I am absolutely loving this design/build video series! Very informative on the design to build process and as others have stated, I'm hooked. I want to see more and more and more!
Strength in the leg parts vs the center bit is from the curve in the cross-section. Just like a flat piece of sheet metal vs the same sheet metal with a bead.
hey bruce i watched your flying wing videos, but i don't recall exactly what to do to remove dutch roll i built a 1.5m from foamboard and only have little winglets a bit over 500g and ~18g/dm^2
I'm not foreseeing any issues with CG placement at this point. The tail can move about 15cm and the battery can be anywhere in the lower platform. The new landing gear can also be moved pretty easily, probably within a 12cm range and still be reasonable. Motor and ESC will be very close to CG so fairly low influence. Currently the CG is just forward of the flaps/aileron hinge line (with just the parts shown at 19:16). I forgot to mention that when I glued those first joints to make the main platform rectangle, I left the ends of the long side open so that they could easily be extended at either front or back (eg. with a piece of 8mm tube glued inside 10mm). I think a little extension at the rear would be necessary if I want to try tricycle gear sometime.
A lot of work to design the print to fit around the already existing central piece. I wonder how much time it would take to measure all the dimensions and how many attempts it would take to get right, and how well it would fit after all that. Trimming the foam is easy because you can press it into the existing piece and it leaves a dent, showing you where to remove some material. Fine tuning by sanding after attaching is easy too. I would likely want to remove the print afterwards, again that's easy with foam but not sure if the print could be dissolved. I would also want the interior to be solid so I could make the tabs for holding the lid on. Not seeing a lot of positives for the 3d print method :)
@@iforce2d You haven't printed in vase-mode I think? (very thin-wall.. no inner structure).. but it is off course always the material / method you know well that would work best :) Once you would want to make more then 1 (or if someone else would want to make the same) 3D design / print would be handy.. otherwise it can have more overhead..
At 4:35 you start talking about airflow blockage. What if you did a reverse fillet type fuselage like the f16 instead of a bulge? Blended bodies are generally more efficient since it reduces frontal area :)
If you want stiffer landing gear, maybe try making it out of two formed sheets, with foam to hold space between them? You could make them thinner so the total weight is the same, and get higher bending stiffness.
@@iforce2d So i am guessing carbon fiber ads strenght and flexibility and the fiberglas some strenght and stiffnes? Or if i am wrong what does fiberglas do better than carbon fiber or vise versa? P.S. thx for your answer =)
Carbon is stiffer and harder than glass. Glass is much cheaper, available in lighter weight cloth and being able to see though it can be very convenient. Glass also does not conduct electricity or obstruct radio signal like carbon. Sanding carbon makes a fine black dust that stains just about everything it gets on, whereas glass doesn't.
Looks great Chris a lot of thought went into your design do you have a 3d printer ? keep the videos coming if not Bangood send this man a printer his possibilities would be endless
@@marc_frank I believe that he should build one from scratch, the cnc build was such a good series... i can see a scratch corexy build being an amazing build log... he typically doesn't just build status quo, I love how he always questions things and has a crack at new ideas.
I don't know if someone already meantioned, this kind of chassis don't have enough stiffness at "vertical rotating" axis: wheels will wobble from left to right. Peter Sripol had similar issue at his manned ultralight airplane.
Are you meaning the landing gear legs, or the carbon tube frame? Many planes use this type of landing gear legs with no problems. You can buy them ready-made in different sizes and style variations: hobbyking.com/en_us/carbon-fiber-landing-gear-20cc-size.html?queryID=d63771daae4ff0e9b90f2b394223a237&objectID=38659&indexName=hbk_live_magento_en_us_products I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the design itself, any given design also depends on the strength of construction. I think if Peter's gear was spring steel instead of aluminium he might have been ok. When I grab the wheels and try to rotate them about the yaw axis they feel ok. If it becomes a problem I might need to add a little strut going from the wheel to the rear of the lower platform.
Very interesting thanks for sharing! When you got to the part about removing the hatch, I was thinking. I bet he could use the hotwire for that. I was pretty pleased with myself that you did use that in the end. That hatch is really cool!. Somehow I didn't realize the bottom platform would stick out in front of the prop so far. Can you explain why that is? It seems further forward than I would have expected. Is that desirable from a CG perspective?
Yes. Roughly speaking there needs to be more weight in front of the wing than behind it. With the motor being so close to the wing it doesn't help much to bring weight forward, so we're depending on the battery and heavy wheels to do that. Actually this platform doesn't stick out much at all compared to some examples bit.ly/38x5wSM bit.ly/31YyLeK
@@iforce2d I think I see now, the plane is missing much of the traditional nose section, so something has to move the cg forward, right? Very cool I look forward to the rest of the build!
Part of the intention of this space frame idea was to have as little obstruction as possible in the prop blast (or alternatively, as much of the prop blast as possible hitting the flaps/tail). This plane is not really meant to be a super-efficient glider type like my last plane was :) I kinda like the empty frame look too.
Nice design iforce2d, But looking at the weight -- you might have some "issues" ..... 850g L\G + 1100g for half the plane!.... Battery will have to be in the 3 to 400g range..... Hmmmmm
@@dukejet6997 ? Not really. Projected weight at this point is potentially 3kg. Wing loading will be about 18.5oz/sqft, same as I fly my mini talon. WCL will be about 7-8 which is apparently a hefty trainer: www.ef-uk.net/data/wcl.htm Skyhunter 1.8m is rated as 3.5kg max, with only 70% of the wing area (although it typically flies faster than I want for mine). My 'big red' has only 60cm more wingspan and flies fine at 10kg. It might not be as floaty as I want, that's for sure, but I don't think 3kg is much cause for concern. If there are weight problems I can try some smaller wheels I have, but not sure how they'll cope with the stony ground.
Yup, great work. Thought I would ask about QCAD. I use Solidworks because it is 3D but all of your live models looks just as 3D as SW. Wonder why it is said thatQCAD is 2D ? //ji
The step in the middle of your wing will decrease flight performance because vortexes forming at the edges (left and right). Make the transition smooth.
hmm let's see.... auto-level, altitude-hold, return-to-home, loiter, waypoint missions, detailed onscreen display showing battery voltage and current draw, GPS location, altitude, speed, heading, distance from and direction to home etc etc I think a better question is why _not_ a flight controller :)
Ah, a full size Microlight of the type you are building would have little more than an ASI. The model that you are building ought to fly low and slow and ‘close in’, a flight controller with all its feature is therefore ‘over the top’ KIS
Who made the rule that says certain types of plane ought to fly close in? Even close in, what happens when radio signal is lost? What if I want to control the 3-axis gimbal while the plane flies itself, or chase it with my miniquad to film some air-to-air footage? What if I do actually want to fly only close in, but via FPV and have all the OSD information available? What if I forget something inside the house and I just want the plane to loiter for a few minutes while I go in and get it? What if I'm not very experienced at landing and I find auto-level to be helpful? What if I'm flying LOS at sunset and lose orientation? What if I want to run an endurance test but I don't want to stand there flying a plane manually for 40 minutes? What if it crashes on the other side of the farm and I want to know the GPS location so I can find it easier? What if I want to have a detailed flight log recorded on SD card so I can measure performance stats afterward? What if my 5 year old nephew visits again and I want to let him fly it, with a minimum altitude limit of 50 meters so he can't crash it? I don't know what qualifies as 'over the top' for you, but for me, every single one of these scenarios has actually happened for real. The style of plane doesn't really seem relevant to how useful a flight controller can be.
I am absolutely loving this design/build video series! Very informative on the design to build process and as others have stated, I'm hooked. I want to see more and more and more!
Already ordered some composites and tires on the way. Can't wait for the next video. Keep up the great work.
Fantastic job you have done
Thanks for sharing :-)
Very good project
Great job so far ! Have fun.
This is Brilliant. I Have to steal this design. Awesome work man!
Awesome work mate! Looking forward to the maiden :)
This is cool. You really inspired me to try some new things out. I'm really impressed by this madness
How do you fibreglass over foam?
If you aren't aware of it check out the tech ingredients channel. They've got some great vids on composites
Wow you must be retired to have the time to work these projects. Nice work.😁👍🇬🇧
Strength in the leg parts vs the center bit is from the curve in the cross-section. Just like a flat piece of sheet metal vs the same sheet metal with a bead.
ossm bro
The next issue will be getting the CG in the right place :-)
hey bruce
i watched your flying wing videos, but i don't recall exactly what to do to remove dutch roll
i built a 1.5m from foamboard and only have little winglets
a bit over 500g and ~18g/dm^2
Got loads of room to shift the battery!
I'm not foreseeing any issues with CG placement at this point. The tail can move about 15cm and the battery can be anywhere in the lower platform. The new landing gear can also be moved pretty easily, probably within a 12cm range and still be reasonable. Motor and ESC will be very close to CG so fairly low influence. Currently the CG is just forward of the flaps/aileron hinge line (with just the parts shown at 19:16).
I forgot to mention that when I glued those first joints to make the main platform rectangle, I left the ends of the long side open so that they could easily be extended at either front or back (eg. with a piece of 8mm tube glued inside 10mm). I think a little extension at the rear would be necessary if I want to try tricycle gear sometime.
@@iforce2d Excellent!
So nice. I would be dancing a jig if I did work that nice.
SUPER!! Love your vids dude
Fun project sir! What would be your thoughts on 3D printing that pod in vase-mode (and then adding some glass to it) ?
A lot of work to design the print to fit around the already existing central piece. I wonder how much time it would take to measure all the dimensions and how many attempts it would take to get right, and how well it would fit after all that. Trimming the foam is easy because you can press it into the existing piece and it leaves a dent, showing you where to remove some material. Fine tuning by sanding after attaching is easy too. I would likely want to remove the print afterwards, again that's easy with foam but not sure if the print could be dissolved. I would also want the interior to be solid so I could make the tabs for holding the lid on. Not seeing a lot of positives for the 3d print method :)
@@iforce2d You haven't printed in vase-mode I think? (very thin-wall.. no inner structure).. but it is off course always the material / method you know well that would work best :)
Once you would want to make more then 1 (or if someone else would want to make the same) 3D design / print would be handy.. otherwise it can have more overhead..
At 4:35 you start talking about airflow blockage. What if you did a reverse fillet type fuselage like the f16 instead of a bulge? Blended bodies are generally more efficient since it reduces frontal area :)
Nice work Chris as usual
If you want stiffer landing gear, maybe try making it out of two formed sheets, with foam to hold space between them? You could make them thinner so the total weight is the same, and get higher bending stiffness.
Would you call that central cockpitty bit a nacel?
How did you know how much carbon and how much fiberglas you would want for the gear? Very nice Video
For this second version I knew I needed a little more than last time. But for the first one, you just gotta take a guess.
@@iforce2d So i am guessing carbon fiber ads strenght and flexibility and the fiberglas some strenght and stiffnes? Or if i am wrong what does fiberglas do better than carbon fiber or vise versa?
P.S. thx for your answer =)
Carbon is stiffer and harder than glass. Glass is much cheaper, available in lighter weight cloth and being able to see though it can be very convenient. Glass also does not conduct electricity or obstruct radio signal like carbon. Sanding carbon makes a fine black dust that stains just about everything it gets on, whereas glass doesn't.
@@iforce2d so the only difference is, Carbon is better in almost every way but it is more convenient to work with glas.
Looks great Chris a lot of thought went into your design do you have a 3d printer ? keep the videos coming
if not Bangood send this man a printer his possibilities would be endless
he refuses to get one 😂
@@marc_frank I believe that he should build one from scratch, the cnc build was such a good series... i can see a scratch corexy build being an amazing build log... he typically doesn't just build status quo, I love how he always questions things and has a crack at new ideas.
If I build anything like that again it will be a larger CNC machine :)
@@iforce2d why did I know you would have said that love your builds
Marc Frank yup!!!!
I don't know if someone already meantioned, this kind of chassis don't have enough stiffness at "vertical rotating" axis: wheels will wobble from left to right. Peter Sripol had similar issue at his manned ultralight airplane.
Are you meaning the landing gear legs, or the carbon tube frame? Many planes use this type of landing gear legs with no problems.
You can buy them ready-made in different sizes and style variations:
hobbyking.com/en_us/carbon-fiber-landing-gear-20cc-size.html?queryID=d63771daae4ff0e9b90f2b394223a237&objectID=38659&indexName=hbk_live_magento_en_us_products
I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the design itself, any given design also depends on the strength of construction. I think if Peter's gear was spring steel instead of aluminium he might have been ok.
When I grab the wheels and try to rotate them about the yaw axis they feel ok. If it becomes a problem I might need to add a little strut going from the wheel to the rear of the lower platform.
very nice joop my frent .you nide one 3d printer
Very interesting thanks for sharing!
When you got to the part about removing the hatch, I was thinking. I bet he could use the hotwire for that. I was pretty pleased with myself that you did use that in the end. That hatch is really cool!.
Somehow I didn't realize the bottom platform would stick out in front of the prop so far. Can you explain why that is? It seems further forward than I would have expected. Is that desirable from a CG perspective?
Yes. Roughly speaking there needs to be more weight in front of the wing than behind it. With the motor being so close to the wing it doesn't help much to bring weight forward, so we're depending on the battery and heavy wheels to do that. Actually this platform doesn't stick out much at all compared to some examples
bit.ly/38x5wSM
bit.ly/31YyLeK
@@iforce2d I think I see now, the plane is missing much of the traditional nose section, so something has to move the cg forward, right? Very cool I look forward to the rest of the build!
Make sure you use big spongy wheels to absorb landing stresses
what about a shell for covering all the stuff hanging below the wing?
maybe using vacuum forming
Part of the intention of this space frame idea was to have as little obstruction as possible in the prop blast (or alternatively, as much of the prop blast as possible hitting the flaps/tail). This plane is not really meant to be a super-efficient glider type like my last plane was :) I kinda like the empty frame look too.
@@iforce2d ah ok, makes sense
when ya gonna have part 3 ready to go? You've got me hooked like an addiction...lol Bill
Nice design iforce2d, But looking at the weight -- you might have some "issues" ..... 850g L\G + 1100g for half the plane!.... Battery will have to be in the 3 to 400g range..... Hmmmmm
What kind of issues? You mean pendulum swinging behavior?
@@iforce2d - No mate simply the weight. your looking at 2.5 kgs at a minimum. That seem like a lot of weight for a 1.9m W/s?
@@dukejet6997 ? Not really. Projected weight at this point is potentially 3kg. Wing loading will be about 18.5oz/sqft, same as I fly my mini talon. WCL will be about 7-8 which is apparently a hefty trainer: www.ef-uk.net/data/wcl.htm
Skyhunter 1.8m is rated as 3.5kg max, with only 70% of the wing area (although it typically flies faster than I want for mine). My 'big red' has only 60cm more wingspan and flies fine at 10kg.
It might not be as floaty as I want, that's for sure, but I don't think 3kg is much cause for concern. If there are weight problems I can try some smaller wheels I have, but not sure how they'll cope with the stony ground.
Excelent proyect míster, tanks
I subscribed
I can't stop looking at it and thinking battery chop saw
Yup, great work. Thought I would ask about QCAD. I use Solidworks because it is 3D but all of your live models looks just as 3D as SW.
Wonder why it is said thatQCAD is 2D ? //ji
The software I'm using at the beginning of this video is OpenVSP. When I want to print something or cut on my CNC machine I use QCad.
@7:50 The Xenomorphs don't appreciate you sneaking into their nests with a needle so you can do your projects. They're not horseshoe crabs ya know.
great
Little bit of "toe in" for traction (wheels) maybe
See good
The step in the middle of your wing will decrease flight performance because vortexes forming at the edges (left and right). Make the transition smooth.
hmm.... what step are we talking about?
you can't possibly have watched the whole video yet...
@@lukeattubato No, I didnt before commenting. Its nice and smooth.
Why? a “Flight Controller”
hmm let's see.... auto-level, altitude-hold, return-to-home, loiter, waypoint missions, detailed onscreen display showing battery voltage and current draw, GPS location, altitude, speed, heading, distance from and direction to home etc etc
I think a better question is why _not_ a flight controller :)
Ah, a full size Microlight of the type you are building would have little more than an ASI. The model that you are building ought to fly low and slow and ‘close in’, a flight controller with all its feature is therefore ‘over the top’ KIS
Who made the rule that says certain types of plane ought to fly close in? Even close in, what happens when radio signal is lost? What if I want to control the 3-axis gimbal while the plane flies itself, or chase it with my miniquad to film some air-to-air footage? What if I do actually want to fly only close in, but via FPV and have all the OSD information available? What if I forget something inside the house and I just want the plane to loiter for a few minutes while I go in and get it? What if I'm not very experienced at landing and I find auto-level to be helpful? What if I'm flying LOS at sunset and lose orientation? What if I want to run an endurance test but I don't want to stand there flying a plane manually for 40 minutes? What if it crashes on the other side of the farm and I want to know the GPS location so I can find it easier? What if I want to have a detailed flight log recorded on SD card so I can measure performance stats afterward? What if my 5 year old nephew visits again and I want to let him fly it, with a minimum altitude limit of 50 meters so he can't crash it?
I don't know what qualifies as 'over the top' for you, but for me, every single one of these scenarios has actually happened for real. The style of plane doesn't really seem relevant to how useful a flight controller can be.
M8, you need a FC for sure