Has anyone seen a tool that can design custom RC airplanes from requirements?

[telnar1236]

Still fun to mess around and see what AI can do though.

One possibility for a piece of software that could simplify designing planes would be something using known parts with known aerodynamics, weights, and strengths. You could then drag and drop them to assemble a plane and get reasonably good predictions for things like stall speed, CG, aerodynamic center, and thrust to weight and have a list of parts to make and buy for a given plane. It would have to be pretty restrictive in what you could and couldn't build, but with say 10 fuselages, 10 wings, and 10 tails, that gives you 1000 different planes you could design, and even more if you could move the wing forward or aft on the fuselage or add sections to the middle of the fuselage, or extend the span of a non-tapered wing in sections

 

[Houndpup Rc]

Still fun to mess around and see what AI can do though.

One possibility for a piece of software that could simplify designing planes would be something using known parts with known aerodynamics, weights, and strengths. You could then drag and drop them to assemble a plane and get reasonably good predictions for things like stall speed, CG, aerodynamic center, and thrust to weight and have a list of parts to make and buy for a given plane. It would have to be pretty restrictive in what you could and couldn't build, but with say 10 fuselages, 10 wings, and 10 tails, that gives you 1000 different planes you could design, and even more if you could move the wing forward or aft on the fuselage or add sections to the middle of the fuselage, or extend the span of a non-tapered wing in sections

Interesting idea!!

 

[Mr Man]

Still fun to mess around and see what AI can do though.

One possibility for a piece of software that could simplify designing planes would be something using known parts with known aerodynamics, weights, and strengths. You could then drag and drop them to assemble a plane and get reasonably good predictions for things like stall speed, CG, aerodynamic center, and thrust to weight and have a list of parts to make and buy for a given plane. It would have to be pretty restrictive in what you could and couldn't build, but with say 10 fuselages, 10 wings, and 10 tails, that gives you 1000 different planes you could design, and even more if you could move the wing forward or aft on the fuselage or add sections to the middle of the fuselage, or extend the span of a non-tapered wing in sections

Wow, that is an incredible idea!

 

[Houndpup Rc]

I wonder if we could make a tool like that as community....

 

[telnar1236]

I'd definitely be willing to contribute to it

 

[Houndpup Rc]

I'd definitely be willing to contribute to it

So would I!👍

 

[telnar1236]

I've tried to work out a method for making a bunch of 3D printed modules compatible with each other a few times. The most successful started with this thread and I built 4 or 5 flyable planes based on this system, but it wasn't really versatile enough and really limited what I could design. It was also super finicky to assemble. But it was light and strong.

Modular F-104 70mm EDF Jet development and testing

I've been toying with the idea of a modular plane for a while. The two big advantages are that it would give a similar versatility to Flite Test Swappables for experimenting with different configurations, and, if a part was broken, you could just replace that part instead of rebuilding large...

forum.flitetest.com

And then more recently, I've been working on scaling it down to a smaller size and making the parts more interchangeable and easier to work with, but I still haven't fully gotten it figured out.

I think a major issue is added weight which in a 3D printed design means you end up making hand launches very difficult and locking a lot of people out of being able to fly it, so in a lot of ways, I think this idea works better with foam board and you might want to save the 3D prints for the locking mechanisms only

 

[Realmdyz]

Still fun to mess around and see what AI can do though.

One possibility for a piece of software that could simplify designing planes would be something using known parts with known aerodynamics, weights, and strengths. You could then drag and drop them to assemble a plane and get reasonably good predictions for things like stall speed, CG, aerodynamic center, and thrust to weight and have a list of parts to make and buy for a given plane. It would have to be pretty restrictive in what you could and couldn't build, but with say 10 fuselages, 10 wings, and 10 tails, that gives you 1000 different planes you could design, and even more if you could move the wing forward or aft on the fuselage or add sections to the middle of the fuselage, or extend the span of a non-tapered wing in sections

This is one of the parts of the work we are doing!
I am glad that you would like to work with us too
I would like to be able to work with a few people to test our software after our software is developed (of course we do not have any income right now but I will definitely thank those people in the future in a proper way).
If you are interested, I would be grateful if you let me know
Of course, another important thing that is important to us is what features we should have for our product that would be useful for people using RC.

 

[telnar1236]

This is one of the parts of the work we are doing!
I am glad that you would like to work with us too
I would like to be able to work with a few people to test our software after our software is developed (of course we do not have any income right now but I will definitely thank those people in the future in a proper way).
If you are interested, I would be grateful if you let me know
Of course, another important thing that is important to us is what features we should have for our product that would be useful for people using RC.

To be clear, I'm willing to help with the development of a free tool by the community here if there is interest in that - or will continue developing modular 3D printed designs on my own if there isn't with the end goal of releasing them for free - any kind of paid product or anything that isn't released as free and open source isn't something I'm really interested in helping with

 

[Houndpup Rc]

To be clear, I'm willing to help with the development of a free tool by the community here if there is interest in that - or will continue developing modular 3D printed designs on my own if there isn't with the end goal of releasing them for free - any kind of paid product or anything that isn't released as free and open source isn't something I'm really interested in helping with

Same here👍

 

[L Edge]

This is one of the parts of the work we are doing!
I am glad that you would like to work with us too
I would like to be able to work with a few people to test our software after our software is developed (of course we do not have any income right now but I will definitely thank those people in the future in a proper way).
If you are interested, I would be grateful if you let me know
Of course, another important thing that is important to us is what features we should have for our product that would be useful for people using RC.

Could you state the general goals that you are doing so we can give you input on what features you should have?
That way, it eliminates discussion of items mention above that you are doing or not doing.

 

[Gadeirus]

There

Still fun to mess around and see what AI can do though.

One possibility for a piece of software that could simplify designing planes would be something using known parts with known aerodynamics, weights, and strengths. You could then drag and drop them to assemble a plane and get reasonably good predictions for things like stall speed, CG, aerodynamic center, and thrust to weight and have a list of parts to make and buy for a given plane. It would have to be pretty restrictive in what you could and couldn't build, but with say 10 fuselages, 10 wings, and 10 tails, that gives you 1000 different planes you could design, and even more if you could move the wing forward or aft on the fuselage or add sections to the middle of the fuselage, or extend the span of a non-tapered wing in sections

Certain aspects of what you're talking about have been used by people for decades, though in table and spreadsheet form.

Here are a few that I happen to have links to on my phone:

Roncz design.xlsx

docs.google.com

SailplaneCalc2005-05-04

docs.google.com

Then of course there are things like XFLR5, OpenVSP, etc. etc.

Combine the useful parts of all of those and put it behind a modern, user-friendly UI and you have yourself something. All of the math is well established and available, just gotta mash it all together. I personally feel like there is almost a certain amount gatekeeping, whether intentional or not, to some of these things that make aircraft design daunting to newcomers. XFLR5 for instance is pretty dang good at what it does, but you've got to be really determined to want to use it.

Making parameterized CAD models isn't that big of a deal, either, most CAD packages already have that capability to one extent or another. I've not tried it, but Solidworks for instance also has things like automatically generated drawings. We used macros years ago to use a single button click to generate a dxf flat pattern from a CAD model.

I'm rambling. Point is, something like this doesn't have to start from square one, there's a ton of good stuff out there already, someone just needs to figure out a way to package it all together. I'd gladly help, but not with programming....one semester of C++ was enough to show that programming was not my calling.

 

[telnar1236]

There


Certain aspects of what you're talking about have been used by people for decades, though in table and spreadsheet form.

Here are a few that I happen to have links to on my phone:

Roncz design.xlsx

docs.google.com

SailplaneCalc2005-05-04

docs.google.com

Then of course there are things like XFLR5, OpenVSP, etc. etc.

Combine the useful parts of all of those and put it behind a modern, user-friendly UI and you have yourself something. All of the math is well established and available, just gotta mash it all together. I personally feel like there is almost a certain amount gatekeeping, whether intentional or not, to some of these things that make aircraft design daunting to newcomers. XFLR5 for instance is pretty dang good at what it does, but you've got to be really determined to want to use it.

Making parameterized CAD models isn't that big of a deal, either, most CAD packages already have that capability to one extent or another. I've not tried it, but Solidworks for instance also has things like automatically generated drawings. We used macros years ago to use a single button click to generate a dxf flat pattern from a CAD model.

I'm rambling. Point is, something like this doesn't have to start from square one, there's a ton of good stuff out there already, someone just needs to figure out a way to package it all together. I'd gladly help, but not with programming....one semester of C++ was enough to show that programming was not my calling.

Looks like the spreadsheets are locked

 

[Gadeirus]

Looks like the spreadsheets are locked

Dang it. Was trying to do it from my phone but obviously failed.

Try again:

Roncz design.xlsx

docs.google.com

SailplaneCalc2005-05-04

docs.google.com

 

[telnar1236]

There


Certain aspects of what you're talking about have been used by people for decades, though in table and spreadsheet form.

Here are a few that I happen to have links to on my phone:

Roncz design.xlsx

docs.google.com

SailplaneCalc2005-05-04

docs.google.com

Then of course there are things like XFLR5, OpenVSP, etc. etc.

Combine the useful parts of all of those and put it behind a modern, user-friendly UI and you have yourself something. All of the math is well established and available, just gotta mash it all together. I personally feel like there is almost a certain amount gatekeeping, whether intentional or not, to some of these things that make aircraft design daunting to newcomers. XFLR5 for instance is pretty dang good at what it does, but you've got to be really determined to want to use it.

Making parameterized CAD models isn't that big of a deal, either, most CAD packages already have that capability to one extent or another. I've not tried it, but Solidworks for instance also has things like automatically generated drawings. We used macros years ago to use a single button click to generate a dxf flat pattern from a CAD model.

I'm rambling. Point is, something like this doesn't have to start from square one, there's a ton of good stuff out there already, someone just needs to figure out a way to package it all together. I'd gladly help, but not with programming....one semester of C++ was enough to show that programming was not my calling.

I think it's going to be a lot harder to make a tool that is capable of working with more general cases. Like you're saying, parametrized CAD models are a thing, but the base CAD model will be quite different for something like a low wing warbird with a square section fuselage like the original FT Spitfire, a delta wing jet like the Viggen, a flying wing like the Arrow, and a master series warbird. The end result is that with a parameter-based approach you're going to be restricted to variations on a few themes, or you're going to end up with something that is almost as complicated to work with as normal CAD (e.g. OpenVSP).

Similarly, back of the envelope calculations work well right up until they don't and you need to know which set of assumptions to use for them - you can use them to get ballpark which is good enough most of the time, but not all of the time. They're probably good for most designs (straight wing conventional designs, deltas, flying wings) but the instant you have a highly swept wing with a high tail (F-101, MiG 15) or a wing with big LERX (F/A-18, F-16, Su 27, MiG 29) or a lifting fuselage (F-22, F-35, F-15, Su-57), or any of the wildly creative but quite unconventional designs you frequently see with RC (As an example: https://forum.flitetest.com/index.php?threads/delta-clipper，a-mad-racing-flying-sailship，with-plan.80820/ ) the linear calculations become much more problematic. So again, you're going to be restricted to variations on a few themes that the software can handle or have to accept the possibility for serious issues with output values.

This isn't to say the approach your suggesting is a bad idea - it seems very possible to achieve with limitations - just that you're going to end up with a tool that can design, say, warbirds, low wing deltas, gliders, and flying wings with prop power and rectangle section fuselages but nothing else

 

[L Edge]

Going back to page 1, your asked for giving requirements of what you want:

1) Rectangular wing about 34" wide and 22"wide. (Foam)
2) Wing is in the back were end of fuse(a piece of 1/8 balsa 3" wide) and wing meet the moving elevons.
3) A rudder about 12 high and max 9" width.
4) On fuse, 20 " ahead of the wing's leading edge, I want a motor/prop and wires only so it will slow and good control.
5) Using a 3s 1300 lipo.

Is it possible to do this design and make it fly or is it impossible to get the CG right? Think of all the areas you need to cover. Interesting what others think it will do.

@Realmdyz

 

[telnar1236]

Going back to page 1, your asked for giving requirements of what you want:

1) Rectangular wing about 34" wide and 22"wide. (Foam)
2) Wing is in the back were end of fuse(a piece of 1/8 balsa 3" wide) and wing meet the moving elevons.
3) A rudder about 12 high and max 9" width.
4) On fuse, 20 " ahead of the wing's leading edge, I want a motor/prop and wires only so it will slow and good control.
5) Using a 3s 1300 lipo.

Is it possible to do this design and make it fly or is it impossible to get the CG right? Think of all the areas you need to cover. Interesting what others think it will do.

@Realmdyz

That would be one interesting plane to try and balance

 

[L Edge]

That would be one interesting plane to try and balance

Almost every one would agree it isn't going to fly. But, if you add some gizmo's on it, it will fly. And I'm not talking weight.

So, other than man, there is no tool to design custom RC planes. AI will take time to catch up.

Wanting a few laughs, ask AI what is the best RC radio to buy. Ask some ?'s dealing with that radio such as doing differential thrust, mixes and explain sequencing, etc. Pretty accurate answers. Yet, it is wrong in other areas. You need a good crap detector to decide.

I found AI to be helpful in the area of VTOL and FC's. Almost to the point that it should be awarded a blue mentor's sticker.

 

[Realmdyz]

Almost every one would agree it isn't going to fly. But, if you add some gizmo's on it, it will fly. And I'm not talking weight.

So, other than man, there is no tool to design custom RC planes. AI will take time to catch up.

Wanting a few laughs, ask AI what is the best RC radio to buy. Ask some ?'s dealing with that radio such as doing differential thrust, mixes and explain sequencing, etc. Pretty accurate answers. Yet, it is wrong in other areas. You need a good crap detector to decide.

I found AI to be helpful in the area of VTOL and FC's. Almost to the point that it should be awarded a blue mentor's sticker.

The problem with artificial intelligence today is that it was not designed by aerospace engineers, but by software engineers, so it can easily program and write applications, for example, but it can't easily design an airplane:=)

That's why artificial intelligence doesn't know physics because its creators and makers didn't know either, and that's why OpenAI is recently recruiting mechanical and aerospace engineers.

 

[telnar1236]

The problem with artificial intelligence today is that it was not designed by aerospace engineers, but by software engineers, so it can easily program and write applications, for example, but it can't easily design an airplane:=)

That's why artificial intelligence doesn't know physics because its creators and makers didn't know either, and that's why OpenAI is recently recruiting mechanical and aerospace engineers.

It will definitely get to the point of being able to do good engineering eventually - just likely a few years out. Probably will be a bit out of the price range of your average RC hobbyist with the compute power required for another few years after that. Part of the challenge is that designing an RC plane requires doing just the right amount of bad engineering to get it to work and involves a lot of intuition and hands-on know-how. I probably take one of the more rigorous engineering approaches to designing planes on this forum and if I took my design process into an actual engineering environment I would be

1. Told to seek help because doing CFD without getting paid for it is not normal
2. Laughed out of the room if I tried to present most of my process as good engineering - real engineering is exceptionally rigorous because it needs to be to keep people safe but that also makes it very time-intensive and expensive and that is likely the market that AI companies will initially target