Houndpup Rc

Legendary member
2026 High Speed Challenge UPDATE: The ending date has been extended from July 10th to September 1st, that way we will have a bit more time for getting our planes out but it won't interfere with the '26 Monster plane challenge! (Hope to see ya'll there as well!😉)
 

Houndpup Rc

Legendary member
Date sound good for everyone? I didn't want have to figure out the prize with FT right when they are running FF, so I figured the 1st would give them some recoup time and give us a little more time for building.
 

telnar1236

Master member
Being a member of the "200 club", beside the power requirements lacking, the plane has so much external drag, doubt if it could go much faster.

For instance, the servos on the 2 wings produce an exurbanite amount of drag. (Should be only 1 servo inside fuse and tubing going out to aileron that rotates. Might even save some weight. Remember, drag is a function of velocity squared.
Need to fill air gap with tape so when ailerons, elevator are rotated, there is no flow from the gap bottom to top wing.
Notice the screw holding the wing on. Why not recessed. Is that a step about an 1" or so behind the screw? Like sticking your hand out of car doing 60. in drag
There's more, but the thing to me that is scarry, is that long thin tail. Resonance and flutter caused by imbalance of prop/motor/plane.

Now if you had 2 identical birds and need to win by highest speed, this is what I would do. In addition, balance the prop(even composite props are not perfect) and then using a good tachometer install the prop and run it. Now unloosen the prop, hold shaft still, and rotate 30 and tighten prop. Run, record, and rotate. Take the highest rpm. That is matching motor/prop for lowest out of round.

An alternate that I use is a old FC. It allows you to use the accelerometer to get lowest reading. @telnar1236, that what I use on my 5 bladed EDF's to get max rpm's.

If you got the cash, get a 32 bit ESC, resolder low resistant wire. Should add wattage to the motor to win. Also do a split S. It is really what info and experience you have. Play with motor timing, risky, or add a cooling fin(may or may not).

Side note--are you still using analog servos? get digital ones for better response.
Generally solid advice for building a fast plane. In general, with drag reduction you get the big improvements by improving the overall shape of your plane (planform, airfoil, etc.) but this doesn't really matter without all the small improvements (covering gaps, removing sharp corners etc.).

As an example, for the Super Duper Sabre, the big improvements came from the shape of the fuselage and the choice of aspect ratio and airfoil for the wing and tail. Those enabled me to design a conceptually very fast airplane. However, the little things were still important. The use of internal control linkages keeps me from losing 4 mph off a 150 mph top speed (it's about 1mph lost per pair of external linkages for this design and 5 of the 7 linkages could be made internal).
1782164440977.png

1782164489177.png

The use of gapless hinges reduces total drag by about 8.5% (about 17% for just the wing which is about half of the drag of the aircraft) which keeps me from losing about 6 mph off a top speed of 145.5 mph. The data is for a Clark Y airfoil and assumes a 45 degree beveled hinge for the top and bottom hinge positions. If anything, the laminar flow airfoil will have more of an impact. For very thing wings, this is much less pronounced and for draggier foam board designs, I don't know if it really matters.
1782164665466.png

Having a tail cone on the back of the motor boosts thrust by about 6% which is another 4 mph (so much better installing a tail cone on an inrunner than an outrunner). I don't have data for using recessed screws vs. surface mounted, but I'm guessing that's another 1-2 mph across the whole airplane. So right there, just those few things could knock in the range of 15-16 mph off the top speed. Having gear doors in and of itself probably gives me another 5-10 mph right there.

It's very easy to take an aerodynamically excellent design and then cripple it with unnecessary drag.
 

telnar1236

Master member
Being a member of the "200 club", beside the power requirements lacking, the plane has so much external drag, doubt if it could go much faster.

For instance, the servos on the 2 wings produce an exurbanite amount of drag. (Should be only 1 servo inside fuse and tubing going out to aileron that rotates. Might even save some weight. Remember, drag is a function of velocity squared.
Need to fill air gap with tape so when ailerons, elevator are rotated, there is no flow from the gap bottom to top wing.
Notice the screw holding the wing on. Why not recessed. Is that a step about an 1" or so behind the screw? Like sticking your hand out of car doing 60. in drag
There's more, but the thing to me that is scarry, is that long thin tail. Resonance and flutter caused by imbalance of prop/motor/plane.

Now if you had 2 identical birds and need to win by highest speed, this is what I would do. In addition, balance the prop(even composite props are not perfect) and then using a good tachometer install the prop and run it. Now unloosen the prop, hold shaft still, and rotate 30 and tighten prop. Run, record, and rotate. Take the highest rpm. That is matching motor/prop for lowest out of round.

An alternate that I use is a old FC. It allows you to use the accelerometer to get lowest reading. @telnar1236, that what I use on my 5 bladed EDF's to get max rpm's.

If you got the cash, get a 32 bit ESC, resolder low resistant wire. Should add wattage to the motor to win. Also do a split S. It is really what info and experience you have. Play with motor timing, risky, or add a cooling fin(may or may not).

Side note--are you still using analog servos? get digital ones for better response.
In general 3D printed designs seem very resistant to flutter at least. I think the limitations of 3D printing tend to result in a very stiff airframe, especially if using normal PLA and infill instead of vase mode or a ribbed structure. 3D printed materials, and especially PLA also tend to have a very low coefficient of restitution and fairly high damping compared to something like fiber glass or balsa which means it's harder to build up big vibrations since the energy gets absorbed. The only time I've had major issues with flutter was on a plane going only about 60 mph and it had these huge all moving vertical stabilizers driven by little 9g servos (wingspan is 8 ft for a sense of scale). This was very much an issue of a bad design decision and most likely developed in the push rods, and even then, I was able to back off the throttle and land totally safely
422418_4073f487a5416f0f979a36ea6b59791c.jpg
422421_e453429d57195cdff596f557297120b3.jpg
 

Gadeirus

Active member
The new later date works well with me, though I think I just put the finishing touches on my design, at least my first one, ha!

With small motor and small 2S battery Solidworks is saying pretty much 300g on the dot, but I don't model things like hot glue, pushrods, small screws, etc. Either way, that'll be fine for test flights. I've tried to design the air frame such that it is relatively balanced without a battery which should allow the bigger 3S battery to not affect CG much. The bay is also big enough to accommodate a variety of packs, and the motor mount is configured such that a larger motor would be easy to retrofit, though then I have to really keep an eye on CG.

Hope to start building some time this week, need to pick up some more foam board and waiting for my one "cheat" component to show up, a CF tube I'll use as a spar.

Trying to go as much foamboard as possible, I think a 3D printed air frame has tremendous advantage particularly for trying to go fast, almost would feel like cheating. I'll try that at another time.
 

Houndpup Rc

Legendary member
Updated leader board on the first post:
 

L Edge

Legendary member
In general 3D printed designs seem very resistant to flutter at least. I think the limitations of 3D printing tend to result in a very stiff airframe, especially if using normal PLA and infill instead of vase mode or a ribbed structure. 3D printed materials, and especially PLA also tend to have a very low coefficient of restitution and fairly high damping compared to something like fiber glass or balsa which means it's harder to build up big vibrations since the energy gets absorbed. The only time I've had major issues with flutter was on a plane going only about 60 mph and it had these huge all moving vertical stabilizers driven by little 9g servos (wingspan is 8 ft for a sense of scale). This was very much an issue of a bad design decision and most likely developed in the push rods, and even then, I was able to back off the throttle and land totally safely
422418_4073f487a5416f0f979a36ea6b59791c.jpg
422421_e453429d57195cdff596f557297120b3.jpg
I enjoy what you are doing and since we look at things differently , it's nice to let the "newbee's" see different aspects in designing planes. I have heard about baking the plastic plane in too much sun(temp wise), is there any info out there if the sun's rays are detrimental to the structural(not temp) segment over a period of time?

For high speed racing, it really gets to be quite expensive to get less drag to be the winner, but that's some of the things you need to do to be declared tops.
 

telnar1236

Master member
I enjoy what you are doing and since we look at things differently , it's nice to let the "newbee's" see different aspects in designing planes. I have heard about baking the plastic plane in too much sun(temp wise), is there any info out there if the sun's rays are detrimental to the structural(not temp) segment over a period of time?

For high speed racing, it really gets to be quite expensive to get less drag to be the winner, but that's some of the things you need to do to be declared tops.
I've not had issues with damage from UV and I'm mostly using ABS which is not particularly UV resistant. You get a bit of yellowing, but the amount of time the planes spend in the sun isn't that long in absolute terms - a few hours maybe once or at most twice a week when the weather is good. My oldest plane I still have together is my F-106. I've replaced some of the parts more recently, but there are still parts from maybe March or April last year that are still going strong with no noticeable damage - I know for sure the vertical stabilizer has never been replaced for example.
 

Gadeirus

Active member
May have just figured the GPS thing out, for myself at least. I have a Radiomaster transmitter already that has telemetry capability, so now I've ordered a Radiomaster ER6 receiver and ERS-GPS module that should allow me to track speed. $25 receiver and $27 for the GPS sensor.
 

L Edge

Legendary member
I've not had issues with damage from UV and I'm mostly using ABS which is not particularly UV resistant. You get a bit of yellowing, but the amount of time the planes spend in the sun isn't that long in absolute terms - a few hours maybe once or at most twice a week when the weather is good. My oldest plane I still have together is my F-106. I've replaced some of the parts more recently, but there are still parts from maybe March or April last year that are still going strong with no noticeable damage - I know for sure the vertical stabilizer has never been replaced for example.

I've not had issues with damage from UV and I'm mostly using ABS which is not particularly UV resistant. You get a bit of yellowing, but the amount of time the planes spend in the sun isn't that long in absolute terms - a few hours maybe once or at most twice a week when the weather is good. My oldest plane I still have together is my F-106. I've replaced some of the parts more recently, but there are still parts from maybe March or April last year that are still going strong with no noticeable damage - I know for sure the vertical stabilizer has never been replaced for example.
I was interested in if there is data available on the ABS or other material that you use over a period of time, does' the chemical breakdown effect the structure. How about the printing process? For instance, what if a engine mount sits around for 2 years, can it handle the bending. torsion, vibration, or self destruct and hurt someone.. This is all new stuff.
 

telnar1236

Master member
I was interested in if there is data available on the ABS or other material that you use over a period of time, does' the chemical breakdown effect the structure. How about the printing process? For instance, what if a engine mount sits around for 2 years, can it handle the bending. torsion, vibration, or self destruct and hurt someone.. This is all new stuff.
I can only speak to the kinds of applications I have used 3D printing in but like I said, no noticeable damage from being exposed to normal conditions for RC planes for over a year. The F-106 is a big, heavy, 4+ kg plane and I fly aerobatics with it every flight, so it's not some lightly loaded part that's just hanging out. However, I can't really speak about exposure to hours of vibration like in a motor mount since EDFs tend to be very low vibration as a whole. I also can't speak about chemical exposure like with a mount for a gas engine, but ABS in general is attacked by solvents like acetone, so I wouldn't recommend trying to use it with a gas engine
I can say that if you don't have a strong enough structure ABS will start to crack over time - this was an issue with the vertical stabilizer mounts on my modular F-104 - but that was one of my earlier designs and the first one where I had ever used ABS so I was still figuring out what I was doing. I haven't had any issues with cracking under reasonable flying conditions in any of my more recent designs. And if an ABS part does crack you can fill in the crack with CA glue and it's almost as good as new.