*Unofficial* Mini SE5 Biplane

mikeporterinmd

Still Learning
I finished one last night. With the stock F-pack motor and a battery on storage charge, props that come with the F-pack, it felt like this plane would go vertical. Will likely be a few days before I know for sure how it flies. No paint yet. Oddly, it came out at 215 grams. The spec sheet said 250 grams. I am not generally a light weight builder and I made at least two mistakes that caused me to use extra glue.

I found sliding the landing year into place fairly tricky. What seemed to happen is the steel rod cooled the hot glue very quickly and limited the time I had to move it. Josh used quite a lot of glue in the video, so perhaps that's the difference. In end, I probably have the same amount of glue used as I had to try this 2-3 times. Also, when I glued on the foam landing gear struts, the bottom swing plate on the fuselage ended up glued to the struts. I was able to force some glue in to get it attached to the wing, but still, not the nicest part of my build.

The wings with the camber gauges worked really, really well. Most other builds, I have something slip while trying to wipe glue, etc. This time, I was able to make an accurate wing with most of the excess glue removed. The tabbed tail assembly worked really nicely. The gauge for assembling the top wing also worked very well. The cheek plates, nose section, etc, all worked pretty well. There are some gaps around paper to foam, so I will likely iron the areas to produce sealed edges or possibly use white glue.

I'd seen enough posts about people having trouble getting the power pod in that I was careful to make the front section nice and tight. It was still hard to get the power pod in, but it's there. I used a small very low RPM drill to drill through all the foam and tape. It's unlikely it would nick the wires even if I hit one. I wrapped my power pod with extreme packing tape which is certainly thicker than regular packing tape and not "slippery".

When doing the poster board, it would be nice if they mentioned not worry about gluing the entire front section down to the edge as we are going to trim in line with the rear section. I know, it pays to watch a few steps ahead some times. I did, but I forgot.

Anyway, a fun build that took me two nights to get it to the point where it should fly, but not fully detailed.

Also, I have some of the DAL 6045 props I plan to try on here if the stock props prove prone to breakage.

Mike
 

TooJung2Die

Master member
I finished one last night. With the stock F-pack motor and a battery on storage charge, props that come with the F-pack, it felt like this plane would go vertical.

I don't understand the difference between the A pack motor and the F pack motor. They have similar Kv and Amp draw. I assumed they would have similar thrust.

Even with a 7x4 propeller on the 1806 motor my SE5 won't loop at full throttle. Otherwise it looks good and flies nice.

Can someone explain the difference between the A pack motors and the F pack motors? (I have a F pack size motor, 2204, on order.)

Hope to see a video of your SE5 maiden flight, Mike.

Jon
 

mikeporterinmd

Still Learning
When I run 'ecalc', I'm pretty sure a 7x4 is way over propped on most 1806s using 3S. Even 6x4 is over propped. I use a 6x4 APC style on an 1806 (A pack) with a 2S. 5x3 on 3S works and I use that on a quad. APC (style) props with A pack and 2S are great for belly landers like the Tiny Trainer because they don't break easily.

My own philosophy is to run what the designer says until I have enough experience to to know what would give me different results and what I am trying to achieve by using a different motor.

The specs on the A pack and the F pack motor are certainly not the same.

For instance, I will likely use a C pack motor with an appropriate tri-bade on a Sea Otter the next time I build one. I want more power for ground maneuvers and take offs from non-water. I might also try a 9x6, but I'm thinking tri-blade to avoid having to cut the fuselage.

Mike
 

TooJung2Die

Master member
When I run 'ecalc', I'm pretty sure a 7x4 is way over propped on most 1806s using 3S.

I agree. I never tried a 7x4 before today, 6x4 was the max. The 7x4 pulled 8.6 Amps so I figured it was somewhat safe to try. None of the magic smoke leaked out of the motor or ESC during three flights today. :) Neither did it really improve the performance. :mad:

The specs on the A pack and the F pack motor are certainly not the same.

True, but they don't seem terribly dissimilar. The 2204 is a little more wattage. I've flown larger airplanes than the SE5 on this same 1806. The "Schoolgirl" is a 32" biplane, weighed more and it would loop. (My Avatar) I expected the smaller, lighter SE5 to exceed that. I'm trying to understand why it doesn't.

My own philosophy is to run what the designer says until I have enough experience to to know what would give me different results and what I am trying to achieve by using a different motor.
Mike

Agreed. We will see when a 2204 is in the SE5. Maybe the 2204 will be my new "go-to" motor for airplanes this size. Worst case, I have bigger motors that I can put in the SE5.

Jon
 
Last edited:

TooJung2Die

Master member
The 2204 2300KV is now residing in the SE5. Tried it with a 6x4 APC prop first. No difference at all. Yes, I calibrated the ESC. Still won't loop and needs at least 60% throttle just to maintain altitude. Moved up to a 7x3.5 Gemfan prop. Checked the Amps to be safe and it's just over 7 Amps at full throttle.

Now there's enough thrust for the SE5 to be an okay flyer. It takes off from the ground in a few feet and it'll loop if you let it build up a little speed first. Battery life is longer. I might try the 7x4 APC prop but for now I'm satisfied.

First time a 1806 motor has let me down on an airplane of this small size. The 1806 I tried first in the SE5 now resides in a 60" glider. I have to give it down elevator under power so it doesn't climb too steep. It'll pull multiple loops on a 2s battery!
Jon
 
Last edited:

Okie

Flite Test Aviatrix
so I'm building a not so mini se5a (200%) was wondering what size servos to use would 9g metal be ok
 
Last edited:

thaterikperson

New member
Maidened my SE5 a few days ago and found the rudder to be extremely sensitive. I was even using low rates with 30% expo and the recommended CG. Is that normal behavior? Felt like I was constantly in danger of snap rolling it.
 

Henry

Member
I think this is just how it flies. Mine, and every one I have seen on youtube is the same. Try less throttle and see if it's any better.
 

daxian

Elite member
hi all ...
just finished the build of the se5...looking foward to the weather warming up a bit to maiden her....

se5-2.JPG
 
Last edited:

TooJung2Die

Master member
Maidened my SE5 a few days ago and found the rudder to be extremely sensitive. I was even using low rates with 30% expo and the recommended CG. Is that normal behavior? Felt like I was constantly in danger of snap rolling it.

I thought it might have been just my SE5 but that seems to be it's flight characteristic. It banks hard with rudder like it has ailerons. I had mine set for very low rates and 75% expo and it still surprised me in the first few seconds of it's maiden (Post #92). I got used to it and never crashed but I never learned to like the way it flew. The Mini DR1 is surprisingly stable in comparison and is a pleasure to fly.
Jon
 
Last edited:

JimCR120

Got Lobstah?
Site Moderator
A build night was scheduled for this weekend with the SE5. I plan on building my first then and with skins (which I hope to liberate from the crown).
 

SP0NZ

FT CAD Gremlin
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Mentor
Plans have been updated to v1.1. Fuselage was missing the skewer holes.
 

degriz

Active member
SE5 Ready

Got this finished up and ready to put it up against the DR1, I really like the simplicity of these & they look sharp.

se5-crop.jpg dr1.jpg
 

TooJung2Die

Master member
They do look sharp! Nice builds. I like the extra details. Let us know if you find the SE5 rolls and banks with the rudder more than the DR1. My SE5 was harder to fly because of that and I've been hesitant to build another because of it. The DR1 is a RET acrobat.