Marzipan
Well-known member
it looks like a prime candidate to model after or make a kit of, but my Google-fu comes up with nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan
Airbus E-Fan - anyone made an rc copy?
- Thread starter Marzipan
- Start date
Ketchup
4s mini mustang
I think it's such a prime candidate because RC modelers basically already do that lol. In full scale it would be a great achievement to make that plane, but for an RC it should be relatively simple, and at first glance it looks kind of... boring. I admit there would be a lot of people interested in that plane, but it doesn't look like it would provide any special characteristics other than being the special electric thing that Airbus made. If somebody wanted to make an EDF, they could probably design their own plane that would be more fun to fly, so the only people who would be interested in this would be people who are looking for a model of this particular Airbus.
Bo123
Elite member
Did you see the Lockheed in an old TV show?
leaded50
Legendary member
no? I made it out of drawed design pictures. US first planned jet. you know... the P80 (first operational US jet) got its wingstyle from this projectidea. Thst the reason they could build the P-80 at a short time.
Last edited:
Can cheat and use LBDFs insted of EDFs to get efficiency up a bit. With some LiIon packs, it may be doable.
Marzipan
Well-known member
what r/c aircraft has an hour of flight time? most get around 10 min, which just so happens to be what 1/6th of 1 hour is, LoL!
JasonK
Participation Award Recipient
the LR type builds do an hour just fine.
build for efficency and it can be doable, just fine. if I can get my 75% goblin to cruze at 50% throttle, that would be about 3A draw and I have a 3000mAh li-ion pack in it, so I could get 30+ minutes with it. Take a more aerodynamic model (to get the cruze current down) and you could hit 60 minutes.
Marzipan
Well-known member
very cool...but a couple questions.
what is an 'LR type' build?
what are LBDFs?
also, my brain was thinking UMX when I posted my comment, so I'm assuming the Goblin can fly for so much longer than the 10 min I usually see because it's so much larger?
JasonK
Participation Award Recipient
LR -> long range
not sure what LBDF is, but BDFs are ben's ducted fans which was a design to use quad parts to build a modified ducted fan 'on the cheep', which would be my guess as to what this was, but I could be wrong.
size doesn't directly correlate with how long something can fly, it really comes down to efficenty and what percentage of the AUW is battery (or fuel for an ICE plane).
there is a limit when going smaller, because you can only get your electronics so small, so it is much easier to build 'efficent' [at least related to weight that isn't battery and air-frame] at a slightly bigger scale.
not sure what LBDF is, but BDFs are ben's ducted fans which was a design to use quad parts to build a modified ducted fan 'on the cheep', which would be my guess as to what this was, but I could be wrong.
size doesn't directly correlate with how long something can fly, it really comes down to efficenty and what percentage of the AUW is battery (or fuel for an ICE plane).
there is a limit when going smaller, because you can only get your electronics so small, so it is much easier to build 'efficent' [at least related to weight that isn't battery and air-frame] at a slightly bigger scale.
LBDFs = LitterBug Ducted Fans. Using ducts on regular props to get more efficiency out of the props. normal hobby EDFs are notoriously inefficient
Marzipan
Well-known member
interesting. by your name in their name, you made / use them? if props with ducts are more efficient, why are EDF used? do they maintain a price advantage?
last bit...you have any posts that talks about how to make them and how you / others have used them? I am curious!
Most EDFs were designed to fit inside the fuselage of a jet-like model. Meant for high speed and not necessarily efficiency at low speed. Choice for props is very limited and usually cannot be changed beyond what the manufacturer designs. By 3D printing or building a duct out of any other material like foamboard, you have more control over the design parameters you choose. Here's some 2" ones I designed and 3D printed quite a few years ago. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4113432
I also have some 5" ducts that someone printed for me to test on some bi and tricopters. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3032817
I've even used these with a servo pivot on my snow/water skimmer.
Even took it up to Edgewater, which gave me an opportunity to test out the skimmer on the water. The guys at Flite Crew caught it in action!
Cheers!
LitterBug
I also have some 5" ducts that someone printed for me to test on some bi and tricopters. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3032817
I've even used these with a servo pivot on my snow/water skimmer.
Even took it up to Edgewater, which gave me an opportunity to test out the skimmer on the water. The guys at Flite Crew caught it in action!
Cheers!
LitterBug
quorneng
Master member
Marzipan
1 hour? No problem. This can fly power on for a theoretical 5 although 2 hours non stop is the longest I have even done!
I agree with LitterBug entirely about conventional model EDFs. They are designed to give the maximum possible thrust for a given fan diameter rather than the best thrust to Watt performance which is exactly the feature required for a quad.
Note the Airbus E-fan actually uses what is in effect a multibladed prop in a short duct rather than a fully buried fan emulating a turbojet installation.
The latest turbo fan airliners with their huge fans are actually closer to a ducted prop than a conventional EDF so using a quad motor and even a 4 blade prop in a duct can fit inside a scale turbofan nacelle.
A 3x3.5 (76 mm) 4 blade inside a scale airliner duct powered by a 2205 drone motor.
The duct, motor mount and pylon are 3D printed with the nacelle exterior in Depron.
Of course it only gives a fraction of the thrust of a true 76 mm EDF but it only weighs a fraction and only uses a fraction of the Watts. Its thrust/Watt is over twice that of the EDF.
It just so happens this is a scale nacelle for a RR Trent as used in the Airbus A350 so it just has to be built light enough to be able to fly on the limited thrust.
Everything sacrificed for minimum weight so its hand launched and belly land, carefully!
It weighs 652g with a 1000mAh 4s (try running two 76 mm EDFs on that!) with a combined thrust of close to 500 g.
A lot of effort and it is about as delicate as the full size but it does fly more to scale than most EDFs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ZGijxUhL
1 hour? No problem. This can fly power on for a theoretical 5 although 2 hours non stop is the longest I have even done!
I agree with LitterBug entirely about conventional model EDFs. They are designed to give the maximum possible thrust for a given fan diameter rather than the best thrust to Watt performance which is exactly the feature required for a quad.
Note the Airbus E-fan actually uses what is in effect a multibladed prop in a short duct rather than a fully buried fan emulating a turbojet installation.
The latest turbo fan airliners with their huge fans are actually closer to a ducted prop than a conventional EDF so using a quad motor and even a 4 blade prop in a duct can fit inside a scale turbofan nacelle.
A 3x3.5 (76 mm) 4 blade inside a scale airliner duct powered by a 2205 drone motor.
The duct, motor mount and pylon are 3D printed with the nacelle exterior in Depron.
Of course it only gives a fraction of the thrust of a true 76 mm EDF but it only weighs a fraction and only uses a fraction of the Watts. Its thrust/Watt is over twice that of the EDF.
It just so happens this is a scale nacelle for a RR Trent as used in the Airbus A350 so it just has to be built light enough to be able to fly on the limited thrust.
Everything sacrificed for minimum weight so its hand launched and belly land, carefully!
It weighs 652g with a 1000mAh 4s (try running two 76 mm EDFs on that!) with a combined thrust of close to 500 g.
A lot of effort and it is about as delicate as the full size but it does fly more to scale than most EDFs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ZGijxUhL
L Edge
Master member
Done the SR-71 with 2 64 EDF's and put in 25 flights before I needed the EDF's.
Here is another using 70's testing out slow flight withy TV nozzles.
Last edited:
Marzipan
Well-known member
those seemed to fly nose up...CG off balance?
Taildragger
Legendary member
Similar threads
