WWI Era Discuss all your favorite WWI warbirds here!

Help! Need DH-5 kit or plans!

Old 01-25-2009, 04:43 AM
  #26  
d&mrc
Member
Thread Starter
 
d&mrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: southern ca
Posts: 459
Default

Okay, here are the original specs:
Wing span: 25ft 8in.
Gap: 4ft 10in.
Wing area: 212.1 sq ft.
Length: 22ft.
Height: 9ft 1.5in.
Chord: 4ft 6in.
Negative stagger: 2ft 3in.
*Dihedral: 4 degrees. 30 minutes; incidence 2 degrees, washing in to 2 degrees 15 minutes at port interplane struts.*
Span of tail: 8ft 4.5in
Wheel track: 5ft
Tailplane area: 13.4 sq ft.
Elevator area: 12.2 sq ft (on either side of fuse)
Rudder area: 6.3 sq ft.
Fin area: 2.2 sq ft.
Aileron area: 11.6 sq ft (each)
*= Direct quote
Despite my best efforts, a typo or two may have slipped through in my posts about the model's specs, or, to e lesser extent, the full scale specs. If you come across something weird or that diverges from what I posted, let me know, for that may be the cause.
BTW, thanks for another very informative link, Yak
d&mrc is offline  
Old 01-26-2009, 10:31 AM
  #27  
Yak 52
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Default

This post’s a long one hope you can bear with me!

This is what I came up with:

Full Size Aircraft................... Model

Scale 1/8.5556

Span - 25’ 8” or ..308” ............36.00”
Length - 22’ 1”... 265” ............30.97”
Height - 9’ 1.5” .....109.5” ..........12.80”
Chord - 4’ 6” .......54” ................6.31”
Gap - 4’10” ...........58” .................6.78”
Stagger - 2’ 3 ” .....27”................. 3.16”
Dihedral - 4.5 deg
Incidence - 2 deg
Port wing wash in - 2.25 deg

Tail span - 8’ 4.5” ...100.5” ...............11.75”
Airscrew diameter - 8’ 6.5” ..102.5” ...11.98”
Wheel track - 5’........ 60” ...................7.01”
Tyres - 700 x 75mm ...........................81.8 x 8.8mm
.......or 27.56 x 2.95”.......................... 3.22 x 0.35”


Areas:................................Model Area
Scalar: 73.19753

Wing area (S) - 212.1 ft2 ....2.89764 ft2 ...(417.25998 sq in)
Ailerons (each) - 11.6 ft2 .....0.15848 ft2 ...(22.82112 sq in)
............(total) - 46.4 ft2 ......0.63390 ft2 ...(91.28160 sq in)

Tail Area - 13.4 ft2 ...............0.18307 ft2....(26.36208 sq in)
Elevators - 12.2ft2 ................0.16667 ft2... (24.00048 sq in)
Total Tail - 25.6 ft2 ............0.34974 ft2... (50.36256 sq in)
Fin - ............2.2 ft2 ..............0.03006 ft2 .....(4.32864 sq in)
Rudder ....... 6.3 ft2 ..............0.08607 ft2...... (12.39408 sq in)
Total Fin - ..8.5 ft2 .............0.11612 ft2..... (16.72128 sq in)


Weights:
Scalar: 626.2553

Weight (W) - 1010lb......... (1.6127608 lb).... 29.0296944 oz


A few comments… (If I’m teaching granny to suck eggs just ignore me!)

I find it doesn’t pay to get too bogged down in the figures - it’s best to try and keep a practical understanding of what the figures stand for and constantly check on yourself to avoid mistakes in the calculations.


In terms of choosing what level of accuracy to work to (i.e. how many decimal places) what is the practical approach? Well, for example, I can design the chord to be accurate to 8 decimal places (6.31168831 inches) but can I cut my ribs to one hundred millionth of an inch? You might be able to if your kit is going to be laser cut!

So… I can cut to 1/100th of an inch or 0.25mm (sometimes!) so 2 decimal places are fine for linear measures. If I’m multiplying (e.g. areas) I’ll add a couple of decimal places to increase my accuracy so as not to end up with a too much compounded error.

Thinking of it the other way around - at this scale, moving something 1/100th of an inch on your model represents moving it less than 1/12th of an inch on the full size!

It does depend on the measure you are using though - 1/100 of a square foot is 1.44 square inches, so maybe a greater degree of accuracy is called for.

I actually found that the scale of 1/8.5556 gave me closer to the 36” span you were after.


The other practical thing to do is to keep checking against the drawings. For example, in your figures ‘Gap’ came out a smidge larger than Chord. Check the drawings - Yep that looks fine!

Stagger came out as pretty much half the chord. Check the drawings - perfect!


However… (… there’s always a however!)


Something seems to have gone a bit wrong with your wing area?

When you think about it, if span is 36” then a 34 sq in area indicates a chord or less than half an inch for wing… something drastically wrong there! (It may well be a typo!)

Again, there’s a practical check on that - multiply Chord by Span (x 2 - it’s a biplane!) to give you a ball park figure to aim at…

So working in feet (very roughly!):
3 x 0.5 (6”) x 2 = 3 ft2
From the specs: 2.89764 ft2
Just about right! (It’s less because the check didn’t exclude cut away part of the rounded wing tips)

If you want it in inches then multiply by 144 = 417.26 sq in

So the practical understanding will show you when something is wrong - it’s up to you to work out what that is though!


What’s the wing loading then?

Wingloading (W/S):
Wing area (S): 2.89764 ft2
Effective area (85%) 2.46299 ft
Target AUW (W) 29oz
So............ 29 / 2.463 =

Effective W/S = 11.8 oz/ft2

This is pretty encouraging - about what a conventional trainer/sport model would be I should think. You could probably go as high as 15+ oz/ft2 so that gives you a fair bit of head room with your target weight, i.e. up to your estimate of 38oz.

Andy Lennon’s article on Biplanes is worth a read:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3819/is_/ai_n8799373

Part II has some comments on Biplane wing loadings:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3819/is_199807/ai_n8802339



Dihedral at 4.5 degrees seems quite a lot but I would guess that is because rudder area is so small (there’s a direct relationship.)

The rudder/fin areas do seem pretty small (as is usual on WWI fighters) You might want to increase the size of the tail surfaces slightly…
It might be worth checking tail volume coefficient on that one. You’ll have plenty of aileron though! Pretty much a quarter of the wing area.

This site has some excellent FAQ info on that side of things:
http://www.djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/

I’d have to check but I think the reason for having the 0.25 degrees wash in on the port wing is designed to increase lift on that wing in order to compensate for the torque effects of the radial engine on the full size.


Hope some of that helps…

I’ve now spent so much time looking at the DH5 I’m seriously considering building one myself!

Jon

Last edited by Yak 52; 01-26-2009 at 10:43 AM. Reason: format
Yak 52 is offline  
Old 01-26-2009, 04:53 PM
  #28  
Dereck
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,071
Default

After all the time Peter Rake hasn't done this one, I've been thinking about it - and now there's two of them!

Idle thought - the original type was a bloody awful flying machine. It was swiftly relegated to ground attack, on account of it couldn't climb very high and took ages to get there, plus it handled pretty badly. So even if it could get to a dogfight, it would not be very good when it got there.

Hence its short operation career was mostly involved in shooting up trenches. And even if an aircraft got back from much of that, it wouldn't be in very good shape after few sorties.

Everything I've read suggests no-one was sad to see it fade into history...

Still, there aren't many models around, no-one's BARFed it yet - fat chance! - and we don't fly little scale models very high, so it shouldn't be a problem.

The trick with 3 views is to compare what numbers you're getting with the photos - a three view of a type that was extinct by the end of ww1 is highly likely to be suspect. Unlike Pups, Camels and their like that are still around. Could be wrong - a mate of mine from my UK days used a very good source of documentation for his WW1 scale models. He had a buddy in the archives section of the Royal Air Force Museum. Can't beat a set of the manufacturers construction drawings for accuracy, I suspect.

At this size of model, I wouldn't worry over-much about scale accuracy to the tenth decimal point - it's unlikely you'll get an invite to "Top Wallet", unless you make the whole thing from gold with Ti fastenings Yak's comment about vertical stab area bears thinking about - WW1 designs were somewhat early and primitive, to say the least.

I'd find a handy Pete Rake plan and borrow the wing section off it. I built one model with a RAF15 wing section - undercamber, reflex and minimal TE to represent the wire TE used then - and it somewhat detracted from the overall experience

Mostly, good luck. You will end up standing on the runway behind a test-flight ready model with a fair investment in time and brain sweat, that likely no-one else for miles around will recognise. IMO, that's what it's all about - fair beats having personally taken the shrinkwrap off the box

Good luck

Dereck
Dereck is offline  
Old 01-26-2009, 06:17 PM
  #29  
degreen60
Flying Fish
 
degreen60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bloomfield, Indiana
Posts: 1,994
Default

Originally Posted by Dereck View Post
Idle thought - the original type was a bloody awful flying machine.
The model will probably be even worse unless you make unscale changes. Even the best flying airplane flys better as a model with the tail surfaces enlarged about 10%.
degreen60 is offline  
Old 01-26-2009, 07:09 PM
  #30  
7car7
Member
 
7car7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WA State
Posts: 843
Default

Just some thoughts on weight. I don't think you mentioned that you want scale flight, but if you do...


If a true scale plane is what you're after, then I think the math needs to be thrown away in regards to weight.

You're talking about a 36 inch biplane, weighing in at 29+oz. That's just too heavy for anything close to scale flight.

Here's a couple examples of planes I have.

My Great Planes SE5a has a span of about 34 inches, with over 400 sq inches. It weighs about 22-23 ozs. Capable of ALMOST scale flight, but really too fast for the right "look" in the air. Slowing it WAY down for scale looks is pretty dangerous (close to stall).

Scratch built Albatros has 32 inch top wing, but only weighs 16oz flying.
It is able to fly quite a bit slower than the SE5, but again, when aproaching a scale "look" to it's flight, it's starting to get dangerous.

GWS Tiger Moth is 32 inches, and 10 oz. It has the best "scale" look to it's flight, but again, is still faster "looking" in the air than the real one.

You're dealing with a problem with Renolds numbers with a model that will never allow the same flight as a real plane.

If the real plane took off and landed at, say, 50mph, well, that would mean, according to your math of the weight, that your model should take off and land at 1/8 that speed. That would be 6.25mph. An AUW of 29oz is going to be WAY faster than that at all times.

I think it's just a matter of what you really want. EXACT scale look sitting on the ground, (museum piece), or scale look in flight, or somewhere in between. I believe you can't have them both.
7car7 is offline  
Old 01-26-2009, 08:17 PM
  #31  
Yak 52
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Default

Agreed - Scale weight won't produce scale looking speed.
What appears to the eyes to be scale speed will the same number of fuselage lengths per sec as the full size.
Here's why:
http://www.djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/d...aleweight.html
If you want it to fly that slow you're going to have to get the wing loading way down!

It's also going to be very important to make sure you have no slop in your rudder linkages - with such a small fixed fin/large rudder area you'll end up with yaw instability 'stickfixed' (hands free in straight and level.)

Probably wise to add in some negative decalage -although the full size had both wings at the same incidence by the look of it. Because of the negative stagger, the wings should 'toe in' i.e. the upper wing has a smaller degree of incidence than the lower wing. This means that (in theory) the lower wing will stall first and cause nose down pitching moment. Should make things more predictable in the stall...
Yak 52 is offline  
Old 01-27-2009, 12:58 AM
  #32  
d&mrc
Member
Thread Starter
 
d&mrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: southern ca
Posts: 459
Default

Dereck: Actually, from what I have read, it was relegated to a ground attack role because its' negative stagger created a blind spot behind that pilot. This was a serious pain in arse in a dogfight. However, that self-same negative stagger gave the pilot an excellent view up-front. Also, (again, from what I have read) it was a lack of power, not any aerodynamic flaw in the design, that limited its' altitude. However, due to its' unconventional design, rumors began circulating about said performance issues.
Yak 54: I have done the math over and over again, and still keep getting the same wing area. Scale wing area: 212.1 sq ft
212.1x12=2545.2sq in
2545.2x(1/(8.54700547squared))=34.8412428 sq in. Where am I screwing up?
I am keeping the 1/8.547008547 scale, but only because I have so much time and energy invested in it.
Everyone: As I am sure you know, how fast a model appears to fly and how fast it does fly are, completely different things. If I keep my current target weight, scale the plane and power loading properly, will the plane not be flying "scale", regardless of how it looks to the eye?
And that's another thing. Should I base the models power needs off of the full scale's empty weight, or its' full weight? What I have right now is:
HP per pound (model and full scale): .1089010891
Total hp needed (model): .17617743
In watts that comes out to 81.2148372602842 watts per pound, and a total of 131.375486647934 watts needed. However, I used the full scale's empty weight (1010 pounds), and my models' "empty" (assembled kit+motor) to get these numbers. was that the correct way to do it?
as far as what I want, well, I want a plane that is as true to life as possible. This will be my first, and probably last scale model. I am what you might call a low-budget modeler. Come May however, I should have at least 200, if not 300, dollars just for this project. If that aint enough, then I will aquire the electronics over time.
d&mrc is offline  
Old 01-27-2009, 12:43 PM
  #33  
degreen60
Flying Fish
 
degreen60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bloomfield, Indiana
Posts: 1,994
Default

You seem to forget that the air the model is flying through is not scaled. The model plane has to use the same laws as a full size plane. So to the air the model is a full size airplane in its own right. Scale the plane to the wing span you want then go get model formuals to find the power you need and how fast it needs to fly to stay airborne.
degreen60 is offline  
Old 01-27-2009, 04:24 PM
  #34  
7car7
Member
 
7car7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WA State
Posts: 843
Default

Originally Posted by d&mrc View Post
. If I keep my current target weight, scale the plane and power loading properly, will the plane not be flying "scale", regardless of how it looks to the eye?
Simple answer is NO. It will not be scale, it will be an absolute hot-rod. On take off, landing, and flying. Very much a handful.

Like the link above showed, it's all about fuse lengths per second. A heavy plane eats up WAY more fuse lengths per second than a real plane.

My response in post 30 got a bit wordy. Let me put it this way. If you want a scale plane, make it VERY MUCH as light as you possibly can. EVERYTHING you put on the plane (balsa, sheeting, covering, battery, servos wheels, machine guns - everything) should be selected for as light as you can get.

I sure don't mean to pick on you, please don't take it that way. But scale flight is something that I REALLY want to achieve, and the plane that most closely comes to this is my eflite Jenny. At 34 inch wing span, and EIGHT ounces, it's still probably faster than true scale "look" in flight.

Good luck, looking forward to your project. It's a cool looking plane, and very worthy of modeling.
7car7 is offline  
Old 01-27-2009, 04:55 PM
  #35  
Dereck
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,071
Default

Why ever it never made it to the stuff of legend is mostly down to which books one reads! Not only that, it's hardly important - though its arguable that the DH5 is one of the ugliest aircraft to come out of a lineage that brought us the DH 88 and Mosquito...

The point below about light weight is possibly the best advice seen in a while - plus a lighter model is the cheapest performance upgrade going.

Not popular in a 'consumer society' but do we care about that?

What I'd suggest before pointing a pencil at the drawing board, or whatever the CAD version is, is a study of three designers of similar models

Pat Tritle - how he gets so little wood to look so much like his prototypes escapes me.

Peter Rake - for sheer practicality with such unpractical prototypes

Gordon Whitehead - not seen so much of late, I think he caught EDF when he left the RAF - but one of the UK based original designers of small and practical flying scale models. I have a copy of his book on suchlike, still use it and it's not coming out of my basement either! Gordon built his scale models to fit in his car boot / trunk fully rigged and still managed to capture that essence of the full size in a way most of us would dearly love to. Many of his plans were published in RCM in the US - his Avro 504K with sprung UC around its landing skid was a true benchmark of small scale models (despite that oily thing in the nose )

I also got to see Gordon fly a lot. Sure, a 48" span model goes much faster than it 'should' - but he made it look really scale-like for all that.

Go for it, this little slice of history really needs 'doing'

Good luck

Dereck
Dereck is offline  
Old 01-27-2009, 11:33 PM
  #36  
d&mrc
Member
Thread Starter
 
d&mrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: southern ca
Posts: 459
Default

I have been doing my best to absord everything you guys have told me, and everything I have read in online articles (some that you linked to, and some you did not) so far, I have learned this:
1. How to scale the plane, and, subsequently, I have my dimensions
2. There is a mysterious mathematical force that causes even the most precisely designed and built scale models to fly COMPLETELY differently than their full-scale counterparts when their weight is to scale.
3. This force is beyond the understanding of mere mortals such as myself.
4. The only way to combat said force is by making your model as light as possible, and hoping for the best.
5. How to calculate my watts-per-pound requirement.
6. For some reason, I seem incapable of scaling areas.
Now, I am left with these questions:
1. Is there any risk of making my model too light?
2. If I do not maintain a scale weight, should I still maintain the same power to weight ratio as the full scale?
3. What the heck am I doing wrong in regards to my area calculations?
4. Does motocalc know what its' talking about?
5. When adding up my watts per pound to give me my total watts needed, should I use my target AUW, the kit weight, or kit weight with motor?

Last edited by d&mrc; 01-28-2009 at 01:39 AM.
d&mrc is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 01:41 AM
  #37  
Dereck
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,071
Default

[quote=d&mrc;553422]I have been doing my best to absord everything you guys have told me, and everything I have read in online articles (some that you linked to, and some you did not) so far, I have learned this:
1. How to scale the plane, and, subsequently, I have my dimensions

>>>That's often the easy part. Some of us work on that balsa comes in 36" lengths!

2. There is a mysterious mathematical force that causes even the most precisely designed and built scale models to fly COMPLETELY differently than their full-scale counterparts when their weight is to scale.

>>> I used to live just off the approach path to a major USAF base in England. To watch a C5 freighter - the biggest flying thing in the USAF at the time - left one with the impression that nothing could fly going so slow. It's all a question of scale - what a surprise! BUT - look at models by the best scale designers, at any scale or discipline, and their models 'look the part'. One of the best examples I've seen in the US is Dave Grife's Mosquito from England's Brian Taylor design. It isn't that big, by modern RC scale standards and when I saw it, it was staggering under the weight of a lot of nicads and big brushes motors. But - and I've seen the real one fly - it looked just like the 'real thing'. Math can do a lot, but sheer talent, practice and dedication to what is more art than science can do more.

3. This force is beyond the understanding of mere mortals such as myself.

>>>And a lot more of us

4. The only way to combat said force is by making your model as light as possible, and hoping for the best.

>>>YES!!! You've got it spot on!

5. How to calculate my watts-per-pound requirement.

>>>Mostly, I use someone else's and build my model a little lighter

6. For some reason, I seem incapable of calculating wing areas.

Length x width = area. Span x average chord (easy with most WW1 bipes and even trips). Eyeball the wingtips. Don't lose sleep over it unless the 6 o'clock news starts reporting a wobble in the earth's rotation before the first commercial break.

Now, I am left with these questions:
1. Is there any risk of making my model too light?

>>> If you think you have, write an article describing how you did it and sell it to a model aircraft mag. The right mag would be handsomely. Or you can give it away on the internet

2. If I do not maintain a scale weight, should I still maintain the same power to weight ratio as the full scale?

?

3. What the heck am I doing wrong in regards to my wing area calculations? Did this problem carry over into my other area calculations?

>>> Got me there, sorry

4. Does motocalc know what its' talking about?
>>>GIGO, in old data entry speak. I admire the folk who do these programs, but whoinell is testing all the cheap Chinese ripoff motors for these selection programs?

5. When adding up my watts per pound to give me my total watts needed, should I use my target AUW, the kit weight, or kit weight with motor?
>>> The only one that's valid is the weight as it rolls down the runway. See previous on lighter weight being a cheap upgrade. Remember that it is far, far better to have too much grunt up front and have to throttle back than to be over the far end of the runway desperately wishing you had more power to haul months of work away from the ground and the stall speed.


Regards

Dereck
Who's published around three dozen sports and scale plans in various mags on both sides of the pond...

Without a lot of math causing cranial overstrain either
Dereck is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 03:11 AM
  #38  
d&mrc
Member
Thread Starter
 
d&mrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: southern ca
Posts: 459
Default

[quote=Dereck;553513]
Originally Posted by d&mrc View Post

6. For some reason, I seem incapable of calculating wing areas.

Length x width = area. Span x average chord (easy with most WW1 bipes and even trips). Eyeball the wingtips. Don't lose sleep over it unless the 6 o'clock news starts reporting a wobble in the earth's rotation before the first commercial break.

Sorry, by calculate I meant scale down. But, now that I think about it, since I already have my scaled-down chord and wingspan, spanxchord is all that I need to do.

2. If I do not maintain a scale weight, should I still maintain the same power to weight ratio as the full scale?

? According to this, I need to maintain the same power loading as the full scale. That article was linked to by yak54 on page one, and I have used it extensively in this phase of the project.

5. When adding up my watts per pound to give me my total watts needed, should I use my target AUW, the kit weight, or kit weight with motor?
>>> The only one that's valid is the weight as it rolls down the runway. See previous on lighter weight being a cheap upgrade. Remember that it is far, far better to have too much grunt up front and have to throttle back than to be over the far end of the runway desperately wishing you had more power to haul months of work away from the ground and the stall speed.

I find that rather confusing, since I won't know my AUW (at least, that is, if I don't aim for a "scale" weight) until I have my electronics. In order to know what electronics I need, I must first know my power requirements. Or am I missing something?

See red writing.
Also, I have contacted the royal air force museum in London. They have an archive/research department that is freely available to the public. What's more, they have a section devoted entirely to aircraft manufacturers, dating clear back to the dawn of military aviation, WWI. Perhaps I can get a copy of the original blueprints, or a copy of the original 3-view (if ever there were any). If that doesn't work, I'll stick with the original plan (to get the 3-views and a bunch of photos from here), as well as pick up the plans pburt linked to. I am going to use them to get an idea of where to put my electronics. Man, I can't wait!
d&mrc is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 03:25 PM
  #39  
7car7
Member
 
7car7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WA State
Posts: 843
Default

Originally Posted by d&mrc View Post
1. Is there any risk of making my model too light?
2 risks.

One, is that your plane will be more prone to hangar rash. (just banging it up going thru doors and puting it in the car). But a light plane crashes lighter, so in flight, (and in crashing) light is good.

Two, it will not fly in as strong of a wind as the exact same model that weighs several ounces more. It's that molecule thing again. Most real planes wouldn't care too much about a 20mph wind, but just about any model will not like it. Same as a 20 oz plane will do better in a 5mph wind than a 10 oz plane will.

To me, the benefits outweigh the risk.
7car7 is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 03:54 PM
  #40  
Dereck
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,071
Default

[quote=d&mrc;553634]
Originally Posted by Dereck View Post
See red writing.
Also, I have contacted the royal air force museum in London. They have an archive/research department that is freely available to the public. What's more, they have a section devoted entirely to aircraft manufacturers, dating clear back to the dawn of military aviation, WWI. Perhaps I can get a copy of the original blueprints, or a copy of the original 3-view (if ever there were any). If that doesn't work, I'll stick with the original plan (to get the 3-views and a bunch of photos from here), as well as pick up the plans pburt linked to. I am going to use them to get an idea of where to put my electronics. Man, I can't wait!
Good sources! The RAF museum is great - though I haven't been there for a few years now. Not sure if you really want a set of blueprints - there's a lot of boring little fittings go to make up a wire braces mostly wooden airframe and I don't think you want to go THAT scale A bipe like this is mostly holes with some wooden edging. Probably any three view will do you, chances are they all come from the same place...

Bob Banka's my first stop for photos, I've always had good service from him.

Flying in winds with small models - DON'T! For a three foot or so model of trivial weight, even a light breeze is effectively the kind of howling gale that would have the entire squadron drinking coffee in the hut and muttering about the weather. Yes, it's boring and I probably did it when I was much newer to RC. Once recall almost losing my landing points in a scale comp because the model was sitting there on its mains, fuselage horizontal and just about flying, according the judges. I was trying to figure out how to get the tail down to complete the landing maneuvre (which is, after all, the only compulsory maneuvre in flying )

But avoiding excessive wind makes your valuable handicraft last much longer... I too would rather have a lighter scale model and leave it in the car a little more often.

Stick with your project - standing behind a brand new, unique and unflown model, scale or otherwise, as you prepare to make that first test flight is the greatest thrill in this great hobby. Sure beats the feeling as you tear the shrinkwrap off that new big shiny box

Regards

Dereck
Dereck is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 10:32 PM
  #41  
Yak 52
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Default

Some very good advice chaps...

So... If you want to fly 'scale':
Add lightness!
(and fly on calm days!)

The only problem with building too light will be if you end up with a structure that is not strong enough for loads required to fly, land etc.... but with good design that can still be VERY light!

I think an awful lot can be learned from free flight scale models (especially for RC models as small as your 36" span)

Check out www.ffscale.co.uk - Mike Stuart's page. These guys are building peanut scale (13" span) models with near scale rib spacing and construction, to under 12g (half an ounce) and they are far more likely to crash or land heavily.

Although they aren't carrying the weight of radio gear, you can learn a lot about making light and strong structures from the free plan downloads. You might want to use similar ideas for your design but beef them up a little in the wing spars, undercarriage, and areas of the fuselage where Rx/servos/batt/motor are located.

As regards your areas:

There are 144 sq inches in 1 sq foot - not 12...

1ft x 1ft (1sq ft) is the same as 12" x 12" (144 sq in)

so
Area in ft sq x 144 divided by your scale = Area in sq in

I would just work in ft2 though as wing loadings are usually expressed in oz/ft2.


You definitely have to make compromises with 'scale' when it comes to flying - true scale weight, aerofoils and
even construction will give you a model that is hideous to fly! So it's up to you to judge what looks best and weigh it against what fly's best.

You have to treat your model as a whole new aircraft - flying in the same environment as the original. Although it looks the same you are actually giving it a very diferent job to do - aerodynamically speaking...

Interestingly, in free flight scale competitions, marks are given for static appearance and also flying appearance as well as total time so you can see a balance has to be struck somewhere.

If you try to keep to under 10oz/ft2 I think you will probably still have a decent model but obviously the lighter the better...

Yak 52

PS attached is a pic of a Yak 52 - classic russian warbird trainer. Not a Yak 54 crazy composite aero beast!
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	yak1.jpg
Views:	125
Size:	111.6 KB
ID:	91934  
Yak 52 is offline  
Old 01-29-2009, 12:03 AM
  #42  
d&mrc
Member
Thread Starter
 
d&mrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: southern ca
Posts: 459
Default

Yak 52sorry for getting your name wrong:o), you bring up something that has been stirring in the back of my mind for a while now... The actually construction of the aircraft. Working solely from a set of 3-views, I will have no real guidance in that department (even a copy of the original blueprints will be of little use in that regard), especially since the laser cutting service is only there to cut the parts. I am no aerospace engineer, and I will not pretend to be one. I can fix a plane, sure. I can build a kit, sure. I can even work from plans (I am really quite terrible at it, but I can do it). But to actually design the aircraft is something that is beyond me at this time. That is why I intend to purchase that set of plans pburt linked to. I will base my internal structure off of those, and use the 3-views (or blueprints-hey, I could get lucky!) photos to get the proper scale look. With the dimensions I have, and the good people here on wattlyer to help, I should be able to get this to work.
However, I am still not getting the area scaling thing. The article on scaling a model said to multiple the full scale area by the square of the scale factor. So, 212.1 sq. ftx1/73.051355102491051209=2.9034269sq ft. So far, so good. Now, here is where I am getting lost. I want that in square inches. 2.9034269*12=34.8411228, which is wrong, as span times chord gives me 227 somthin'. But, 2.9034269*144=418.093474. I must calculate my taiplane, ailron, rudder and fin area, so I need to understand this.

Last edited by d&mrc; 01-29-2009 at 01:39 AM.
d&mrc is offline  
Old 01-29-2009, 02:44 PM
  #43  
Dereck
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,071
Default

On construction - I can best offer how I did my first scale model from a blank sheet of paper. Basically, bought Gordon Whitehead's book on scale model construction and read it cover to cover. Nowadays, it must be easy to pick up any of Peter Rake's small scale biplane plans, they're all around 36" span, and use his construction methods. After all, they seem to work.

Model shape. Time for a leap of faith here. My first scale own design was arrived at by that I've always done my own designs - have a photo of me at around 12 with an OD control line combat wing thing - and I figured if I picked a prototype that looked 'about right' in terms of areas and so on, all I had to do was scale up the outline from my documenation three view, the size of mine was determined by Gordon's book, add some structure - same source - build it and go fly.

That I chose the Hannover CLIIIA, a German WW1 two seater with exposed upright engine, rear gunner and a biplane tailplane, both with elevators was typical. I set the span by Gordon and guesswork, drew it all up, built it, took it out and flew it, which it did just fine. That was in 1982, last year an example from my plan turned up from Australia, but with electric power, which suggests I did something right. Every dimension, as far as I could achieve with pencil and ruler, was 'scale; I cheated on things like wing sections and tail sections, of course!

I don't want to appear to be tossing buckets of water on the fire of your enthusiasm, but unless you derive more pleasure from math than balsa dust, just get stuck in and build this model of yours, get it to the flying field and experience the greatest thrill in our hobby - test flying your own creation.

Okay, I'd draw up the rest of the model to 'scale', cast an eyeball over the vertical stab and gently doodle in a curve around the 'scale' shape to up the area by maybe ten percent.

Go forth and make balsa dust

D
Dereck is offline  
Old 01-29-2009, 10:02 PM
  #44  
Yak 52
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Default

Originally Posted by Dereck View Post
I don't want to appear to be tossing buckets of water on the fire of your enthusiasm, but unless you derive more pleasure from math than balsa dust, just get stuck in and build this model of yours, get it to the flying field and experience the greatest thrill in our hobby - test flying your own creation.

...
Go forth and make balsa dust

Absolutely! Do it, do it!
The maths is a start and a useful check at times but don't let it get to you!

It can bug you if it keeps coming out wrong though...

Just a thought... when you did: span x chord, did you multiply it by two? Don't forget it's a biplane!
Yak 52 is offline  
Old 02-01-2009, 03:36 AM
  #45  
Dereck
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,071
Default

Guess who found his DH5 'Profile Publication' today?

D
Dereck is offline  
Old 02-03-2009, 03:42 PM
  #46  
7car7
Member
 
7car7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WA State
Posts: 843
Default

Originally Posted by Dereck View Post
Guess who found his DH5 'Profile Publication' today?

D
This thread kind of stopped, and I'm confused by that comment /\/\ - not sure what that means.
7car7 is offline  
Old 11-21-2009, 07:00 PM
  #47  
Yak 52
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Default

So did anyone ever build a DH5 then?

Yak 52 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Franny
Vintage and old timer models
20
06-24-2010 06:39 PM
salat
Airplanes - Electric For Sale & WTB
20
12-27-2009 05:31 AM
thepitts12
General Electric Discussions
7
06-12-2008 07:55 PM
oracle_9
Warbird Electrics
6
01-30-2007 03:13 AM
nick.wright
Electric Ducted Fan Jets
3
11-04-2005 03:28 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Quick Reply: Help! Need DH-5 kit or plans!


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.13381 seconds with 15 queries