Solved FTFC20 Classic to Modern Forum Challenge!

Vimana89

Legendary member
Thank you for the insight! Sounds like
I might not be able to make the 5 minute flight time requirement then LOL

I'll make adjustments as necessary (read; give the sticks to someone who knows how to fly.)




Thanks, that's a lot of info! Hopefully I understood enough of it.
Is the 1/2 hp not usable because the motor shaft is to small to transmit the torque with any kind of resistance?

You're suggesting a b-pack (2212 1050kv) with a 7040 prop for the "slowest" flight?

I am planning to eliminate any asymmetric features in favor of stability, but the plans didn't look to be offset...

By toothpick and voodoo I am assuming you mean the balsa twin-boom control-line combat planes? I tried building a twin-boom flyer previously. It looked terrible, (in my opinion,) I wouldn't do that to you.;)

I am also leaving space in my sketches for carbon fiber reinforcements at the leading edge and/or spar and planning a way to reinforce the tail segment with skewers since it will probably only be a single layer of DTFB sticking out the back to the elevator.



A futher question: stick to the original design and go bank and yank with ailerons or add vertical(s) and rudder(s), for a 3-channel?
With how short the airframe is I'm afraid a rudder wouldn't have much authority. I've only got about 3 inches sticking out the back of the wing to work with, if my math is correct... maximum of 6" if I just tape on the elevator from scraps.
Looks like a yank and banker like the T Tray I tried. Don't know if it would be any good as RET, or if adding a 4th channel for a rudder with ailerons would be worth it.
 

Piotrsko

Master member
Has to be bank&yank, you only have rudders ish to keep the front end frontwards and to kinda prevent aileron yaw. Huge offset on the engine to keep lines tight, maybe 2 #4 washers on motor today, won't need down thrust. This was done maybe 30 years ago in either MODEL AIRPLANE NEWS, or RCM.

09 Develops 1/2 horse theoretical, never saw that much in reality. 5-40 prop screw on this would fail.

Toothpick/Voodoo are C/L combat ships like this. Really exciting to fly as RC, but not at full potential like just above idle with expo at like 15%. Get 6 mistakes high, fly around in gentle circles for 5 1/2 minutes chop throttle, they actually glide decent but you have to fly them 100% all the flight, cant relax until grounded, can't make a second flight for an hour until you stop shaking. Makes a BLOODY WONDER or Ridge rat look like trainers for newbies.
 
Last edited:

TooJung2Die

Master member
I have a question about this bullet in the FTFC20 rules:
8. A complete set of digital plans must be available in the FT Forums Resource area by the close of the Design-Off. Vector-based formats are preferred but not required.
Does this mean we are expected to draw a set of plans for foam board? I built the Ranger 30 straight off the balsa plan pdf's I attached to the build thread. It's been so long since I last used Inkscape I'd have to learn how to use it again.

Where is the "Resource Area" of the Forums?
Jon
 

Corbarrad

Active member
Added a build thread. (...yesterday, just forgot to hit the "post reply" button)
Here goes nothing...

I have a question about this bullet in the FTFC20 rules:

8. A complete set of digital plans must be available in the FT Forums Resource area by the close of the Design-Off. Vector-based formats are preferred but not required.
I think the idea was to enable others to build your version of the classic plane, so it's quite central to the second part of the challenge.

Where is the "Resource Area" of the Forums?
It's right there, in the top bar or available through the menu button on the left of the top bar if you're on mobile...
 
Last edited:

Vimana89

Legendary member
I have to comb through all my footage of the Floating Kidney and get the best bits edited and compiled. I'm close to making some hand drawn plans and learning how to scan and upload those, and possibly experiment with programs later. I have done testing with multiple different props. They all worked well,but have different strengths and weaknesses I'll discuss so people can select based on their preference and style. There is little or nothing left to do to improve this design. The future may warrant a little experimentation with slight variances in wing aspect, sweep, and dihedral, but I'm happy with where it's at. It could possibly use some landing gear, which is more an optional thing, and maybe small tweaks to fit and finish. This one is 1.0 ready!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1044.JPG
    IMG_1044.JPG
    1.9 MB · Views: 0

basslord1124

Master member
I'm just now checking this out. Sounds like a lot of work...but fun as well. I'm not 100% sure about participation at this point, just b/c of current projects lined up PLUS I have never tried to do my own plans before. However I'm always up for learning new skills. I am good with computers BUT I don't have a lot of money to be purchasing some major software package to come up with foamboard airplane plans. Are there any free software alternatives?
 

Vimana89

Legendary member
I'm just now checking this out. Sounds like a lot of work...but fun as well. I'm not 100% sure about participation at this point, just b/c of current projects lined up PLUS I have never tried to do my own plans before. However I'm always up for learning new skills. I am good with computers BUT I don't have a lot of money to be purchasing some major software package to come up with foamboard airplane plans. Are there any free software alternatives?
Not sure at this point. If there are as far as software, I may try some myself. There is a free alternative I'll be starting with: Trace or draw out your plans on printer paper tiles and scan them. Hand made plans are still plans if they work.
 

FoamyDM

Building Fool-Flying Noob
Moderator
The All Wing Wonder and T Tray are kind of touch and go right now if anything, but the Floating Kidney is flying extremely good. It handles smooth for a RET plane, loops easy, glides, and is basically impossible to crash unless you force it into the ground. For how easy it is to build, it delivers big. Edited flight footage coming soon!
looks great. to capitalize on the dual antennas, put 1 antenna 90° to the other. When one antenna is not collecting signal (straight on) the other is broadside and perfect. this should help you keep signal
 

Hai-Lee

Old and Bold RC PILOT
For those who are trying to convert cu. in. to watts the formula is quite simple. Just multiply the cu. in. by 2000 and the answer is watts. This is not an exact calculation as different motors with the same capacity can yield widely different power outputs especially where a tuned exhaust is utilized.

As an example a .049 cu. in. calculates out to 98watts. I have done a number of .049 conversions and the 100Watt range is normally adequate though I do sometimes go a little larger for the extra weight, (balance). Mind you, you should try to match the prop diameter and motor revs to that of the original IC motor for a more realistic experience.

The original question or a conversion of a .09 cu in would convert to 180 watts but then the older motors were not as powerful per cu.in. and so 180 watts should suffice nicely.

Just what works for me.

Have fun!
 

FoamyDM

Building Fool-Flying Noob
Moderator
@rockyboy - What if I design build and fly a Balsa kit then make a Foamy from said Balsa Kit? :unsure:

Ever had a plane itch at your brain. After the K-12... (still working on it) I have the K-7 poking. If I get the Spruce goose Going... the K-7 is the next project for that motor class. (gremlin motors)
 

Vimana89

Legendary member
don't add this officially yet, going to give it a quick prototype or two before I decide if I like it, but it looks like a very straight forward design. I like it because it's got sort of a modular design like a TT. I can start this one off as RET to test it, and then try it with ailerons, and then even 4ch.

1939 popular aviation special
1567209259246.png
 

Grifflyer

WWII fanatic
don't add this officially yet, going to give it a quick prototype or two before I decide if I like it, but it looks like a very straight forward design. I like it because it's got sort of a modular design like a TT. I can start this one off as RET to test it, and then try it with ailerons, and then even 4ch.

1939 popular aviation special
View attachment 141014
You might struggle getting it to balance, that's a pretty short nose.