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

What Did You Fly Today

Well took the simple cub out to the rc club for round 2 after adding 3 degrees of down thrust as suggested by the instructor. A different pilot took it up this time and again struggled with anything more than 1/4 throttle. I did some research and my thrust to weight ratio is 2:1. 1400g thrust to 700g total weight. Seemed to fly reasonably at low revs and speed but just wants to climb when throttle was added. Eventually smacked the ground hard enough to break my last prop. Managed to get a loan of a similar prop and swapped out recievers so he could use his transmitter for another run. The club members run mode 1 and my unit was mode 2. The plan was to borrow a second TX and buddy box once we got some more tuning done. While I was waiting for him to finish a 3D run, a small puff of wind rolled the fuse off the table hitting the ground nose first taking off the firewall. The initial crash may have loosened it as we were surprised to only find a broken prop. Saw a large balsa plane go in hard after it lost radio contact at the end of the strip. Ah the sound of splintering balsa. So than ended round 2. Bought it home and carried out the repairs. Changed theTX over to mode 1 and checked everything was working as it should in mode 1. Then consulted the manual and did some work on the throttle curve to make the motor more docile and cub friendly. Ordered new props, lipo safety bag, TX carry case so should be ready for round 3 in a fortnight.
 

nerdnic

nerdnic.com
Mentor
Thank you nerdnic for your chuck plane plans. Grandsons turned up for long weekend and started throwing paper planes around so decided to go one better and with their help built a chuck jet. Older grandson is into ships from the White Star Line namely Titanic and her sister ships so that is the insignia on the wing. After an hour of chucking with mixed results the nose had coped a fair hiding and required hot glue surgery. Tomorrow we add paint. Cost. One A2 sheet of foam board. Quality time spent with the grandsons. Priceless. Eyes almost popped when I showed them the simple cub I built and have yet to learn to fly. So poppy is number one cool dude this weekend.
That is awesome! My niece was visiting and mention one of her grandsons likes planes. I give her a nnchuckstang. The Boy loved it talked his parents into letting him take it to a school field trip. Grandma was worried if the plane would make it home. I emailed her the plans for the stang and the nnchuck F16.. Grandpa got the DTFB and one weekend they had about 4-5 grandkids over, Planes were made. Boys glue and throw, Girls Glue, decorate and throw. She has a walkout basement with a deck on the main floor. Kids would get on the deck and throw the planes. Run down the hill to get them and back, then up the steps. Kids had fun, eat a good supper and fell asleep before bedtime. Only damage was Grandpa’s fingers. More ban aids will be purchase

Nerdnic is doing a great service with his easy to build gliders.
This is awesome! Thank you both for sharing your experience with us. I am so glad my designs have this type of impact on the young and old :)
 
I saw some real fighter jets doin the cobra and yeah I would say there is thrust vectoring for sure, without though. That would be some cut the throttle/ full back on the bottom end of a glide right before a stall, then throttle back up?... not sure just a theory. I have a vid somewhere on here I took on Thursday of some crazy low passes with the FT-22, a couple right at my head as well. It's posted, just not inverted.

I like the inverted hand launch thing though, that would be different for me to launch with the left hand though. I can't think of a better time to do it, the 22 is getting kinda beat up so I have nothing to lose given I am going to build a 135% Alpha to replace it.
When you make the Alpha, make a group build thread on it, I've been meaning to build one with a different power system:devilish:
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
When you make the Alpha, make a group build thread on it, I've been meaning to build one with a different power system:devilish:
A group build huh, That would be fun. I didn't think a group build would catch on given the lack of interest in the P-40, but this is a whole different style of plane then another warbird.

As far as the STEM prop and slot jets go, the FT website says these planes interchange and have everything from beginner/trainer/ intermediate/advanced designs. I did a search on YouTube to find which was which. It seems the Alpha is the most popular design but is it the advanced version? I found quite a few vids on the Alpha, not so many on the Bravo, and I think one on the Charlie. I want to build the advanced one but I just don't have enough research data to pull from to make an opinion on which is the advanced version. Judging by the limited info on the others and taking the characteristics of other designs like the 22, Viggen, X-29, I am guessing the Alpha is the faster more maneuverable plane...? Not sure. In the STEM promo vid the Alpha fuse with the Bravo wing looked like it was a good combo as well. They are interchangeable, which is something I was looking to get away from to cut down on weight of multi layers of FB. Maybe the weight savings with less layers of FB, and the larger size, would be enough to gain the difference in performance from the two different wings
 

Vimana89

Well-known member
A group build huh, That would be fun. I didn't think a group build would catch on given the lack of interest in the P-40, but this is a whole different style of plane then another warbird.

As far as the STEM prop and slot jets go, the FT website says these planes interchange and have everything from beginner/trainer/ intermediate/advanced designs. I did a search on YouTube to find which was which. It seems the Alpha is the most popular design but is it the advanced version? I found quite a few vids on the Alpha, not so many on the Bravo, and I think one on the Charlie. I want to build the advanced one but I just don't have enough research data to pull from to make an opinion on which is the advanced version. Judging by the limited info on the others and taking the characteristics of other designs like the 22, Viggen, X-29, I am guessing the Alpha is the faster more maneuverable plane...? Not sure. In the STEM promo vid the Alpha fuse with the Bravo wing looked like it was a good combo as well. They are interchangeable, which is something I was looking to get away from to cut down on weight of multi layers of FB. Maybe the weight savings with less layers of FB, and the larger size, would be enough to gain the difference in performance from the two different wings
I might be interested in the group build. The Alpha looks cool(y). You might increase participation if you made the group build parameters include the A, B, and C, so people could participate with either Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, or try two or all three and interchange/modify them.
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
I might be interested in the group build. The Alpha looks cool(y). You might increase participation if you made the group build parameters include the A, B, and C, so people could participate with either Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, or try two or all three and interchange/modify them.
So do the thread as the STEM thread to incorporate all 3 and combos of, great idea. Which would you do?
 

Vimana89

Well-known member
So do the thread as the STEM thread to incorporate all 3 and combos of, great idea. Which would you do?
Still pondering that question. I think I could honestly see myself doing any of them and having a good time. The Alpha is cool because it's the most well balanced. I like the Bravo's low aspect ratio and canards, and I definitely think I've built and flown enough deltas at this point to handle it. I'm almost leaning most towards the Charlie, simply because it is a gentler and slower experience, but I could still give it some good power and maneuverability. We'll see what I pick in the end but it will be fun.
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
Still pondering that question. I think I could honestly see myself doing any of them and having a good time. The Alpha is cool because it's the most well balanced. I like the Bravo's low aspect ratio and canards, and I definitely think I've built and flown enough deltas at this point to handle it. I'm almost leaning most towards the Charlie, simply because it is a gentler and slower experience, but I could still give it some good power and maneuverability. We'll see what I pick in the end but it will be fun.
So that's the experience aspect of it, Alpha is the advanced, Bravo is intermediate, and Charlie is the beginner?
 

Headbang

Well-known member
That's classic tail heavy. Bixler has said "a nose heavy plane flies poorly and a tail heavy plane flies once." That's not necessarily true. A "slightly" tail heavy plane flies poorly as well. One of the symptoms is a tendency to climb when throttle is added. ;)
Could also be thrust angle. Tail heavy will be much more sensitive, and in a warbird and some other designs be uncontrollable. In other designs it will not make as big of a difference.
 

Wildthing

Well-known member
Well took the simple cub out to the rc club for round 2 after adding 3 degrees of down thrust as suggested by the instructor. A different pilot took it up this time and again struggled with anything more than 1/4 throttle. I did some research and my thrust to weight ratio is 2:1. 1400g thrust to 700g total weight. Seemed to fly reasonably at low revs and speed but just wants to climb when throttle was added. Eventually smacked the ground hard enough to break my last prop. Managed to get a loan of a similar prop and swapped out recievers so he could use his transmitter for another run. The club members run mode 1 and my unit was mode 2. The plan was to borrow a second TX and buddy box once we got some more tuning done. While I was waiting for him to finish a 3D run, a small puff of wind rolled the fuse off the table hitting the ground nose first taking off the firewall. The initial crash may have loosened it as we were surprised to only find a broken prop. Saw a large balsa plane go in hard after it lost radio contact at the end of the strip. Ah the sound of splintering balsa. So than ended round 2. Bought it home and carried out the repairs. Changed theTX over to mode 1 and checked everything was working as it should in mode 1. Then consulted the manual and did some work on the throttle curve to make the motor more docile and cub friendly. Ordered new props, lipo safety bag, TX carry case so should be ready for round 3 in a fortnight.
As @buzzbomb said it could be tail heavy so after adding a few degrees downthrust to the motor and nothing changed I would try moving the battery forward a 1/4" at a time. Also look closely to your wing and horizontal and make sure they are straight and glued on properly, look from all sides. . I have glued some together and the next day looked at it and thought to myself how the heck did I screw that up so bad, not even close.
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
Really it could be a combination of any of these. I hear the cub is a finicky plane when it comes to the stock build. There are a few mods that need to be done to make it a more manageable plane, wing incidence, balance, etc. There are a few threads on here which go into detail on it if you do a search. A lot of it is easy small stuff that most people wouldn't think of.
 

The Hangar

Well-known member
Really it could be a combination of any of these. I hear the cub is a finicky plane when it comes to the stock build. There are a few mods that need to be done to make it a more manageable plane, wing incidence, balance, etc. There are a few threads on here which go into detail on it if you do a search. A lot of it is easy small stuff that most people wouldn't think of.
My cub ended up quite a bit nose heavy but flew pretty well despite that. That would be part of the reason it hated inverted...
 

Jackson T

Well-known member
That's classic tail heavy. Bixler has said "a nose heavy plane flies poorly and a tail heavy plane flies once." That's not necessarily true. A "slightly" tail heavy plane flies poorly as well. One of the symptoms is a tendency to climb when throttle is added. ;)
Not always. I tend to give my planes a fair bit of up trim so they fly slowly at minimum throttle, but that means when I add throttle the plane climbs. I like it that way, cause I end up getting very long flight times from the low speed/throttle position at cruise. Also, the planes aren't tail heavy, if anything sometimes a bit nose heavy. It could possibly be a slight lack of downthrust angle, but I do follow the FT plans on most builds pretty accurately, so it shouldn't be too noticeable.

Just my personal experience!
 
Thank you for your responses. They are much appreciated. I knocked up a rough CG stand just in case my fat fingers were causing any bias. I have everything in place as it would be in flight and 3s 2200ma lipo battery sitting hard up against the back of the firewall. I sharpened the tip of the dowels to a 1 mm chisel point and the plane rocks freely without hesitation. I had to reverse the undercarriage to fit the stand in. I think it looks fairly well balanced. Looking down the plane the main wing and evelator are in good alignment. I am thinking more along the lines of too much increase in thrust for very little stick movement. I think anyone would have trouble driving a mini minor if it was powered by a super charged V8 with only 1 inch of total throttle movement. While I am waiting for the new props to come I will knock up a thrust meter and adjust the throttle curve on the transmitter to have a linear run up and cap the thrust between 700 and 1000g. I found this feature while I was doing my repairs. IMG_0358.JPG IMG_0358.JPG IMG_0359.JPG Does anyone have a CG point for a heavy cub that worked for them? I could also set up the ailerons and run them in flaperon mode with a little reflex if that might help. I did plan on going to 4 channel eventually.