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

McB VersaSpear 1

Please log in to download

Tench745

Well-known member
#1
Tench745 submitted a new resource:

McB VersaSpear - A predictable, durable, manueverable mashup of the FT Versawing and FT Spear

I've had this wing for about 2 1/2 years and finally decided to publish the plans for it. It flies great and with no dihedral even inverted is effortless.
Plans are drawn to be used as templates, so parts are drawn only once. When a part mirrors left and right orientation, only the right one has been drawn.
For this plan the upper surface of the wing should be the only part you need to mirror for the left side of the plane.
I'm happy to answer questions from anyone interested in building...
Read more about this resource...
 

FoamyDM

Building Fool-Flying Noob
#2
Great work on the plans, they are pro quality.
Help us out. Please list the differences/advantages, and possibly why someone might fly this build, over the spear or the versa wing. As that's what I did when I looked at it.

I wasn't thrilled with my Blunt nose spear, so I wonder if on a rebuild, why would I build this instead?
 

skymaster

Well-known member
#3
the only way that i was to rebuild some this like the FT spear would be if i were to use FPV gear other wise i would have to put some weight on the front of it. The ft spear was design so that you could fit all your fpv gear nicely. just like the FT VERSA if you make it a pusher you have to have a huge battery at the front. or put some extra weight on the front . light bulb came on, has any one tried putting the motor in the middle of a wing to use it a the cg just like a plane u know like the motor is surround it by the foam.
 

Tench745

Well-known member
#4
Great work on the plans, they are pro quality.
Help us out. Please list the differences/advantages, and possibly why someone might fly this build, over the spear or the versa wing. As that's what I did when I looked at it.

I wasn't thrilled with my Blunt nose spear, so I wonder if on a rebuild, why would I build this instead?
When I built my Blunt-Nose versa it wouldn't fit my 3s 2200, nor could I get enough weight forward to balance it in a pusher configuration so I cobbled together a rather ugly pod to make it work. I spent hours punching full throttle on BN Versa to send it vertical, then cut it and try to catch thermals and stay up as long as I could. The BN Versa flew so well that I often used it to practice flying aerobatics; steep turns, loops, rolls, inverted, etc. When the center section folded and I was finally forced to retire the BN Versa I wanted a wing that could do all these things, but better.

I have never built the spear, so I can't speak from experience, but I did go over the plans in detail. I don't fly FPV so I didn't need all the space in the pod for a camera, etc and the trailing edge of the pod was almost two inches thick; dumping dirty air into the prop and adding more noise and drag. The spear also has less wing area, so it probably wouldn't soar as nicely. What it did have was a strong box spar center section that the Blunt-nose Versa lacked, and it gave enough area forward to balance out a pusher configuration while still fitting my 3s 2200. Couple that with large elevons and 0-dihedral and you get a pretty maneuverable plane.

This is why I merged the two design concepts into the McB VersaSpear. I have the Wing area of the BN Versa for soaring. I have a Large pod, set forward of the wing to balance the pusher configuration. I have a more streamlined pod than the Spear that will still fit my 3s 2200 and has only about an inch high trailing edge to reduce drag and prop noise. The zero-dihedral wing and enlarged elevons make inverted flight and aerobatics easier without hurting the good handling characteristics of the BN Versa. And with the Box-Spar center section and wooden spar doublers I never have to worry about the wing folding, even after repeatedly planting it into various obstacles when my aerobatics got too ambitious for my skills.
The VersaSpear soars well, speeds up well, maneuvers well, lands well, and holds together. It is a lower-sweep wing than the Spear, so you do still get a little wing waggle going on at slow speeds but it doesn't have any negative effect. With a larger wingspan of the BN Versa the roll rate isn't as extreme as what the Spear can manage, but it makes it much easier to see what the aircraft is doing at a distance. These are compromises I was happy to make for my own style of flying.
There are probably as many kinds of flying wing as there are pilots to fly them. If this one sounds like it may fit your flying style, I encourage you to try it out and let me know what you think. Feedback is always welcomed.
 

FoamyDM

Building Fool-Flying Noob
#5
When I built my Blunt-Nose versa it wouldn't fit my 3s 2200, nor could I get enough weight forward to balance it in a pusher configuration so I cobbled together a rather ugly pod to make it work. I spent hours punching full throttle on BN Versa to send it vertical, then cut it and try to catch thermals and stay up as long as I could. The BN Versa flew so well that I often used it to practice flying aerobatics; steep turns, loops, rolls, inverted, etc. When the center section folded and I was finally forced to retire the BN Versa I wanted a wing that could do all these things, but better.

I have never built the spear, so I can't speak from experience, but I did go over the plans in detail. I don't fly FPV so I didn't need all the space in the pod for a camera, etc and the trailing edge of the pod was almost two inches thick; dumping dirty air into the prop and adding more noise and drag. The spear also has less wing area, so it probably wouldn't soar as nicely. What it did have was a strong box spar center section that the Blunt-nose Versa lacked, and it gave enough area forward to balance out a pusher configuration while still fitting my 3s 2200. Couple that with large elevons and 0-dihedral and you get a pretty maneuverable plane.

This is why I merged the two design concepts into the McB VersaSpear. I have the Wing area of the BN Versa for soaring. I have a Large pod, set forward of the wing to balance the pusher configuration. I have a more streamlined pod than the Spear that will still fit my 3s 2200 and has only about an inch high trailing edge to reduce drag and prop noise. The zero-dihedral wing and enlarged elevons make inverted flight and aerobatics easier without hurting the good handling characteristics of the BN Versa. And with the Box-Spar center section and wooden spar doublers I never have to worry about the wing folding, even after repeatedly planting it into various obstacles when my aerobatics got too ambitious for my skills.
The VersaSpear soars well, speeds up well, maneuvers well, lands well, and holds together. It is a lower-sweep wing than the Spear, so you do still get a little wing waggle going on at slow speeds but it doesn't have any negative effect. With a larger wingspan of the BN Versa the roll rate isn't as extreme as what the Spear can manage, but it makes it much easier to see what the aircraft is doing at a distance. These are compromises I was happy to make for my own style of flying.
There are probably as many kinds of flying wing as there are pilots to fly them. If this one sounds like it may fit your flying style, I encourage you to try it out and let me know what you think. Feedback is always welcomed.
Thank you so much!