Under camber wing w/ ailerons

alan0043

Well-known member
Hi Everyone,

I have a question to know if anyone has put ailerons on a under camber wing ? Looking for a slow flying plane for a beginner. I did a search but really didn't find anything. I also understand that the wing will probably need some bracing so the wing can hold it's shape. I want to make the wing / plane out of DTFB. Is there any kind of plans out there for a whole plane ?

Al
 

Merv

Site Moderator
Staff member
....Is there any kind of plans out there for a whole plane ?
The Tiny Trainer is an excellent plane to learn on, it fly's very slow.

The outer half of the wing is under cambered. Can be made with or without ailerons. Many have learned to fly on a 3 channel then add ailerons when they are ready for a bit more.
 

SSgt Duramax

Junior Member
The thought has crossed my mind to add ailerons to the tiny trainer wing. I have recently found that you can add undercamber to the armin wing outers pretty well too, although i dont know how well a whole wing would do, maybe ill modify a mini scout to do such a thing.
 

Byrdman

Well-known member
I scratch built a Simple Scout but did the wing like the Mini Scout. It flies fantastic with the under cambered wing with ailerons. It will really slow down too. I also built a 125% Mini Scout with an under cambered wing and added ailerons. It flies the same as the bigger one except it lands softer and gets tossed around by the wind easier. I have pictures of both of them in the "Anyone Scratch Building Tonight" thread, but give me a few min and I'll load them up here.

A few people in the thread suggested that I reinforce the wing so it doesn't fold up on you so I used 3mm CF tubes with piano wire in the middle for the dihedral and along the folds.

I highly recommend both planes as a step above the Tiny Trainer. they fly so much better. The first one is the 125% Mini Scout and the second 2 are the full size Scout built with the under cambered wing. Both have ailerons.
PXL_20210924_191027234.jpg
PXL_20210908_113446056.jpg
PXL_20210908_113426715.jpg
 

alan0043

Well-known member
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the ideas. Please keep them coming. I might be the first person who was not thrilled with the tiny trainer. I also know another guy that is not a big fan of the tiny trainer. Maybe it just might us on the tiny trainer. :) I like the looks of the plane from post # 5.
 

alan0043

Well-known member
I scratch built a Simple Scout but did the wing like the Mini Scout. It flies fantastic with the under cambered wing with ailerons. It will really slow down too. I also built a 125% Mini Scout with an under cambered wing and added ailerons. It flies the same as the bigger one except it lands softer and gets tossed around by the wind easier. I have pictures of both of them in the "Anyone Scratch Building Tonight" thread, but give me a few min and I'll load them up here.

A few people in the thread suggested that I reinforce the wing so it doesn't fold up on you so I used 3mm CF tubes with piano wire in the middle for the dihedral and along the folds.

I highly recommend both planes as a step above the Tiny Trainer. they fly so much better. The first one is the 125% Mini Scout and the second 2 are the full size Scout built with the under cambered wing. Both have ailerons. View attachment 209590 View attachment 209591 View attachment 209592

Hey Byrdman,

When you your talking about the scout with the under camber wing, did you make the under camber wing with the same profile and dihedral as the scout wing without the the flat part of the wing ( the bottom of the wing ) ( that's my best description ) that is on the full size scout ?
 
Last edited:

quorneng

Master member
alan0043
As you have discovered there is nothing wrong with an under cambered wing and ailerons. Indeed most WW1 planes used under camber wings and ailerons.
Also when a plane deploys flaps it creates an under camber wing and the ailerons still work.
With a lot of under camber it is best to use differential ailerons (more up than down) to avoid difficult handling at the slowest speeds near to the stall.
 

Byrdman

Well-known member
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the ideas. Please keep them coming. I might be the first person who was not thrilled with the tiny trainer. I also know another guy that is not a big fan of the tiny trainer. Maybe it just might us on the tiny trainer. :) I like the looks of the plane from post # 5.

I wasnt too thrilled with the Tiny Trainer either. It was okay, but it was one of my first FT scratch builds and it came out sloppy and heavy. Worked, but not very impressive, IMO.
 

Byrdman

Well-known member
Hey Byrdman,

When your your talking about the scout with the under camber wing, did you make the under camber wing with the same profile and dihedral as the scout wing without the the flat part of the wing ( the bottom of the wing ) ( that's my best description ) that is on the full size scout ?

That is exactly what I did. I just used the plans to make my wing cut on the fuselage only the width of the foamboard, approx 5mm, and only built the top part of the wing.

After flying the Tiny Trainer and the Old Fogey, I wanted something that would build quick, fly well, and land a little slower. I didnt think the Old Fogey or the Tiny Trainer flew well and saw a video of a guy that built the 125% Mini Scout.

I built the 3 Ch. Mini Scout first and that gave me the idea to build the full size one that had the same wing build with ailerons. The only difference in the wing is that the full size one had two folds instead of just one. I was flying both and then I crashed the Mini in the lake, the esc caught on fire and burnt the fuse. Then I built the 125% Mini Scout to replace the original mini, put ailerons on it, and if flew great too. IMO nothing wrong with under cambered wings with ailerons, especially if you are just learning to fly. BTW, the 125% one flies better than the Mini, but is very light so it doesn't do much damage as long as you don't crash too hard.

If you decide to build them and have any questions, feel free to ask.
 

Byrdman

Well-known member
Ive seen some TT kits that had the CG mark too far aft. Balance them on the marked & they were flying squirrels. Move the CG 1/2 inch forward of the mark & they flew great.

That was probably my issue since I scratch built it with the free plans, plus mine came out tail heavy too probably by using way too much glue. After crashing it a few times, it just started falling apart on me. The last time I flew it, the elevator servo glued to the side of the fuse pulled away and it went in the lake. Fixed that and it just never flew the same after that crash.

Funny we are talking about the TT, I just ripped all the electronics and motor out of it this afternoon after work and threw it away. I still have the wings though. The poly wing turned out great but the one with ailerons came out warped so it's probably going to join the fuse in the morning.

I wanted to rebuild it and make a few changes, but I have moved on to bigger and better designs. I just finished a 71% Simple Stick which I call the Mini Simple Stick and that thing is fast and flies like its on rails. No going back now, lol...
 

Matthewdupreez

Legendary member
I scratch built a Simple Scout but did the wing like the Mini Scout. It flies fantastic with the under cambered wing with ailerons. It will really slow down too. I also built a 125% Mini Scout with an under cambered wing and added ailerons. It flies the same as the bigger one except it lands softer and gets tossed around by the wind easier. I have pictures of both of them in the "Anyone Scratch Building Tonight" thread, but give me a few min and I'll load them up here.

A few people in the thread suggested that I reinforce the wing so it doesn't fold up on you so I used 3mm CF tubes with piano wire in the middle for the dihedral and along the folds.

I highly recommend both planes as a step above the Tiny Trainer. they fly so much better. The first one is the 125% Mini Scout and the second 2 are the full size Scout built with the under cambered wing. Both have ailerons. View attachment 209590 View attachment 209591 View attachment 209592
What motor did you use for the ft scout, with the under camber wing?? I'm keen to build it...
 

Byrdman

Well-known member
What motor did you use for the ft scout, with the under camber wing?? I'm keen to build it...

It has a Turnigy 2830 1000KV motor, 3s 2300mAh batts, 30A Esc, and swinging a 9x5e prop. I have a bunch of those old Turnigy's laying around and it seems to be in-between the "B" and "C" motors FT has according to my calculations. Here is pic of it finished -
IMG_20210910_192050_01.jpg
 

Matthewdupreez

Legendary member
It has a Turnigy 2830 1000KV motor, 3s 2300mAh batts, 30A Esc, and swinging a 9x5e prop. I have a bunch of those old Turnigy's laying around and it seems to be in-between the "B" and "C" motors FT has according to my calculations. Here is pic of it finished -
awesome.... i'm gonna build one asap... and then i HAVE to go fly it....
i've finally got the correct mindset... if i crash... so what?? it will be fixed in under an hour.. or i just rebuild it...
man how i love these foamies:love::love:
 

SSgt Duramax

Junior Member
I didn't like my first tiny trainer, but I had accidentally built it out of heavy foam. I rebuilt another iteration of it from DTFB and was careful with the glue, used wood glue in places I didn't need drying speed, and delaminated the inside of the tail section to save some weight, moved the servos up as far as I could, and it flew great even with paint. It flies stupidly slow at about 25% throttle on a 1000 MAH 2S. My 7 year old can fly it. That said, I had built a couple of mini speedsters and I never did like the way they flew, but I built a mini scout and it was everything I was expecting the speedster to be. The scout is a winning design.
 

Byrdman

Well-known member
awesome.... i'm gonna build one asap... and then i HAVE to go fly it....
i've finally got the correct mindset... if i crash... so what?? it will be fixed in under an hour.. or i just rebuild it...
man how i love these foamies:love::love:

Yeah that was exactly my mindset when I built the 125% Mini and the full size one. BTW, the 125% Mini is perfect for smaller flying areas like parks and ballfields, so dont be scared to build one;) It only takes 2 pieces of FB, flies just like the big one, and takes crashes better.

The 125% I fly on a 2628 1000KV motor, 3s 1500mAh, 22A ESC and 9x5e prop. As you can see, I didnt cut any scallops on the trailing edges, no fake motor, and I did not mess with the card stock to make the fuse rounded on top. Those shortcuts knock off 30-45 min of build time and I will probably do the same when I need to rebuild another full size Scout.
 

Matthewdupreez

Legendary member
awesome.... i'm gonna build one asap... and then i HAVE to go fly it....
i've finally got the correct mindset... if i crash... so what?? it will be fixed in under an hour.. or i just rebuild it...
man how i love these foamies:love::love:
It has a Turnigy 2830 1000KV motor, 3s 2300mAh batts, 30A Esc, and swinging a 9x5e prop. I have a bunch of those old Turnigy's laying around and it seems to be in-between the "B" and "C" motors FT has according to my calculations. Here is pic of it finished - View attachment 209637

it could very well be the older ft power pack c's.. 2215...
 

Matthewdupreez

Legendary member
Yeah that was exactly my mindset when I built the 125% Mini and the full size one. BTW, the 125% Mini is perfect for smaller flying areas like parks and ballfields, so dont be scared to build one;) It only takes 2 pieces of FB, flies just like the big one, and takes crashes better.

The 125% I fly on a 2628 1000KV motor, 3s 1500mAh, 22A ESC and 9x5e prop. As you can see, I didnt cut any scallops on the trailing edges and I did not mess with the card stock to make the fuse rounded on top. Those shortcuts knock off 30-45 min of build time and I will probably do the same when I need to rebuild another full size Scout.
yea... i guess the 125% one would work well on my b power pack... except for the fact that i think my 1500mah 3s's are pretty much dead from age.... but maybe they aren't.. i'll check;)