• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

FT Simple Scout Table Takeoff

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
#8
Question for you all about the Simple Scout. I give you a bit of back story...
I have had so much luck flying the Mini Scout compared to any other scratch build I have done so far. Now I would like to try the larger version given that I have components to run it, and I am seeing that people are saying it could be a good trainer for the size, 3 or 4 channel. I do have a larger motor set up that may exceed the C pack by a bit. It's a 3536 1200Kv Rimfire .15 on 40 amp Eflite ESC spinning a 9x6 prop. Is this to much for the Simple Scout? There will be a 3s 2200mah backing up the muscle. Now if I do use this motor should a smaller prop calm down the situation?

Any replies would be appreciated. Thx
 

buzzbomb

I know nothing!
#9
Question for you all about the Simple Scout. I give you a bit of back story...
I have had so much luck flying the Mini Scout compared to any other scratch build I have done so far. Now I would like to try the larger version given that I have components to run it, and I am seeing that people are saying it could be a good trainer for the size, 3 or 4 channel. I do have a larger motor set up that may exceed the C pack by a bit. It's a 3536 1200Kv Rimfire .15 on 40 amp Eflite ESC spinning a 9x6 prop. Is this to much for the Simple Scout? There will be a 3s 2200mah backing up the muscle. Now if I do use this motor should a smaller prop calm down the situation?

Any replies would be appreciated. Thx
I have not personally had the pleasure of having too much motor. That's a pretty beefy motor, though. The specs call for a 10 or 11 inch prop. I'd say throw a 10x4.5 on it and let it rip! Nothing says you've got to go full throttle.

That combo should fly the Simple Scout pretty comfortably at lower throttle. The Simple Scout is still the smoothest flying plane I've had the pleasure of flying. It crashes really hard, though. That's why I've never made a biplane of it.

I'm jealous. You can put that motor into any full size FT plane and just let 'er rip! :p
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
#10
I have not personally had the pleasure of having too much motor. That's a pretty beefy motor, though. The specs call for a 10 or 11 inch prop. I'd say throw a 10x4.5 on it and let it rip! Nothing says you've got to go full throttle.

That combo should fly the Simple Scout pretty comfortably at lower throttle. The Simple Scout is still the smoothest flying plane I've had the pleasure of flying. It crashes really hard, though. That's why I've never made a biplane of it.

I'm jealous. You can put that motor into any full size FT plane and just let 'er rip! :p
Also noticed that the power pod isn't the usual swappable design. Is it smarter to use the regular swappable pods and mod the fuse, just cuz I tend to put my battery in the pod instead of attaching it with Velcro to the bottom, or to use the power pod that is intended?
 

buzzbomb

I know nothing!
#11
Also noticed that the power pod isn't the usual swappable design. Is it smarter to use the regular swappable pods and mod the fuse, just cuz I tend to put my battery in the pod instead of attaching it with Velcro to the bottom, or to use the power pod that is intended?
The only benefit I've noticed from swappable power pods is that the airframe survives a crash. I can't imagine how anyone can put skewers through perfectly enough to swap powerpods between planes. I certainly can't. The benefit I've noticed is that so long as I strengthen the holes where the power pod goes through on the fuselage, I can munch many power pods, but continue to fly the plane.
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
#12
I think I might have solved my power pod question. I like having the ESC under the power pod for airflow and putting the battery inside the pod just cuz it fits so nice in the space given in the pod with plenty of space to adjust for CG back and forth. So I kinda want to stick to this plan. I have watched the build video again, probably the fourth or fifth time over the past couple months, (I like to watch build vids while I am building to collect any ideas or tips). In the build vid Bix is installing the B Pack, which to the looks of it isn't much bigger then the F Pack motor, just going by looks and not specs here so I am probably not that accurate at that comparison. The motor I will be shoving in is more then twice the muscle and the battery is proportion to suit the motor. It wont fit inside the pod as is designed alone with room to shift back and forth for CG. So this is my plan, any thoughts, comments, or tips are welcome.

This first pic will show what won't work... 20190808_100839.jpg
Under the pod really limits the space really to nothing left with the front of the battery sticking it's junk out the front of the nose with no shame, leaves no airflow, and in the case of a hit will take the brunt of the damage, (not IF but WHEN), and just like previous experience this will hit hard. No more battery.

On the flip side...
20190808_100854.jpg
Move the battery back inside the pod, hang the ESC under the pod, maybe not even a removeable pod at all and build in a hidden hatch with a removable front turtle deck. Going with this option leaves some pros and cons. Pros... battery has room to play with the CG, ESC has airflow, no need for skewers. Cons... need a dedicated firewall instead of a removable one, (which might be a pro given the engine size), will have to cut into the LE of the wing further weakening the dihedral split, removeable front turtle deck hatch to my knowledge hasn't been proven on this plane yet... or has it? A lot to be said on this one I think.

Now if I have to cut into the wing I will have to strengthen it back up in the spar. Here is what I am looking at so far, and this is just spit balling, nothing final. again looking for feedback...
20190808_101132.jpg
20190808_101231.jpg
Just so happens that I have a length of balsa to run the center of the spar and it will fit between the servo notches in the wing for the ailerons, (not gonna use the ailerons on this one, 3 channel rudder/elevator configuration).

If I make it a belly lander I also wont have to worry about the landing gear pockets on the fuse doublers which would create more room, although the landing gear would be fun. On the other side of the coin it adds more nose weight, and chances are that I will destroy this plane from crashes before I perfect the landings, which thinking about it if I have to build a new one after field testing I will rethink this one then. Belly lander it is.

Again please bring on the suggestions and help me out on this one... I'm looking at starting this today. Thx for reading.
 

buzzbomb

I know nothing!
#13
I don't see why it wouldn't work. The hatch is a neat idea. The wing is already pretty heavy, though. I had a few hard nose-ins with mine and the major damage was the wing crushing it's way forward through the fuselage. The wing was left unglued to the fuselage for just that purpose though. The plane survived. I ended up gluing braces on the outside of the fuse to keep the wing in place and finally had to glue the wing in after a couple more hard "landings". ;)

I was running a 2200 3s under the nose with a velcro strap around it for security. My batteries never took any damage, but the field I fly over (and crash in) is pretty soft, all things considered.
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
#14
I don't see why it wouldn't work. The hatch is a neat idea. The wing is already pretty heavy, though. I had a few hard nose-ins with mine and the major damage was the wing crushing it's way forward through the fuselage. The wing was left unglued to the fuselage for just that purpose though. The plane survived. I ended up gluing braces on the outside of the fuse to keep the wing in place and finally had to glue the wing in after a couple more hard "landings". ;)

I was running a 2200 3s under the nose with a velcro strap around it for security. My batteries never took any damage, but the field I fly over (and crash in) is pretty soft, all things considered.
I've had a couple of those crashes on some planes where wing not being glued in tore the fuse apart as well. It was a tip from The Bix and it seemed like a good idea. One was the Mini Speedster and the wing ripped right thru the back of the fuse where the TE is notched through, not much meat there to take the hits alone. I found that gluing the wing solid distributes the impact evenly. The doublers on the plans for the simple scout are gonna be extended to wrap around the wing inserts to effectively double the surface area the wing makes contact with, then glued in from all sides. As it works out there is only going to be 9"s of balsa inside the spar to handle the load not being taken up from the missing LE inside the fuse.
20190808_151621.jpg
My only concern with this now is that if I take a decent hit on the wing tip it will tear the wing off laterally using leverage as opposed to folding under hard positive G's, being that there is no leading edge to take the impact... who knows
 

Hoomi

Well-known member
#17
Question for you all about the Simple Scout. I give you a bit of back story...
I have had so much luck flying the Mini Scout compared to any other scratch build I have done so far. Now I would like to try the larger version given that I have components to run it, and I am seeing that people are saying it could be a good trainer for the size, 3 or 4 channel. I do have a larger motor set up that may exceed the C pack by a bit. It's a 3536 1200Kv Rimfire .15 on 40 amp Eflite ESC spinning a 9x6 prop. Is this to much for the Simple Scout? There will be a 3s 2200mah backing up the muscle. Now if I do use this motor should a smaller prop calm down the situation?

Any replies would be appreciated. Thx
My Scout is a bit on the overpowered side. I've found that, even with the specified size prop, I get a LOT of left-bank torque if I take off at full throttle. A larger prop and motor is going to increase that, and the Scout's barely-above 3' wingspan doesn't give a lot of leverage to counteract it at that initial low-speed moment of acceleration. Two flights ago, I decided to see what would happen if I took off at reduced throttle, and found she lifts off quite nicely at about half-throttle. You'll likely find the same thing, perhaps less throttle.

The other thing you'll have to watch with that larger motor and battery setup (I'm running a 3S 1300 mAh battery), is your nose weight is going to be more likely to pull the plane over, especially on landing.
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
#18
My Scout is a bit on the overpowered side. I've found that, even with the specified size prop, I get a LOT of left-bank torque if I take off at full throttle. A larger prop and motor is going to increase that, and the Scout's barely-above 3' wingspan doesn't give a lot of leverage to counteract it at that initial low-speed moment of acceleration. Two flights ago, I decided to see what would happen if I took off at reduced throttle, and found she lifts off quite nicely at about half-throttle. You'll likely find the same thing, perhaps less throttle.

The other thing you'll have to watch with that larger motor and battery setup (I'm running a 3S 1300 mAh battery), is your nose weight is going to be more likely to pull the plane over, especially on landing.
Thank you for the tip, that was something I was concerned about myself. I noticed that the Mini Scout has considerable right and down thrust but the Simple Scout has none. Being it is set up for the B Pack with a smaller pitch prop that might make sense. I am gonna use a fixed firewall so I was thinking of cutting in some down and right to the doublers to compensate for the size of the motor. Does this make sense? All feedback is appreciated. Thx again
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
#19
This is where I'm at so far with the hatch and fixed firewall idea. This has been a bit of a learning experience the whole way today with building the fuse. Because of my intended mods I have had to go against the grain as far as the regular FT build as per the video goes. Changing the order as to how things go together creates a little doubt to make sure I haven't missed anything along the way. A little scary actually but I think I got this. Check it out:
20190809_132804.jpg
So you can see as intended I cut into the front of the wing a couple inches to make room for the battery to move around to adjust for CG. As it turns out the Power Pod like box I built is now a couple inches longer then the original, also a little taller to cover as a doubler almost to the top rim of the top plate. And the battery can sit all the way back to the exposed spar...
20190809_132826.jpg
From the front you can see that the doubler strength goes all the way up the sides of the fuse for impact strength and the box bottom that serves for the firewall and the battery tray is in place. You cant see it here but there is down and right thrust cut into the firewall mounting edges as well... you can kinda see the right thrust in the next pic,
20190809_132752.jpg
Overall it's coming along just fine. Actually at this point I was planning wit the battery placement/CG scenario and with just the battery in the tray against the spar as the airframe sits the plane works out to be just nose heavy. Once all the electronics go in and this thing is finished will be the real test but that yet to be determined. And in messing around with the battery in different spots, (yes, even under said power pod) it turned out that there originally was room under the pod as a belly lander only for the battery to move back towards the center of the wing. So I guess in hindsight this was a redundant mod... but it's fun to try and see if it works out. Still have to figure out how the hatch is going to work yet. Was thinking of hinging it at the front, or making it completely removeable, or some magnets... not sure.

Thx for reading and any feedback would help
 

Hoomi

Well-known member
#20
You can get some really strong neodymium magnets at some craft stores, or from Amazon. I ordered a set of these to make the munitions on my Freewing 64mm A-10 easily removable. I put a pair each in the pylon and in the munition, matched so the two magnets would hold each other when the munition was put into place. The one caveat is to make sure they're oriented correctly, so they don't repel each other. At ten bucks for 216 of them, I figure I have enough for a lot of projects.

3mm magnet cube set