8:26 - "It made some complain sound" :D Excellent video! I'm planning to do similar conversion. Your series about Lidl glider is one of the best in the internet!
Wow than you! I think there are many masters of the Lidl glider conversion. I think it is a stable flyer, I even managed to get a camera (cheap gopro copy) on it and it did fly. It is a fun model as it crashes and still gets to fly. Good luck with yours!
@@downwindchecklist6567 I was in a hurry earlier and couldn't put all my thoughts down. The little plane looks like it flies quite well. If you're flying it right past you and setting it down in the grass at your feet on the first day, you've built a good plane! I think I heard you say you were using a little less power to tame the pitching up tendency. That's very much a sign of a nose-heavy plane. Think about the wing's center of lift as the fulcrum of a lever. Your center of lift will be just a little ahead of the middle-point of the wing chord, and your center of gravity will need to be some SMALL distance forward of that. A little forward is good, which is why 33% back from the start of the wing chord is usually a sweet spot. The horizontal stabilizer and elevator push down at the tail to counteract the weight at the front, balancing at the fulcrum of the center of lift. When there's lots of weight at the front, as there is with a nose-heavy condition, there must be more "push" down from the tail to achieve level flight. That push is actually lift, even though it's directed at the ground! But the amount of downward "push/lift" generated by the tail will increase greatly with more airspeed. This is why, with a nose-heavy condition, more throttle and/or speed results in a lot of upward pitch (and why you're always having to shove the nose back down with your Lidl Glider), and slowing down means a lot of downward pitch, and lots of up elevator at slow speed. At slow speeds, though, all that up elevator is making a lot of drag. This kind of drag is called "induced drag," which is the necessary by-product of lift, even when that lift is pointed at the ground, and induced drag is an especially "sticky" flavor of drag. Case in point, regarding the tail of an aircraft's induced drag: Next time you're flying a 172, put a little weight in the baggage compartment (check your POH and stay within the W&B envelope! For Christ's sake!(!)). You'll see that the plane gets a little faster as the CG moves aft. That's because the induced drag of the horizontal stabilizer deceases greatly as the amount of downward lift it has to make at cruise speed goes down. This is why your average C150 or Cherokee 140 is a little faster with two people in it: The weight of the occupants push the center of gravity more toward the center of lift, decreasing the amount of downward "push" needed from the tail! But (usually in models, hopefully) you get into a vicious cycle at low speeds with very nose-heavy planes because the drag from all that downward "lift" at the tail is significant, and this sticky induced drag slows the plane down even more, which means more up elevator is needed. But you're going to run out of up elevator, because the tail has a critical angle of attack too! This is why a lot of the older free flight and even RC kits will have a horizontal stabilizer with an upside-down airfoil - flat on the top and curved at the bottom! The Aviat Husky and I'm sure a lot of other full-scale aircraft actually have vortex generators on the bottom of the horizontal stabilizer to increase the critical angle of attack of the elevator when the pilot is cranking back on the stick. A few planes even have upside-down leading-edge slots on the tailfeathers to get a bit more downward lift out of the tail. Your Lidl Glider doesn't have that, and you're running out of up elevator. TLDR: Your Lidl Glider has too big and heavy a motor, and your balsa Cub does too. Put the CG for your Cub at the free flight recommended point, because too far forward is going to be as bad as too far aft.
Thank you! I know I need the practice and to work through those crashes. As I progress with the Hurricane I am getting more and more scared of getting it into the air. The Hurricane would not survive a hard landing.
It will fly the best and straightest if you angle the propeller 2° down and 3° to the right. That counter most of the rotation forces from the rotating propeller. Thrust angle is very important to get a nice flying aeroplane.
Thank you for the point. I can try to put some washers to create the angle but I have no idea on how to measure with so much precision the 2 to 3 degrees. As usual, I will try to eyeball it ;) Thx for stopping by!
@@downwindchecklist6567 Thats how we did it when everybody flew with combustion engines. 2 small washers on the upper left bolt. and 1 washer on the lower left. If it still did not go straight we grinded the washer ti fine adjust it if needed. It worked perfect every time. And dont worry if the angle is visible without measuring. This is how it should look if everything is about right. Good luck. 👍
Well done Andrew, you got some air at last, I've never known those props to break, is your O ring a bit too tight, mine leave the prop almost wobbly? I think you would have had more luck flying off the grass even if it meant hand launching 👍
Curbs, walls, trees and lamp posts... already hit them all with varying levels of damage ... and then there is of course the ground that has this tendency to go up and hit the model when it is flying ;) Thx for stopping by!
Well done Andrew. If you had removed the undercarriage, hand launched and landed on the grass, I think every flight would have been as successful as the best one.
You are most probably right. I somehow have this fixation with the undercarriage. A mistake I realise I made is putting the servo in the belly. No I can't really belly land as safely even if I wanted to.
@@downwindchecklist6567 I didn't consider that you might have followed the Eachine example and let the servo stick out the bottom. I have 2 similar a/c coming so will see what compromises I make. I think of undercarriages on small models as "can openers". They are just there to rip the guts out of whatever they are mounted to. You could put a little wire skid on the underside of the fuselage, to keep the landing loads off the servo. Anyway, get yourself some airtime with it. 🙂
@@RichardTapp1 I recently found a Lidl conversion which used the single servo on the top of the fuselage. Not a bad idea if you have inboard ailerons like I do. And I agree about the landing gear ripping things out, on the other hand it is nice to dream that the landing gear can actually be used effectively. Good luck with your models!
Congrats mate! After a lot of "Up! Up! Up!" you've finally joined (well almost) the ranks of "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines"! But, to continue the style of the contributions from the other "experts" here, 😜 now you will appreciate the wisdom of having 2 smaller motors on the wings in place of the 1 (very vulnerable) motor right on the nose. 😉 If the Rudder was centered (also ailerons) at each taxiing attempt, then maybe you have just a bit too much right angle on the motor. Is it much harder to turn left in the air than to the right? The COG should have been maintained the same as stock out of the box. Having the landing gear on a piece of board/plastic and velcroed to the plane also would have the advantage of being able to be reversed when you have bent the wires back with each less-than-perfect "landing." But you've sure shown the advantage of that cheap EPP airframe. Von Braun's first rocket never reached the moon either but persistence usually pays off. 😊
Thx for all the encouragement. It has now gone through a few crashes (some pretty bad). Indeed the airframe is fixable. A crash on a balsa model would render the model useless after the first flight. The twin engine configuration is very attractive. I would need to learn that so that I can then reverse engineer my Mosquito and Wellington. Overall it is stable in the air, just the trim was a bit off. Power makes it climb and elevator keeps it kind of on track. I have figured out (I think) a solution for the gear (apparat from hand launching), which is a piece of strong plastic hot-glued to the fuselage and the u/c threaded into a slot in it. I need more stick time and more props, as indeed each flight pretty much costs me a prop blade at least. Thank you for all the ideas and tips!
8:26 - "It made some complain sound" :D Excellent video! I'm planning to do similar conversion. Your series about Lidl glider is one of the best in the internet!
Wow than you! I think there are many masters of the Lidl glider conversion. I think it is a stable flyer, I even managed to get a camera (cheap gopro copy) on it and it did fly. It is a fun model as it crashes and still gets to fly. Good luck with yours!
Excellent job! Keep up improving. Love the channel and watching you overcome your challenges.
Thank you! The challenges are the fun part, even if sometimes frustrating. Thx for stopping by!
I'd call that a great success! Flies like a little trainer!
It for sure is a great feeling to have something fly at last, even if it isn't balsa ;)
@@downwindchecklist6567 I was in a hurry earlier and couldn't put all my thoughts down. The little plane looks like it flies quite well. If you're flying it right past you and setting it down in the grass at your feet on the first day, you've built a good plane! I think I heard you say you were using a little less power to tame the pitching up tendency. That's very much a sign of a nose-heavy plane. Think about the wing's center of lift as the fulcrum of a lever. Your center of lift will be just a little ahead of the middle-point of the wing chord, and your center of gravity will need to be some SMALL distance forward of that. A little forward is good, which is why 33% back from the start of the wing chord is usually a sweet spot.
The horizontal stabilizer and elevator push down at the tail to counteract the weight at the front, balancing at the fulcrum of the center of lift. When there's lots of weight at the front, as there is with a nose-heavy condition, there must be more "push" down from the tail to achieve level flight. That push is actually lift, even though it's directed at the ground! But the amount of downward "push/lift" generated by the tail will increase greatly with more airspeed. This is why, with a nose-heavy condition, more throttle and/or speed results in a lot of upward pitch (and why you're always having to shove the nose back down with your Lidl Glider), and slowing down means a lot of downward pitch, and lots of up elevator at slow speed. At slow speeds, though, all that up elevator is making a lot of drag. This kind of drag is called "induced drag," which is the necessary by-product of lift, even when that lift is pointed at the ground, and induced drag is an especially "sticky" flavor of drag.
Case in point, regarding the tail of an aircraft's induced drag: Next time you're flying a 172, put a little weight in the baggage compartment (check your POH and stay within the W&B envelope! For Christ's sake!(!)). You'll see that the plane gets a little faster as the CG moves aft. That's because the induced drag of the horizontal stabilizer deceases greatly as the amount of downward lift it has to make at cruise speed goes down. This is why your average C150 or Cherokee 140 is a little faster with two people in it: The weight of the occupants push the center of gravity more toward the center of lift, decreasing the amount of downward "push" needed from the tail!
But (usually in models, hopefully) you get into a vicious cycle at low speeds with very nose-heavy planes because the drag from all that downward "lift" at the tail is significant, and this sticky induced drag slows the plane down even more, which means more up elevator is needed.
But you're going to run out of up elevator, because the tail has a critical angle of attack too!
This is why a lot of the older free flight and even RC kits will have a horizontal stabilizer with an upside-down airfoil - flat on the top and curved at the bottom! The Aviat Husky and I'm sure a lot of other full-scale aircraft actually have vortex generators on the bottom of the horizontal stabilizer to increase the critical angle of attack of the elevator when the pilot is cranking back on the stick. A few planes even have upside-down leading-edge slots on the tailfeathers to get a bit more downward lift out of the tail. Your Lidl Glider doesn't have that, and you're running out of up elevator.
TLDR: Your Lidl Glider has too big and heavy a motor, and your balsa Cub does too. Put the CG for your Cub at the free flight recommended point, because too far forward is going to be as bad as too far aft.
VERY WELL DONE ANDREW !
Thank you! I know I need the practice and to work through those crashes. As I progress with the Hurricane I am getting more and more scared of getting it into the air. The Hurricane would not survive a hard landing.
@Downwind Checklist take your time Andrew, there is no rush to finish and fly the Hurricane. It's a hobby, not an obligation. Just enjoy each step.
It will fly the best and straightest if you angle the propeller 2° down and 3° to the right. That counter most of the rotation forces from the rotating propeller. Thrust angle is very important to get a nice flying aeroplane.
Thank you for the point. I can try to put some washers to create the angle but I have no idea on how to measure with so much precision the 2 to 3 degrees. As usual, I will try to eyeball it ;) Thx for stopping by!
@@downwindchecklist6567 Thats how we did it when everybody flew with combustion engines. 2 small washers on the upper left bolt. and 1 washer on the lower left. If it still did not go straight we grinded the washer ti fine adjust it if needed. It worked perfect every time. And dont worry if the angle is visible without measuring. This is how it should look if everything is about right. Good luck. 👍
"Not sure if it's a good idea" - when it's about a little foam plane, it's probably a great idea!
This foam plane has taken major hits and still flies. A good training tool before destroying the more precious balsa models. Thx for stopping by!
Success ! Turning ideas into flying things .
Yes! Finally something that can stay in the air for a couple of minutes!
I would say, this was just flying in the wrong place.
Probably. I have since moved to a field with less obstacles, though landing it nicely is still a challenge. Thank you for stopping by!
Well done Andrew, you got some air at last, I've never known those props to break, is your O ring a bit too tight, mine leave the prop almost wobbly? I think you would have had more luck flying off the grass even if it meant hand launching 👍
The O-rings are very tight indeed. Maybe I should try with bigger ones.
@@downwindchecklist6567 I would, nothing to lose 👍
😅Congratulations on achieving flight! If not for all the curbs and walls, you might still have a propeller!😅
Curbs, walls, trees and lamp posts... already hit them all with varying levels of damage ... and then there is of course the ground that has this tendency to go up and hit the model when it is flying ;) Thx for stopping by!
Well done Andrew.
If you had removed the undercarriage, hand launched and landed on the grass, I think every flight would have been as successful as the best one.
You are most probably right. I somehow have this fixation with the undercarriage. A mistake I realise I made is putting the servo in the belly. No I can't really belly land as safely even if I wanted to.
@@downwindchecklist6567 I didn't consider that you might have followed the Eachine example and let the servo stick out the bottom.
I have 2 similar a/c coming so will see what compromises I make.
I think of undercarriages on small models as "can openers". They are just there to rip the guts out of whatever they are mounted to.
You could put a little wire skid on the underside of the fuselage, to keep the landing loads off the servo.
Anyway, get yourself some airtime with it. 🙂
@@RichardTapp1 I recently found a Lidl conversion which used the single servo on the top of the fuselage. Not a bad idea if you have inboard ailerons like I do.
And I agree about the landing gear ripping things out, on the other hand it is nice to dream that the landing gear can actually be used effectively. Good luck with your models!
thumbs up!
Thank you!
Congrats mate! After a lot of "Up! Up! Up!" you've finally joined (well almost) the ranks of "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines"!
But, to continue the style of the contributions from the other "experts" here, 😜 now you will appreciate the wisdom of having 2 smaller motors on the wings in place of the 1 (very vulnerable) motor right on the nose. 😉
If the Rudder was centered (also ailerons) at each taxiing attempt, then maybe you have just a bit too much right angle on the motor. Is it much harder to turn left in the air than to the right?
The COG should have been maintained the same as stock out of the box.
Having the landing gear on a piece of board/plastic and velcroed to the plane also would have the advantage of being able to be reversed when you have bent the wires back with each less-than-perfect "landing." But you've sure shown the advantage of that cheap EPP airframe.
Von Braun's first rocket never reached the moon either but persistence usually pays off. 😊
Thx for all the encouragement. It has now gone through a few crashes (some pretty bad).
Indeed the airframe is fixable. A crash on a balsa model would render the model useless after the first flight.
The twin engine configuration is very attractive. I would need to learn that so that I can then reverse engineer my Mosquito and Wellington.
Overall it is stable in the air, just the trim was a bit off. Power makes it climb and elevator keeps it kind of on track.
I have figured out (I think) a solution for the gear (apparat from hand launching), which is a piece of strong plastic hot-glued to the fuselage and the u/c threaded into a slot in it.
I need more stick time and more props, as indeed each flight pretty much costs me a prop blade at least.
Thank you for all the ideas and tips!