FlyerInStyle's P.1079 chuck/ez pack glider

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
Splitting Response out of the 'bulk' thread into its own thread regarding @FlyerInStyle 's design.
https://forum.flitetest.com/index.p...h-building-tonight.60613/page-524#post-679110

FlyerInStyle said:
Anyone have some spare time and an ez pack? I just designed this heinkel p.1079, surprisingly in under 2 hours. should be very simple, 6 sheets tiled. (letter) uploaded reference image and the non tiled and tiled plans. going to build maybe in the next week or so. posting the same thing on the heinkel build challenge thread. not yet a resource though. if somebody test it out and says that its nice, I will then put it up.
 

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
Initial thoughts from printing out:
  • It looks like you used a raster program instead of a vector program, switching to a vector program will allow you to print out at any scale cleanly.
  • I don't see marked locations for where the battery, receiver/Gyro, nor motors go. Nor do I see any CG marks.
  • The letter sized print out had good cutting marks, making it easy to cut out the parts and assemble
  • the center 2 parts have an odd cutout in the nose area, unclear if that is intentional or a mistake.
  • the FT EZ2 packs have been 1 full length Fuse piece, then 2 layers around that thickening it up, not sure that the 2nd middle section is needed, unless there is some structural or other reason for this choice.
  • the wings don't have any place to mount the motors currently, it would either need some cut out, or small extention, so that the motors wouldn't hit the wing itself
 

FlyerInStyle

Elite member
Initial thoughts from printing out:
  • It looks like you used a raster program instead of a vector program, switching to a vector program will allow you to print out at any scale cleanly.
  • I don't see marked locations for where the battery, receiver/Gyro, nor motors go. Nor do I see any CG marks.
  • The letter sized print out had good cutting marks, making it easy to cut out the parts and assemble
  • the center 2 parts have an odd cutout in the nose area, unclear if that is intentional or a mistake.
  • the FT EZ2 packs have been 1 full length Fuse piece, then 2 layers around that thickening it up, not sure that the 2nd middle section is needed, unless there is some structural or other reason for this choice.
  • the wings don't have any place to mount the motors currently, it would either need some cut out, or small extention, so that the motors wouldn't hit the wing itself
I am sorry going to edit that now. I will use ink scape to trace it out, but the problem is that I do not know the weight of the board, motor, etc, and I have not, in the process, been able to know where it balances, etc. revising the plans, and thanks for the thread. before posting the new plans though, I will build it myself. so maybe tomorrow if I get to it.
The second middle section is needed as from my experience, the thin fuselage here will break easily, adn as on joshua finns foamie sweepete, I decided to double it up. also allows for more noseweight space. Again, all this is through testing. if you could test it out, I would be more than happy. also the ez pack is optional, and I decided to start it off as a chuck glider because I personally do not have a ez pack.

could you please provide the weight of each of the boards?

Thanks again,
FlyerInStyler
 

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
did a quick build of it, CG looks like it should be about 2.5" from the leading edge of the wing at the fuselage.

1632446430750.png
 

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
glide tests, it flies nicely as far as I have a path to test it.. 25-30ft. I have it either slightly nose heavy or it needs a touch of up elevator in the tail. (would take more testing then I have time to do to verify which)
 

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
the RX board (which also has some stabilization stuff on it, so it has to be mounted vertically) is roughly 38mm in the front to back direction, 23mm in the up down direction, and is installed on the left side of the plane (looking down with the nose away) in a cut out of 1 layer of the 3 layer thick foam.

Right here looks like it might work and still be close enough to were you would mount the motors.
1632482182864.png



and as you can see, the nose is rather weak, in testing the nose has already stared to crumple.
 

FlyerInStyle

Elite member
did a quick build of it, CG looks like it should be about 2.5" from the leading edge of the wing at the fuselage.

View attachment 208174
wow, nice build! I would have removed the inner paper in the fuselage, but ok. I am not done building mine though. will check it out. thanks for the help, bot the nose weakness is an easy fix. aluminum tape makes it 2o times stronger. that is what I use. How much weight did you put in the nose? would it be comparable to the ez pack battery? redesigning soon also what size is the ez pack props?
 
Last edited:

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
the ez pack battery is heaver the the weight I added, so I suspect with the weight from the FC board (in front of GC) and motors (probably behind CG), the EX pack battery would need to end up fairly close to the CG or maybe above the FC board
 

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
this seems to work for CG for placements:
1632493199914.png 1632493211086.png

however, I think there needs to be some angle of incidence difference between the main wing and tail. There needs to be some speed -> pitch coupling and I don't know if this has it (or if my CG is to far forward at the moment) as it flies more like a 'dart' in a nice parabolic path, it doesn't keep its nose up under any speed I can throw it at, but much farther back CG and it does the 'to far back CG' behavior. I know that the EZ Canard has the canard with a few degree up angle and the build video for the plank shows some 'elevons' that need to be bend up slightly for the same reason.
 

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
I messed with the CG, about 3/4" back from where I had it, it balloons and stalls, between those 2 points might be a bit better. but I think some angle is likely to still be needed.
 

quorneng

Master member
JasonK
You definitely need some some incidence difference between the wing and tail. If both are of a simple flat plate sections then 3 to 5 degrees more on the wing than the tail will do. The less angle there is between them the faster it will try to fly. If they are at the same angle it will, as you have found, be a simple dart.
The angle difference between the wing and tail is called the 'decalage' angle.
It is not so simple to measure if the wing uses a conventional aerofoil section as its incidence is measured from a datum line not the underside of the wing.
 

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
JasonK
You definitely need some some incidence difference between the wing and tail. If both are of a simple flat plate sections then 3 to 5 degrees more on the wing than the tail will do. The less angle there is between them the faster it will try to fly. If they are at the same angle it will, as you have found, be a simple dart.
The angle difference between the wing and tail is called the 'decalage' angle.
It is not so simple to measure if the wing uses a conventional aerofoil section as its incidence is measured from a datum line not the underside of the wing.

yah, this is @FlyerInStyle 's design and I was just testing it and that seems to be our failure point right now.

@FlyerInStyle see above, you need decalage in your design to get it to fly correctly.
 

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
That looks like it was about a thickness of foam, so 5mm. but look at the angles mentioned above, that would work better.

Also, not that it is supper relevant now, but I cut a 45deg angle on both middle parts to help seat the tail in place.
I have the board dimensions above, the battery is about 8mm thick and I didn't measure the props.
 

FlyerInStyle

Elite member
That looks like it was about a thickness of foam, so 5mm. but look at the angles mentioned above, that would work better.

Also, not that it is supper relevant now, but I cut a 45deg angle on both middle parts to help seat the tail in place.
I have the board dimensions above, the battery is about 8mm thick and I didn't measure the props.
ok. thanks. redesigning the plans. btw, I reduced it from the thickness of the foam to a little less, and so removed some nose weight and it flies really nice tracks straight. just interested, I want to add the fuel tanks as motor pods, so what is the length of the wires for the motor?
also, here is a pic from my build. btw, did you add like 5 degrees of dihedral? I did , and it helps.
 

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
yes I put in dihedral, because a plane like this won't work [well] without it. I just eyeballed it however.
I don't know the lengths of the wires, you can look at my 'done' version and that had the wire that has to go farther basically at its limit.
 

FlyerInStyle

Elite member
yes I put in dihedral, because a plane like this won't work [well] without it. I just eyeballed it however.
I don't know the lengths of the wires, you can look at my 'done' version and that had the wire that has to go farther basically at its limit.
thanks, I will keep it in mind, and put in all the slots. but what is the length of the batterry, and the dimensions of the main board? just putting that into the plans
 

JasonK

Participation Award Recipient
thanks, I will keep it in mind, and put in all the slots. but what is the length of the batterry, and the dimensions of the main board? just putting that into the plans

the slot I cut for the battery is 25mm and I put the info for the main board already in the thread here