The Eagle has landed, or is it flying?

[dutchmonkey]

***

 

[Hai-Lee]

Yes even a scratch build has a plan but it is the source of the plan I dispute.

In scratch build contests I doubt that a plane built from a set of RCM&E or Flitetest plans would qualify as it is the uniqueness of the design and construction that is expected.

Your view which you deem is valid does not push people to push the boundaries but rather to Plagiarize the work and designs of others. The designation of scratch builder, (Old School), was someone who does all the brain work and design work himself and he is the author of the plans which are unique to his design. Often the scratch builder has difficulty in supplying plans because his original plans were modified as construction progressed to "Make it fit or work".

Scratch built = Starting with a blank paper on which you draw out your design and modify as your build progresses.
Plan Built = Starting with a set of plans of a proven design and building to those plans.
Kit Built = Starting with a set of plans and (Normally pre-cut) box of pieces which you assemble according to the plans.
ARF = Starting with a set of pre-made pieces which you assemble according to instructions.
RTF = A complete airframe already assembled just add some electronics.
BNF = A complete aircraft just push a few buttons and fly

ARF, RTF, and BNF pilots are also referred to as "Retail Flyers".

In my signature I have many plane from plans including FliteTest. There are also designs which are my own (Old School Scratch), designs. Even my designs which I have made from a set of plans regardless of if in the same material as my plane is I still use the original designation and gladly acknowledge the source of the original design.

I also have designs which are totally my designation of scratch built.

When building from plans but I modify the original design in some manner I refer to the resultant plane as "My version of the original design".

China has enough RC planes flying in our skies now so I implore you to give those who engineer their own aircraft from NOTHING and often suffer financially as well as the ridicule of the retail fliers, during the inevitable failures, the only thing we can, "RESPECT".

 

[Craftydan]

. . . and so the semantic argument continues.

Disappointing.

There are ways to earn respect and ways to loose it. It's a shame pride will once again drown out skill.


HL, whether others agree or not, you've made your point.

I think this is far enough OT on a sufficiently active thread for me to ask you kindly to take this elsewhere. If you'd like to continue it, there are other sections in the forum better suited. If you need password access to behind the field shed, let me know as I think continuing this discussion will need to be there.

 

[jamboree1]

Crafty Dan, thanks for the great perspective. I never claimed I designed this plane. I stumbled upon a now defunct web page and picture while looking for something else and thought "oh cool, you know with a few simple mods i can build this with DTFB, add a power pod to make it swappable, improve the tail design and servo location and share with the community" The plans i shared are in German and who knows who really designed it, yet alone who really cares? Paint it all black, call it a Crow, paint it gray, call it a pigeon, leave it all white and call it a dove. Just about every flying conrtaption out there is a borrowed design from something. As far as Hai-Lee goes, well at least i didn't share yet another warbird like a Mustang version 8651. I have been known on these pages to highly modify existing planes, be It a Sponz design, a NerdNic or FT's own. The whole point of being here with Flite Test is being ONE with a community. Hai-Lee writes suspiciously like SaucerGuy from RcGroups that claims that the NutBall and all variants are his design. But I regress, just here to have a good time, pass some insights, knowledge, ideas and sometimes someone else's planes.

 

[Hai-Lee]

I will first state that I am not the "SaucerGuy" and have never even corresponded with such a person. I make no claims to "Ownership" of this design or anything related to it and in fact if FT ever wanted to use any design of mine I would be flattered, (and they would be welcome to gratis). My first encounter with the "Bald Eagle" design was with a EPP kit build log many years ago now which I downloaded for later reference. later I downloaded someone else's rendering of the design with the plans as posted herein and this site was in english as are the plans.

My upset was in going to a thread for scratch building looking forward to viewing what I regard as the leading edge of Modelling in technique and thought. That this particular thread was based on an existing design regardless of source was not the point of the upset because the initiator of the thread has the right to build anything he wants to. Good Luck to him and best wishes to him. It was that this had already been done and posted on a FT forum and there it was not claimed as a scratch build.

After doing more research both with my own thread posting and reading almost every other current topic available in the forums it has become clear to me that the majority of FT kit purchasers see themselves as Scratch builders. According to a large number of the posts I have read the knowledge of how to follow instructions and operate a glue gun are the only requirements.

So I apologize for my assumption that the thread was for old school scratch builders where design, innovation and problem solving were the meat in the sandwich. It is obvious to me now that on FT forums everyone is a scratch builder and in future I will tailor my reactions accordingly.

 

[Michael9865]

Cool, I like how you made the Eagle with DTF. Thank you for sharing.

 

[jamboree1]

got my eagle V2.2 done this one glides much better then the last one did should have flight report next weekend

When you post vid can you also list the specs, electronics and AUW. I think it would be interesting to try to compare your design of the wing with the 3-4 other variants. I did a wing with just KFm2, and it definitely flew faster with the same setup, but with less lift and glide capabilities than the original KFm4.

 

[dutchmonkey]

well the wind kept me down this weekend just too much for this kind of test flight hopefully this week works out

 

[dutchmonkey]

Made it out to fly yesterday I could not find the cg for the life of me I could do a straight glide from my hand but the second I would go to turn it gout all sorts of twitchy. I moved the cg as far forward as I could I actually had to add up trim to stop it from nosing in and still the same when I would add input. So I think this airfoil is not going to work on the eagle but my fuse mods helped out it had a few rough landings and the fuse took them. I am going to try a ag36 foil next. I have some video but its not worth the watch.

 

[jamboree1]

Made it out to fly yesterday I could not find the cg for the life of me I could do a straight glide from my hand but the second I would go to turn it gout all sorts of twitchy. I moved the cg as far forward as I could I actually had to add up trim to stop it from nosing in and still the same when I would add input. So I think this airfoil is not going to work on the eagle but my fuse mods helped out it had a few rough landings and the fuse took them. I am going to try a ag36 foil next. I have some video but its not worth the watch.

I don't think it's the wing design, I could be wrong, the V-Tail can be finicky to set at correct angle, it's possible though that that high airfoil disrupts the airflow going to the tail. hard to tell without vid. CG should be same as KFm wing. Another possibility might be motor angles. Of all the Eagles i have experimented with, the T tail's still fly the best.

 

[dutchmonkey]

I don't think it's the wing design, I could be wrong, the V-Tail can be finicky to set at correct angle, it's possible though that that high airfoil disrupts the airflow going to the tail. hard to tell without vid. CG should be same as KFm wing. Another possibility might be motor angles. Of all the Eagles i have experimented with, the T tail's still fly the best.

So the mods to the fuse hold the tail at 110 deg I also increased the size of the tail. The squirrelly issues are present both in glide and with power. I can set up a new wing faster and if that fixes my issues great if not I will make a new fuse with a traditional tail and try both wings again. Thanks for your input

 

[jamboree1]

It's been almost 2 years and my bird still flies

 

[varg]

It's been almost 2 years and my bird still flies

Very cool. That's a good lifespan for a DTFB plane, a lot of them (mine and others) don't seem to last too long since they're pretty fragile. I'm sure gentle flying and good pilot skills have a lot to do with it.

 

[jamboree1]

It's a very slow flying plane and very few parts, not acrobatic at all so it doesn't go thru a lot of stress. And yes, it still fly's

 

[Yawnsky24]

Eagle built from SPONZ plans

Jamboree1 thank you for the inspiration and SPONZ, thank you for the plans. I built the Eagle from your plans using the Water Resistant Foam Board as that is what I had on hand. Worked out great but yet to maiden, maybe this weekend depending on Irma! A few things that I did for the build:

• Of course, white had to be painted on with the WR Board. I could have peeled paper and printed covering but I liked the base color and it made "feathering" easier with a back sharpie.
• I did peel the paper on the inside of the bottom cover as well as the front cover to make the curves smoother.
• For the Tail feathers, I cut a slot in the Horizontal stab and body (fuselage) to help key in the vertical stabilizer and bring down overall height.
• Wings rubber band on, had to cut some of the wing back to fit in front with stabilizer.
• Added ailerons but more so to experiment with flaperons as the wing does have ~1.25 inches of dihedral.
• I have the CG at roughly 3.25" behind leading edge where it meets the fuse and will adjust based on the maiden.

Overall it came out much better than I expected to the point that my wife said I should not fly it and keep it for decoration. This after she constantly asks me if I really need all of those planes .

Thanks again for the idea and plans. I will update after the maiden.

Regards, Jan "Yawn"

 

[SP0NZ]

Jamboree1 thank you for the inspiration and SPONZ, thank you for the plans. I built the Eagle from your plans using the Water Resistant Foam Board ...

Jan, I think you might be the first to build from those plans. Looks great man. Please report back after the maiden. Also, what is your power setup (motor, esc, battery)?

 

[Yawnsky24]

Setup info

Sponz,
I am using the Power pack B motor with a 20 amp esc. Battery will likely be a 1550 as it fits and balances where I think it needs to for the maiden.
All up weight with battery is 625 grams. Definitely not a super lightweight but I didn't build it super heavy either.

Also, no additional spars or skewers for strength as it seems to be in line with most of the FT builds from a strength perspective.

I'll let you know how the maiden goes. With luck this weekend.

Thanks, Jan

 

[ClearSkiesCalmWinds]

Where can I get the SP0NZ eagle plans?

 

[Yawnsky24]

SPONS Eagle Plans

ClearSkies,

The plans are in a link in post 126 of this thread. I believe that they are titled Beta plans.

Jan

 

[jamboree1]

Yawnsky24, that bird looks super sweet. Good luck on the maiden. I do believe you are the first to use Sponz plans and i'm happy they worked. I haven't tried his plans as I have templates from the original.