FTFC20 Bellanca Aircruiser C-27A by Matagami Designs

[MiniacRC]

BEAUTIFUL!

 

[Matagami Designs]

Looking great! Love the plans too - very clear and easy to follow!

Thanks, Its pretty straightforward to turn the 3D model into FT style plans with SolidWorks and it definitely makes things easier to have them. I just wish i had one of those fancy needle cutters or a laser to cut them out. It's a bit ironic that i design parts that get cut out on a 10KW laser everyday but i come home and am using a razor blade and a straight edge.

Anyway i hope it will fly as good as i think it looks.

 

[Matagami Designs]

The build is 98% done just need to add a some tail struts, skid, power pod holes/skewers, and some velcro to hold the battery/ESC/Rx.

Hopefully i will get a chance this weekend to maiden. I'm a little unsure of this big prop (10 x 7 x 3) on a C pack as i have only used the 2 blade APC 10 x 4.7. Can this motor handle that much load & 35 amp ESC? Also the shaft is too short to engage the Nylock part of the nut, not sure but this may work loose? It sure looks good though.

 

[jpot1]

Really nice work. Loving the wheel pants!

 

[kilroy07]

The build is 98% done just need to add a some tail struts, skid, power pod holes/skewers, and some velcro to hold the battery/ESC/Rx.

View attachment 141670

View attachment 141671

Hopefully i will get a chance this weekend to maiden. I'm a little unsure of this big prop (10 x 7 x 3) on a C pack as i have only used the 2 blade APC 10 x 4.7. Can this motor handle that much load & 35 amp ESC? Also the shaft is too short to engage the Nylock part of the nut, not sure but this may work loose? It sure looks good though.

The 9x6 3-blade on my Spitfire only draws 22a at max power (SunnySky 2216) I bet you are okay with a 35a ESC, I just wouldn't fly at 100% for long.

Oh, and an amazing job!!

 

[FoamyDM]

great job!

 

[Matagami Designs]

Thanks all.

The wheel pants took a bit to figure out how to have them not bind on the wheels so those were the 3rd and 4th ones i made up. By that time i had a bit of experience making them. @jpot1

I'm curious if the hub of my prop is so much larger due to the increased pitch? Are you using a master airscrew @kilroy07 or another brand?

 

[Matagami Designs]

So the maiden could have went better. But i don't have a plane that i didn't crash so. Guess i need a bit more flight time. I think i will rebuild the nose and try and get it back in the air. Looks like i should practice going higher and a bit faster. Oh and further from the dang trees.

 

[kilroy07]

Sorry about the maiden, any time my flights go squirrely like that I always blame being tail heavy!

Here's the props I have on my Spitfire;
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32810160030.html?spm=2114.13010708.0.0.3a994c4dM9bt2e
They are nice heavy props, not cheap ones. Paired with a 2216, they pulled that Spit around like a dream!
https://forum.flitetest.com/index.php?threads/spit-roasted-fb.59444/page-22#post-496563

 

[Matagami Designs]

Thanks for the prop info @kilroy07. I have only really had any success with my simple scout speed build kit. But for whatever reason i keep building. I don't really wanna ruin my Spit so it may be awhile till i try an maiden that. BTW your spit maiden was amazing you really had it whipping around.

 

[FoamyDM]

2 things to take away; 1. It flies! 2. It's durable.
That's a winning combination..
@kilroy07 is likely right here. Tail heavy. It is quite likely that when you reduce the throws or add more expo, this will be easier to control. That helped me from over-correcting.

 

[Matagami Designs]

Rebuilt the nose and added a touch of color.

For the CG i have it balance at 2" from the LE on a 7.5" chord this is @ 26% of the chord . The scout balances at 2.25" on a 9" chord that is 25% of the chord. Since i basically took the dimensions from the scout for this airfoil and then scaled it slightly it should be at the same location along the chord correct? That is unless the flying strut beneath is doing something weird? I'm guessing the balance is OK and it was mainly pilot error although i will move the battery forward slightly next flight to confirm. I was throwing it right handed and having to transition to my controls much quicker than the left handed toss i should have been doing. Also i will take the scout with me next time to help knock some rust off and get me ready.

I was also pondering making the tail 10-15% larger or something in the neighborhood to help it track straight and provide me extra stability. Any other thoughts about how else to give it trainer flight characteristics?

I have my linkages set at the lowest hole on the control arm and at furthest for the surface control horns. Not really sure what expo i had but my DXE was running low rates. I guess i will have to hook up my phone and mess with the settings.(I despise the DXE) What do you recommend to start @FoamyDM ?

 

[Fidget]

That's a great plane!
I've heard Josh Bixler talk about upsizing the tail when scaling real planes down. It looks like it could handle it visually, without looking cartoonish.

 

[BATTLEAXE]

Rebuilt the nose and added a touch of color.

View attachment 142089

For the CG i have it balance at 2" from the LE on a 7.5" chord this is @ 26% of the chord . The scout balances at 2.25" on a 9" chord that is 25% of the chord. Since i basically took the dimensions from the scout for this airfoil and then scaled it slightly it should be at the same location along the chord correct? That is unless the flying strut beneath is doing something weird? I'm guessing the balance is OK and it was mainly pilot error although i will move the battery forward slightly next flight to confirm. I was throwing it right handed and having to transition to my controls much quicker than the left handed toss i should have been doing. Also i will take the scout with me next time to help knock some rust off and get me ready.

I was also pondering making the tail 10-15% larger or something in the neighborhood to help it track straight and provide me extra stability. Any other thoughts about how else to give it trainer flight characteristics?

I have my linkages set at the lowest hole on the control arm and at furthest for the surface control horns. Not really sure what expo i had but my DXE was running low rates. I guess i will have to hook up my phone and mess with the settings.(I despise the DXE) What do you recommend to start @FoamyDM ?

This plane looks amazing, your build skills are on point brother

 

[FoamyDM]

Ooh la la! The color touches are perfect. Makes a guy want to build one!

@Matagami Designs - For Balance, I have learned a great deal over the 2-3 yrs of Flubbing it. This of course doesn't make me an expert, and this advice may be worth a paper nickel.

• Your C.G. location sounds about right. esp. for traditional design. and your method for locating the CG (copy/scale an existing) is very sound. The scout is such a good bird to fly. When I get the battery close for good C.G., I mark the front and back with a line. They helps me relocate the batt. back very close, and helps with micro adjustments.
• I throw righty too. It's the worst... makes a good case for mode 1. The right-hand launch method leaves a lot of room for launch error.
  • My suggestions
    • Get quicker!
    • launch from the ground (from gear, or bungee),
    • have an experienced thrower.
• Extra tail - go for it if you feel you are maxing it just to bring the craft around. Extra surface will help it respond better taller and wider tail will make it weather vane better, and slow it a tad.
• Throws: As you describe it, your linkages are giving you the lowest throws possible.
• Expo: Expo at 35% is the recommended start. I use more like 40-45% as I tend to have bigger reactions than I need.

I started my Scout with No-expo, sorry reverse expo (the wrong way), high throw and no hope. My flight looked a lot like yours, from over-correction and touchy controls. I reverse the expo, reduce the throw rate (upper control horn hole, low servo hole.) and suddenly it started to behave. The Scout, Arrow/Versa and Viggen are still some of my favorite flyers

I hope this helps - you did an superb job on this. This is your first Rockyboy FTFC right? My tips before you button this project up (also worth a paper nickel).
Do two things - 1. review the rubrik and make sure you have what you want to put in there. 2. Revise the first post to be newb-to-the-post friendly.
Name, Pic of the Finished Plane, History, Plan link (with picture) and a simplified Blog, or just the unique build highlights. (for yours how do you connect the struts for example.) in the first post. Then the Maiden, proof of flight, video. Lastly I like to put a takeaway section something for future builders to know or keep in mind as they take your plane on. like, "This plans nose was weak, be sure to reinforce yours well".

Need more ideas look at past winners. They all put forth outstanding projects that were clear, organized well and easy to take it on. Your design here has all the makings to be part of that class of entry.

 

[Matagami Designs]

Ooh la la! The color touches are perfect. Makes a guy want to build one!

@Matagami Designs - For Balance, I have learned a great deal over the 2-3 yrs of Flubbing it. This of course doesn't make me an expert, and this advice may be worth a paper nickel.

• Your C.G. location sounds about right. esp. for traditional design. and your method for locating the CG (copy/scale an existing) is very sound. The scout is such a good bird to fly. When I get the battery close for good C.G., I mark the front and back with a line. They helps me relocate the batt. back very close, and helps with micro adjustments.
• I throw righty too. It's the worst... makes a good case for mode 1. The right-hand launch method leaves a lot of room for launch error.
  • My suggestions
    • Get quicker!
    • launch from the ground (from gear, or bungee),
    • have an experienced thrower.
• Extra tail - go for it if you feel you are maxing it just to bring the craft around. Extra surface will help it respond better taller and wider tail will make it weather vane better, and slow it a tad.
• Throws: As you describe it, your linkages are giving you the lowest throws possible.
• Expo: Expo at 35% is the recommended start. I use more like 40-45% as I tend to have bigger reactions than I need.

I started my Scout with No-expo, sorry reverse expo (the wrong way), high throw and no hope. My flight looked a lot like yours, from over-correction and touchy controls. I reverse the expo, reduce the throw rate (upper control horn hole, low servo hole.) and suddenly it started to behave. The Scout, Arrow/Versa and Viggen are still some of my favorite flyers

I hope this helps - you did an superb job on this. This is your first Rockyboy FTFC right? My tips before you button this project up (also worth a paper nickel).
Do two things - 1. review the rubrik and make sure you have what you want to put in there. 2. Revise the first post to be newb-to-the-post friendly.
Name, Pic of the Finished Plane, History, Plan link (with picture) and a simplified Blog, or just the unique build highlights. (for yours how do you connect the struts for example.) in the first post. Then the Maiden, proof of flight, video. Lastly I like to put a takeaway section something for future builders to know or keep in mind as they take your plane on. like, "This plans nose was weak, be sure to reinforce yours well".

Need more ideas look at past winners. They all put forth outstanding projects that were clear, organized well and easy to take it on. Your design here has all the makings to be part of that class of entry.

Thanks for this advice @FoamyDM. I really value feedback i can get like this. Much more than a paper nickel. This is my 1st Rockboy FTFC challenge and it has been a lot of fun. I definitely need more airspeed and would love to find a way to utilize the gear for takeoffs. I will definitely be doing research into making a bungee for future builds as i would love to try out the Viggen. This may help get my F-14 airborne as well. As for the tail i will wait a while, fly a bit before i make a decision. Compared to the scout this tail is maybe 15-20% smaller.

I'm working on a short build guide and will hopefully have a PDF with the beta plans as well as DXF files soon for others to try this build.

 

[Matagami Designs]

Threw the Aircruiser around some yesterday and am starting to think that it may indeed be tail heavy. This time throwing left handed i had it up for half a minute. Seems like whenever i gave it a toss the tail drops and the nose goes up. It definitely has enough motor as i had it floating near vertically for a bit and starting to level out but still very hard to control. Seems as if i will have to rebuild the nose again but i am actually happy with how durable it is in general. I ordered servos to make another so I will have 2 air frames to play around with soon. I just need to figure out if i need to alter anything. I messed with my Tx a bit and had it 40% expo and 70% rates. I believe the expo helped but the 70% rates might have limited too much. I am hoping to take this to an AMA club soon and see what difference a runway will make as well.

 

[BATTLEAXE]

It looks like you have a C pack motor, or the equivalent of in this airframe, so imagine you are running a 2200mah 3s.
Where is the battery located in the plane? The wing doesn't look like it's removable so I am guessing it is in the power pod.

The straight wing design, (no sweep), means your CG should be under the spar between the 2 crease folds in the top panel of the wing, usually 1/3rd of the chord. the nose looks to be long enough to balance the plane. Can you move the battery fore and aft to find balance. I am just asking because I think you are correct in saying it is tail heavy in flight just from what you describe.

What is the location of your tail servos?

And since you are thinking of building another one what kind of FB do you use? Elmers has heavier paper then Adams and will contribute to a tail heavy plane, more noticeable in the Minis then the standards. Maybe peel the paper off the inside of the new build from the CG back to the tail to help combat the tail heavy issue.

When you go to the AMA club get someone to help you trim it out as well. Might be able to give you some suggestions.

 

[Matagami Designs]

It looks like you have a C pack motor, or the equivalent of in this airframe, so imagine you are running a 2200mah 3s.
Where is the battery located in the plane? The wing doesn't look like it's removable so I am guessing it is in the power pod.

The straight wing design, (no sweep), means your CG should be under the spar between the 2 crease folds in the top panel of the wing, usually 1/3rd of the chord. the nose looks to be long enough to balance the plane. Can you move the battery fore and aft to find balance. I am just asking because I think you are correct in saying it is tail heavy in flight just from what you describe.

What is the location of your tail servos?

And since you are thinking of building another one what kind of FB do you use? Elmers has heavier paper then Adams and will contribute to a tail heavy plane, more noticeable in the Minis then the standards. Maybe peel the paper off the inside of the new build from the CG back to the tail to help combat the tail heavy issue.

When you go to the AMA club get someone to help you trim it out as well. Might be able to give you some suggestions.

Yeah it is a C pack Flite Test 'Radial'. I am running it on my 3s 1800 mAh. The battery is in the nose just in front of the wheel strut assembly. I can move it forward still. I balance it at 25% along the chord. it should be OK there since this is basically a scout airfoil that's stretched out and scaled. Going to try a slight nose heavy plane for the next outing i think.

Tail servos are behind the wheel strut assembly. I am using Ross brand foam, its basically DTFB equivalent. I used Elmer's before but it's too difficult to work with since it is heavy and removing paper is not fun.

I will see if i cant get one of the more experienced members to fly it and trim for me as well.

 

[willsonman]

Ok, I'll give a few observations here as they seem to not have been discussed as of yet.

In observing your flight video, I'm not entirely convinced that your tail surfaces need to be enlarged. You seem to have authority, even though it seems to be erratic. Such drastic movements come from over control, rather than lack of it. It's still a possibility, especially on the V-stab, but that does not explain the pitching.

I'm going to assume that your design is based on the plans you included and there is something worth noting here. I took the PDF and started drawing lines all over it. First of all, the plans are for a free-flight model which generally include variation on wing or h-stab incidence to set the model up to fly a certain way. The plans even indicate a +1 degree variability of the main wing incidence. This means that the front of the wing is slightly higher to the rear in relation to the thrust line, or datum. I drew a line across the entire length of the fuselage at the datum and measured the tail incidence. It looks to be at zero, and that can be a good thing... or a bad thing. On larger models I try to have a positive-negative incidence. Meaning, the main wing has positive incidence and the tail has negative. They then oppose each other a bit to sort of use drag as a stabilization method. Then this is compounded by the struts, which also look to be at zero incidence. Knowing that there is an airfoil on these struts leads me to think that getting the right CG is more like setting it up like a biplane. My generally rule for that is go straight up from the leading edge of the bottom wing. Well, that's problematic here since the main wing and the struts more or less have the same leading edge placement. Given this, it's not entirely out of the question that the CG does need to move forward more to counter the additional lift induced by the struts. More positive lift up front means that the lift needs to be countered by shifting the weight more forward.

If it were me, My procedure would be to get the CG further forward first. That should inherently counter the added lift.

Once that is sorted, I'd then do flight testing. If there is tendency to side-crab a bit then more vertical stabilizer area is needed.

If the pitch sensitivity is lacking with the CG in the right location check this sensitivity at varying speeds. They should be about the same at higher and lower speeds. So, mainly check low speed sensitivity. If you find the tail sagging more at lower speeds you are not producing enough lift or stabilization at the tail to counter the wing lift... add more area.

In a dive, if the airplane naturally wants to dive more, you need to change your main wing and tail incidences. This is also true if in level flight when you add more speed the airplane wants to dive... but this can ALSO be a factor of thrust angle. So, the power-low and dive is a better indicator. Compare the two.

Hope that helps a little. You've done a bang up job so far but getting the flight characteristics is a fun challenge. You've already done the hard part so don't be discouraged by your maiden experience. This has a LOT of potential to be a very stable and enjoyable model.