than both of us combined.

To further expand on my RC flight history (experience post Control Line days). ~10 years ago (just before 2.4GHz radio systems) my brother talked me into buying a 3-channel Styrofoam high-wing cub-style plane from a local hobby shop. Cost me a couple hundred dollars for the RTF box kit.

I flew it a few times and cracked the fuselage several times. It got to a point where the fuselage seemed to be more CA glue than foam. Then I finally cracked the wing in half. When I started looking at buying replacement foam bits (fuselage and wing) I was completely turned off by the price of the parts: $30 for a wing? $40 for a fuselage?

I gave up due to escalating repair costs and being downright afraid to crash. I had no one to buddy box with and after buying the plane I couldn't afford a simulator program. I sold what was left of the plane to my brother.

A couple years later I decided to give RC helicopters a try. I figured "Hey, I can keep it in the same XX-sq.ft. of space. Plus it's a more challenging form of RC to learn and I like challenges." I bought a Blade CX2 coaxial and got decent at flying that in my backyard. I then bought a HobbyKing 450GT (clone of the TRex 450 SE V2) and managed to hover it a few times. Then the set screw on the tail rotor worked it's way loose and the copter took a dirt nap. Wrecked the rotor and tail boom.

I was in the last couple years of my mechanical engineering degree at university and as a class project I completely redesigned the frame for the helicopter and even got prototype parts cut out on a CNC. And then it sat, and I completely forgot everything I had learned about programming radios for helicopters and flying them. Today that helicopter sits on my desk at work as a cool paperweight and reminder.

Sometime in 2018 a buddy sent me a link to the FliteTest video where they prototyped the A-10 warthog (my all time favorite aircraft). I watched it and enjoyed it but didn't think much of it. Then late 2018, YouTube recommended the FliteTest channel to me again and I was hooked.

It was at that point I saw the potential to alleviate a MAJOR source of flight anxiety by building cheap airframes. Suddenly, crash anxiety would be a thing of the past. Electronics usually survive a crash (receivers and such), and if the airframe costs mere dollars (and can often be repaired with hot glue and packing tape) then I have little to worry about with crashes.

My main fear these days is a fly-away. Much like how @BATTLEAXE lost his plane, it's not the loss of the airframe per-say that hurts, but the electronics. Even my 1 sheet prototype is carrying ~$80 in electronics when you tally up Rx+servos+ESC+motor+battery.

That's a very long winded post and I may have lost sight of my original message that I wanted to convey. Right now you could probably make the analogy that I'm much like John Overstreet (recent guest on FliteTest), in that I am likely a better designer than a flyer. *John is still a FAR more talented and experienced designer/builder than I so I am in no way trying to say I'm in his league*

I do need flight experience. I also need the confidence to get out there and fly. *It would also help if California would stop being 100+ degrees on the weekends and/or windy*

I believe we can get this design refined. I an intrigued by @Headbang's comment about this design being a truly legal park flyer in Canada where they (I guess) have a strict 250g weight limit. I do mark my planes with both my FAA certification number and my AMA membership number so I can park-fly without issue, but that's US rules not Canada.

 

[BATTLEAXE]

Regarding the suggestion of transitioning this design to high wing, that's not something I want to do. My goal was to design this as a low wing (again, call me stubborn), and I'm hoping that what I learn from this experience will transition over to when I design and build my PT-19 (which will be a larger plane intended for either a B-pack or C-pack size motor with somewhere between an 8in and 10in prop).

@CapnBry - your flight feedback is invaluable. Of the 3 of us that have built this design so far, I completely agree with @BATTLEAXE's assessment that you are a more experienced and more capable pilot than both of us combined.

To further expand on my RC flight history (experience post Control Line days). ~10 years ago (just before 2.4GHz radio systems) my brother talked me into buying a 3-channel Styrofoam high-wing cub-style plane from a local hobby shop. Cost me a couple hundred dollars for the RTF box kit.

I flew it a few times and cracked the fuselage several times. It got to a point where the fuselage seemed to be more CA glue than foam. Then I finally cracked the wing in half. When I started looking at buying replacement foam bits (fuselage and wing) I was completely turned off by the price of the parts: $30 for a wing? $40 for a fuselage?

I gave up due to escalating repair costs and being downright afraid to crash. I had no one to buddy box with and after buying the plane I couldn't afford a simulator program. I sold what was left of the plane to my brother.

A couple years later I decided to give RC helicopters a try. I figured "Hey, I can keep it in the same XX-sq.ft. of space. Plus it's a more challenging form of RC to learn and I like challenges." I bought a Blade CX2 coaxial and got decent at flying that in my backyard. I then bought a HobbyKing 450GT (clone of the TRex 450 SE V2) and managed to hover it a few times. Then the set screw on the tail rotor worked it's way loose and the copter took a dirt nap. Wrecked the rotor and tail boom.

I was in the last couple years of my mechanical engineering degree at university and as a class project I completely redesigned the frame for the helicopter and even got prototype parts cut out on a CNC. And then it sat, and I completely forgot everything I had learned about programming radios for helicopters and flying them. Today that helicopter sits on my desk at work as a cool paperweight and reminder.

Sometime in 2018 a buddy sent me a link to the FliteTest video where they prototyped the A-10 warthog (my all time favorite aircraft). I watched it and enjoyed it but didn't think much of it. Then late 2018, YouTube recommended the FliteTest channel to me again and I was hooked.

It was at that point I saw the potential to alleviate a MAJOR source of flight anxiety by building cheap airframes. Suddenly, crash anxiety would be a thing of the past. Electronics usually survive a crash (receivers and such), and if the airframe costs mere dollars (and can often be repaired with hot glue and packing tape) then I have little to worry about with crashes.

My main fear these days is a fly-away. Much like how @BATTLEAXE lost his plane, it's not the loss of the airframe per-say that hurts, but the electronics. Even my 1 sheet prototype is carrying ~$80 in electronics when you tally up Rx+servos+ESC+motor+battery.

That's a very long winded post and I may have lost sight of my original message that I wanted to convey. Right now you could probably make the analogy that I'm much like John Overstreet (recent guest on FliteTest), in that I am likely a better designer than a flyer. *John is still a FAR more talented and experienced designer/builder than I so I am in no way trying to say I'm in his league*

I do need flight experience. I also need the confidence to get out there and fly. *It would also help if California would stop being 100+ degrees on the weekends and/or windy*

I believe we can get this design refined. I an intrigued by @Headbang's comment about this design being a truly legal park flyer in Canada where they (I guess) have a strict 250g weight limit. I do mark my planes with both my FAA certification number and my AMA membership number so I can park-fly without issue, but that's US rules not Canada.

Get some more time on the Explorer and maybe build a couple other FT designs to play around with flight characteristics. It will help both your building and flying skills. Since you already have the A Pack you should try the Mini Scout, Speedster or Sportster. In that progression, and all 3 of those planes can be built in one sheet and all use the same power pod design. Like your Explorer they are all flight tested designs and are a lot of fun to fly. And all of them are adaptable to either 3 channel RET, AET, or 4channel, landing gear and if you get adventurous, make some biplanes out of them. If that interests you, you could check out @buzzbomb, he has built a sweet Mini Scout biplane that he raves about. They all can be flown low and slow in the right wind conditions or indoors if you get the chance. Given the wind you have there in CA you could stick with the bigger planes. I just built the Simple Scout and can't wait to fly it. Look at the release vids on YouTube. You might find something that suits your skill and your flight goals. I have built all the aforementioned planes so if you need help or a heads up on some of the building you know where to find me or anyone else in the forums.

 

[Mad_Mechanic]

Get some more time on the Explorer and maybe build a couple other FT designs to play around with flight characteristics. It will help both your building and flying skills. Since you already have the A Pack you should try the Mini Scout, Speedster or Sportster. In that progression, and all 3 of those planes can be built in one sheet and all use the same power pod design. Like your Explorer they are all flight tested designs and are a lot of fun to fly. And all of them are adaptable to either 3 channel RET, AET, or 4channel, landing gear and if you get adventurous, make some biplanes out of them. If that interests you, you could check out @buzzbomb, he has built a sweet Mini Scout biplane that he raves about. They all can be flown low and slow in the right wind conditions or indoors if you get the chance. Given the wind you have there in CA you could stick with the bigger planes. I just built the Simple Scout and can't wait to fly it. Look at the release vids on YouTube. You might find something that suits your skill and your flight goals. I have built all the aforementioned planes so if you need help or a heads up on some of the building you know where to find me or anyone else in the forums.

The Simple Scout speed build kit has actually been in my wish list for some time now, just haven't spent the money. Part of that is knowing that I need to fly my Explorer. The other part of that is that I enjoy designing and than building my designs more than buying kits. That being said, you are absolutely correct that the FT designs are tried and tested. I know the FT team spends a lot of time on R&D before they release a new design.

@buzzbomb is a forum legend in my book (I know there are many others). He was one of the first people who welcomed me to the forum when I first joined and he encouraged me to create my various spreadsheets for the community (see links in my signature). He is often one of the first people to offer advice and encouragement to any member on the forum.

 

[Headbang]

The Simple Scout speed build kit has actually been in my wish list for some time now, just haven't spent the money. Part of that is knowing that I need to fly my Explorer. The other part of that is that I enjoy designing and than building my designs more than buying kits. That being said, you are absolutely correct that the FT designs are tried and tested. I know the FT team spends a lot of time on R&D before they release a new design.

@buzzbomb is a forum legend in my book (I know there are many others). He was one of the first people who welcomed me to the forum when I first joined and he encouraged me to create my various spreadsheets for the community (see links in my signature). He is often one of the first people to offer advice and encouragement to any member on the forum.

Nothing wrong with the explorer! I have lots of fun with mine. A buddy flies around with his, and I chase him inverted. But I get it. In the middle of 6 projects and doodling on the side for 6 other potential projects. So scattered it is crazy!

 

[BATTLEAXE]

The Simple Scout speed build kit has actually been in my wish list for some time now, just haven't spent the money. Part of that is knowing that I need to fly my Explorer. The other part of that is that I enjoy designing and than building my designs more than buying kits. That being said, you are absolutely correct that the FT designs are tried and tested. I know the FT team spends a lot of time on R&D before they release a new design.

@buzzbomb is a forum legend in my book (I know there are many others). He was one of the first people who welcomed me to the forum when I first joined and he encouraged me to create my various spreadsheets for the community (see links in my signature). He is often one of the first people to offer advice and encouragement to any member on the forum.

Save your money and download some plans. Watch the release and build vids before you embark. Lay it out and you will see if there is anything you would want to change. Advantage is that you get to make your changes real time as opposed to having a precut kit that limits your options. Plus scratch building makes for a more interesting build thread. Look at this thread on your design, 8 pages and counting of comments, suggestions and feedback. So useful and the advice is FREE. I have yet to actually buy a kit, the scratch build is where I am goin to stay. So much more rewarding. That's my 2 cents anyway lol

 

[CapnBry]

It was at that point I saw the potential to alleviate a MAJOR source of flight anxiety by building cheap airframes. Suddenly, crash anxiety would be a thing of the past. Electronics usually survive a crash (receivers and such), and if the airframe costs mere dollars (and can often be repaired with hot glue and packing tape) then I have little to worry about with crashes.

My main fear these days is a fly-away. Much like how @BATTLEAXE lost his plane, it's not the loss of the airframe per-say that hurts, but the electronics. Even my 1 sheet prototype is carrying ~$80 in electronics when you tally up Rx+servos+ESC+motor+battery.

This is exactly where I came from when starting this. I didn't want to spend a month worth of evenings building a plane, loading it up with $300+ worth of equipment, and destroy it on the first day. I also didn't want to buy something ready-made for the same price and destroy it on the same day either. The FliteTest planes are great in that they're cheap to build and have so much variety to the styles that I'm still finding new things to build and enjoy the differences in how they fly. Add to that there's a helpful community churning out plans and build advice, it's just great all around. I've had planes that tenaciously clung to trees and could spend 4-5 hours trying to get one down, but as long as the electronics came back to Earth, I was happy. I had one flyaway which was a fully kitted-out iNav system that just flew behind the trees and disappeared and it broke my heart. I still look around that area thinking I'll find it some day.

I am proud to be a part of this though and I look forward to the next step, or plane...

It's been fun sharing ideas and designs and tips with you and hopefully your return to the air will be coming soon. When I lost my plane I was out of commission for a month waiting to build up the funds again to replace it. The plane I built right after that? Lost too. I was going to give up on the hobby, being just to expensive to keep throwing money into the air and not having it come back, when I went to check the trees again and lo and behold, there was my little plane just sitting there near the ground. The battery was toast, but everything else still worked and I was back in business! I think I got a little tear of happiness.

@Mad_Mechanic you did a great job right from the start, I mean you may have made a few tweaks to the plans since then, but fundamentally they flew very close to what I was looking for. It's a fun little trainer that's a lot more agile than most, and I'm still learning tricks with it. I think it's better than some of the larger models just because it is so light that crashes don't completely bash the plane. I love the low wing too, it just looks so cool cruising just above the weeds.

 

[bracesport]

funny story - I build a couple of TT's and gave one to my brother in law - we took them out with some other planes and had a mare of a day - only one returning that was flyable - he buried his TT right into the ground and we went home tail between our legs - then we discovered his battery was missing (presumably buried in the ground) - roll forward a couple of months and Uncle Kri brought his TT over for a refit and when I took it apart the battery was lodged in the tail!

So you never know!

 

[BATTLEAXE]

funny story - I build a couple of TT's and gave one to my brother in law - we took them out with some other planes and had a mare of a day - only one returning that was flyable - he buried his TT right into the ground and we went home tail between our legs - then we discovered his battery was missing (presumably buried in the ground) - roll forward a couple of months and Uncle Kri brought his TT over for a refit and when I took it apart the battery was lodged in the tail!

So you never know!

Nice, always good times when you look back, frustrating in the moment at times