Bush Plane Build Challenge II

[quorneng]

There is surely a reason that the conventional 'bush' plane tends to be a high wing single engine tail dragger, it is well suited to the job, as manufacturers other than Piper have discovered like the Cessna Bird Dog & Auster AOPs. You could even include the Antonov AN2.
So is there another format but 'tuned' specifically to the abilities of electric RC, that could meet the challenges better? Hmm!
It would of course rely on the actual challenges remaining the same.

Just thinking out load.

 

[Scotto]

high wing single engine tail dragger

Dare ya . Actually you throw some extra power to the rotor and weight in the tips for momentum you could do some real STOL. You'd have to have collective to really take advantage of that but still

 

[Ketchup]

View attachment 204922
Dare ya . Actually you throw some extra power to the rotor and weight in the tips for momentum you could do some real STOL. You'd have to have collective to really take advantage of that but still

Extra power to the rotor? I think you just invented the helicopter.

 

[Hondo76251]

Yes, traditionally what we think of when we picture a Bush Plane is a big wheeled high wing tail dragger but the role a bush plane serves is remote service transportation and supply. Things like Beavers, Otters, Caribu, and a host of strange russian birds are all rugged planes you would find servicing the outter edges of society. Thats the essence of what we're going for in this challenge, not specifically just a cub with big wheels, but so far the only real promising contenders have been exacly that, traditional bush planes.

 

[Scotto]

Extra power to the rotor? I think you just invented the helicopter.

Im just picturing different concepts mashed up.
Bush autogiro plus Cartercopter. Just dreamin.
Congrats on winning btw. Very impressive piloting

 

[FoamyDM]

@Hondo76251 - I am being lazy here... is the challenge complete?

edit: I see my answer - Congrats @Ketchup !

 

[FoamyDM]

Toying with some new ideas for rules next year. As the rules are now its a pretty tough challenge. Yave to be willing to push your plane and your skills pretty hard. A lot of people, especially ones with planes they've put a lot of effort into, aren't going to want to go as "all in" as @Ketchup does. While i myself prefer this approach it does leave out a lot of people that might enjoy trying this competition.

One idea i have is to have a set score. Now that we have some decent data on what the average plane could be expected to do we could have a set of goals to hit. Payload, for example, could be set at 20 points for achieving 100% payload. (1:1 ratio) This is the most damaging portion of the challenge and would eliminate the need to get the plane uncontrollably heavy.

The Endurance/Durability could be set at something like 20 points for 50 landings.

To keep some element of "all in" flying if more than one plane gets 100% scores on both of those the ties would be settled by the "peoples choice" on the publicly voted exhibtion stage. 20 points for 1st, 10 for 2nd, 5 for third...

Just an idea. Tell me what y'all think?

I like that it stops folks from quiting when someone lands 80 landings on a battery. 50 is a hard enough goal for most (be it pilot skill, or plane build) the top level differentiation is enough to make a difference with out putting the rest out of the running entirely.

 

[Hondo76251]

@Hondo76251 - I am being lazy here... is the challenge complete?

edit: I see my answer - Congrats @Ketchup !

This one, but i feel we've nailed down a good window for next year. End of summer but before full swing of school...

 

[Test Fly RC]

Great job @Ketchup!
You can really fly that plane well!

 

[synjin]

View attachment 204922
Dare ya . Actually you throw some extra power to the rotor and weight in the tips for momentum you could do some real STOL. You'd have to have collective to really take advantage of that but still

Yeah! Autogyros! As far as short field they can jump up to 50' if the pilot gets the main rotor up to top speed and pops the pitch. I love the Pitcairn PA-36

 

[synjin]

This one, but i feel we've nailed down a good window for next year. End of summer but before full swing of school...

Yeah. Thursday I have to start getting my classroom ready. Back to 4th grade. I mean I've been flunked back to...uh...retained in 4th grade (and 3rd) for like 25 years (26 if you count when I was a kid). So, getting this done before the middle of August is great with me.

 

[synjin]

There is surely a reason that the conventional 'bush' plane tends to be a high wing single engine tail dragger, it is well suited to the job, as manufacturers other than Piper have discovered like the Cessna Bird Dog & Auster AOPs. You could even include the Antonov AN2.
So is there another format but 'tuned' specifically to the abilities of electric RC, that could meet the challenges better? Hmm!
It would of course rely on the actual challenges remaining the same.

Just thinking out load.

Besides the other things cited, there is this.

There's functionality, but I think sometimes folks have an idea of what something like an airplane should look like and don't really give the oddballs a go. Tandem wings reportedly have a lot of advantages in weight and balance and forgiving flight characteristics. Mine don't have a hard stall, and once trimmed fly really nicely. The only reason I'd not do the Westland here is that I'd like the yaw control of a twin with differential thrust.

Of course, I really like whacky airplanes.

 

[quorneng]

Not wishing to decry from Ketchup's fantastic 'landings' achievement but I wonder if it would be a better bush plane challenge if the 'landing' and 'payload' tasks were combined? After all the object of bush flying is to deliver something and usually to bring something back.

The winner would be who carried the highest total weight of payload in repeated landings compared to the bare flying weight of the plane over a specific time period, say 5 minutes.

Finding the right balance between payload and multiple landings would not only test the pilot skill but the 'efficiency' and robustness of the air frame all at the same time.

The only problem is I suspect a 'Cub' format would still come out on top.
Just thinking out loud again.

 

[Timmy]

The only problem is I suspect a 'Cub' format would still come out on top

Extra points for a non-conventional bush plane then? Also I feel like this challenge is quickly getting more and more complicated.

 

[Hondo76251]

Extra points for a non-conventional bush plane then? Also I feel like this challenge is quickly getting more and more complicated.

Yeah, that happens! Lol

I like that it stops folks from quiting when someone lands 80 landings on a battery. 50 is a hard enough goal for most (be it pilot skill, or plane build) the top level differentiation is enough to make a difference with out putting the rest out of the running entirely.

Yeah, and I'm going to test out these new ideas with a few different planes this, kind of get a feel for what the top numbers should be. Y'all feel free to try yourself and let me know!

Like i said, as the rules have been it really favors the larger planes and id like to get it to where a smaller plane would have a chance.

 

[L Edge]

Yeah, that happens! Lol



Yeah, and I'm going to test out these new ideas with a few different planes this, kind of get a feel for what the top numbers should be. Y'all feel free to try yourself and let me know!

Like i said, as the rules have been it really favors the larger planes and id like to get it to where a smaller plane would have a chance.

Here are some thoughts that eliminate voting and judging. One pilot run is all you need.
1. Using a scale system to do payload/weight to give a score up to say 50points or %. Show scale readings.
2. Put two poles up(say 20 ft between) and put cray paper between on ground.
3) Lay strips of cray paper in front or rear say every three feet parallel to poles. In rear, go far enough back to where the pilot thinks he will land.(STOL) Forward, where he gets into air.
4) Film(with payload) showing take off and his landing.

Score is: Takeoff distance is positive number and when he lands, that is negative number from poles. Add the two, times a scale number to get the top on +/-50%. Add two together.

Flight could be negative number or positive number. Gives everyone a chance. Now you level the playing field. It plays the odd's.

 

[synjin]

Alright, the PC-6 is back in service. Flies fine, but I tried an 11x8 prop and I'm not sure it works as well as a 12x6.

I started a new tandem wing design based on the PC-6. The rear wing is 75% the size of the front wing, so I'm not sure that there's room for flaps and effective elevons. We'll see if it works. Should be goofy when done.

 

[Scotto]

Alright, the PC-6 is back in service. Flies fine, but I tried an 11x8 prop and I'm not sure it works as well as a 12x6.

I started a new tandem wing design based on the PC-6. The rear wing is 75% the size of the front wing, so I'm not sure that there's room for flaps and effective elevons. We'll see if it works. Should be goofy when done.

Maybe something like a 10x5x3 would be nice. The 11x8 might be stalling.

 

[quorneng]

Whether a 11x8 or a 12x6 is better depends on both the model's and the motor's characteristics as well as what you are trying to do with the plane. Even a degree of personal choice will come into it as well.
For STOL work a 12x6 is likely to produce more low speed thrust which could be more important than the possible the higher power required by the 11x8.
It a case of "horses for courses".

 

[synjin]

Whether a 11x8 or a 12x6 is better depends on both the model's and the motor's characteristics as well as what you are trying to do with the plane. Even a degree of personal choice will come into it as well.
For STOL work a 12x6 is likely to produce more low speed thrust which could be more important than the possible the higher power required by the 11x8.
It a case of "horses for courses".

The PC-6 has a 2217 880kV motor and I'm running it on 3S batteries, so the 12x6 will probably be better. I thought of trying a 2830 1000kV motor, but I thought that might have been over powered.