Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
July 16, 2018, 07:57:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: No-Cal (Type) C-130  (Read 1409 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
kittyfritters
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 385


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« on: November 04, 2015, 08:44:46 PM »

I have a rubber powered C-130 in the works also.  It is a No-Cal Multi intended for a "Two, Three, or Four Off The Floor" type indoor contest where the model has to be a multi motored, No-Cal type scale model (Well, generally recognizable as the airplane it is supposed to represent.), rubber powered, with a 24" or less wing span, and it has to R.O.G..  I was intending to have it finished this morning to test fly at the O.F.F.C. session but life intrudes.  Anyway, it should be finished tonight for the Black Sheep meeting.  I attached some construction pictures and I'll post a picture of it finished.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
No-Cal (Type) C-130
No-Cal (Type) C-130
No-Cal (Type) C-130
Logged

Qua sublata omnia praecepta legis
Mugs914
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 67




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2015, 09:56:33 PM »

That is extremely cool! I will be following along... What paint scheme are you using?

Mike
Logged
kittyfritters
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 385


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2015, 07:24:31 PM »

Not quite done here, but you get the general idea.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: No-Cal (Type) C-130
Logged

Qua sublata omnia praecepta legis
Glenn (gravitywell) Reach
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 32
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 757


It ain't pretty, but its me!




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2015, 07:52:22 PM »

That is just cool.
Logged

Glenn Reach
The only time you want Guillow's balsa, is when its worth its weight in gold!
jym6aw6
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 378




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2015, 09:04:23 PM »

Love this Herky, Howard. I'm more familiar with the ones in Vietnam era camo but your CG version looks pretty spiffy  Smiley .

Are you going to have motor sticks protruding from the back of all four nacelles?

Jim (6aw6)
Logged
kittyfritters
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 385


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2015, 09:30:04 PM »

Love this Herky, Howard. I'm more familiar with the ones in Vietnam era camo but your CG version looks pretty spiffy  Smiley .

Are you going to have motor sticks protruding from the back of all four nacelles?

Jim (6aw6)

Jim,

No, it has stub motor sticks in each nacelle (Not installed in photo) with the motors going back to a common hook at the back of the fuselage motor stick.  Look closely just under the front of the stabilizer and you will see the window that the left side of the motor hook sticks through.  I used this system on my Fokker F.36 and Bristol Beaufighter no cals and it works fine. even though the motors are off angle.

Howard
Logged

Qua sublata omnia praecepta legis
kittyfritters
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 385


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2015, 12:32:01 AM »

Here are a couple of shots of it done.  The top view shows the motors and the side view shows that it actually does sit on the wheels, Yes, they roll.

I got some nice glides in the back yard before the breeze came up tonight, about 40 feet from shoulder height. It's very stable.  I still have to make a stooge for it, since it can't use the one from my Fokker F.36.  I did make a couple of mistakes on the plans and I have redesigned it already.  Powered flights will have to wait until the O.F.F.C. session on Wednesday morning.  We've lost our Luther Middle School gym on the second Friday night for the next four months, but that's another story.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: No-Cal (Type) C-130
Re: No-Cal (Type) C-130
Logged

Qua sublata omnia praecepta legis
BitBucket
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 39




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2015, 11:52:17 AM »

To quote my teenage son, "That is AWESOME!" Grin
Logged
Mugs914
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 67




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2015, 03:58:26 PM »

To quot one of my buddies from another forum, "that is just stupifyingly cool"! Love the Coasty scheme. I would really love to see video, if you are able to get some...

Mike
Logged
kittyfritters
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 385


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2015, 03:52:22 PM »

I did not get a chance to test the C-130 under power today.  The gym, a city facility, was closed for Veteran's Day.  Next Wednesday.
Logged

Qua sublata omnia praecepta legis
kittyfritters
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 385


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2015, 07:02:50 PM »

Well, isn't this a little embarrassing!  I had my camera all charged up last night and walked out without it this morning...Not that there would have  been much to see.  Oh, the C-130 does fly quite well, in a straight line.   Not a good thing if you are flying indoors.

That is one of the odd things about multi-motor models.  People are always asking me if I have opposite rotating props on these models, and I have to tell them that they are not necessary.  They don't torque roll because the multiple, parallel thrust lines cancel each other out and the trick is actually getting them to turn.  You only need opposite rotating props if you are going to do aerobatics on the rolling plane, a la P-38.  With 240 turns on each 1/16", flat, Tan Sport motor it flew across the length of the room and straight into the wall.  For the most part it could handle this, but I did have to rebuild the nose twice this morning.

I tried combinations of drag tabs and rudder tabs, both right and left, until I finally settled on a left turn that required a drag tab on the left wing tip and a rudder tab that was nearly the full height of the rudder.  This gave me a flat turn right between the basketball court side lines.

In the first flights I noticed a slight stall under power, so I put in a small, very small, amount of down thrust on all the motors.  Another thing about multi-motor models is that a small amount of thrust line adjustment goes a long way.  The hand launches went OK. but the down thrust would not quite let the nose get up on an R.O.G. even with 2000 turns on each motor although the fast taxi did stay between the court sidelines.  I decided that it only needs the down thrust on the inboard motors.  (The inboard props are clipped so that they turn faster and run out the motor before the outboard props.  This allows a fast climb to near the ceiling then cruse on the outboard motors without hitting the lights.) The meeting went a bit long so the flying session was a bit short and I did not have the opportunity to take the down thrust out of the outboard motors.

Unless I fly it outdoors the next chance I will get for some video will be December 2.
Logged

Qua sublata omnia praecepta legis
kittyfritters
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 385


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2015, 03:11:03 PM »

It's back to the drawing board for this one.  It will fly, hand launched with a couple of hundred winds on each motor for trimming flights just fine.  But, with any serious number of winds on each motor it will not R.O.G., in fact, even hand launched it settles right down to the ground. 

The problem is that the wing twists down under the strain of the outboard rubber motors.  My design for the wing, while perfectly adequate for a twin motor No-Cal, does not have sufficient stiffness for the four motor configuration.  My Fokker F.36 worked because it was built with a "T" shaped motor stick that took all the strain of the wound rubber.  The wing was not under motor stress.   

The possible solutions I'm investigating are: redesign the wing to withstand the rubber tension, redesign the model to have a "T" motor stick, or redesign the model to have motor sticks in each nacelle and accept the resulting shorter motors.  It has also been suggested that I re-stress the fuselage and stabilizer so that the rear hooks can be on the stabilizer.

Whatever I do to solve the problem, and I will, it will have to wait until next year.  Other things take precedence.
Logged

Qua sublata omnia praecepta legis
lincoln
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 29
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,743



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2015, 08:49:38 PM »

I like your project.

It looks, to me, like it might not be too hard to enhance the twisting stiffness of the wing by using diagonals between the l.e., the t.e. and the upper spar. The idea is to create a three sided, triangulated structure. How do you load the motors without breaking the motor stick? Seems like when, say, 3 motors are in place, the asymmetry would put a large bending load on it.

Have you tried tweaking one of the props to get the turn you want? A bit less pitch, with a slightly longer motor, might hold the turn. Or maybe you have to do it to both props on one side?

I guess we won't find out before next year, though. I hope you get it figured out, because it deserves to fly.

---------------

Speaking of multi engine nocals, David Dodge built a nocal Vought V-173 (Flying Flapjack). I don't know just how he accomplished it, but it flew quite well. It even had a consistent enough turn to fly in a room that was maybe 50 feet square. I can't remember just how large he made the props, but the design certainly allows for huge ones. According to Wikipedia, the original had two 16'6" diameter props on a 24'4" span!
Logged
FLYACE1946
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,431




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2017, 07:58:52 PM »

Well Kitty
 I hope you got this to fly as it looks really CoooooooooL  . Good Luck if you are still working on the C-130 Nocal
Logged
kittyfritters
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 385


Topic starter
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2017, 02:36:39 PM »

Flyace,

As it turned out, all it needed was a bit more wing incidence.  However, it was damaged beyond repair in a bazaar accident in my garage.   Building a new, improved version is on my to do list.

Howard
Logged

Qua sublata omnia praecepta legis
FLYACE1946
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,431




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2017, 10:46:56 AM »

Ouch those accidents really hurt. I know from personal experience. Glad you will try another build on an amazing aircraft. My parents both retired from Lockheed and the C-130 they both worked on for ever. The real workhorse is still being built and sold with more orders still coming in to Marietta Georgia aircraft builder.

I really like the way you designed the mighty Hercules Nocal flyer.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!