Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
September 20, 2019, 01:12:41 AM *
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 2 3 4 5 6 [7]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Any word on Div. C Wright Stuff planes for 2018-2019 season?  (Read 7202 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #150 on: May 05, 2019, 02:34:21 PM »

I read back over tall the posts today and have a couple of comments.

For hook to hook distance my one mentee had 12" hook to hook and was getting diving from stick bend. A Kevlar bracing thread fixed it.

For prop diameter I think something around 24 cm works well with 1/8" rubber. A larger prop would probably need thicker rubber which would mean buying wider rubber and having a stripper.
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 95
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #151 on: May 05, 2019, 03:03:02 PM »

I've completed my kit comparison for Wright Stuff. Ran out of time so I couldn't review the Retro RC model, but it's similar to the Lasercutplanes kit. Following the review series, I designed a new Senior Flyer. Hoping to get one to a customer to fly at the nats, but not sure that'll happen.

Final conclusions:
Lasercutplanes is my favorite from a building and appearance standpoint. Looks cool, extremely fast to build. Unfortunately it's hocked by an undersized, heavy prop, and the fin and motorstick are sized for that prop, so you can't go to a larger one.

The Guru plane is golden in terms of simple, affordable materials. Once trimmed, it flies surprisingly well. The prop, however, is undersized, and the instructions tell you to build it with no stab incidence. Additionally, the tail fins are half the size they should be. That said, I got it trimmed after invoking my own methods and found it fun and durable. If the fins were correctly sized, it could accomodate a larger prop and be competitive against anything out there. It has just the right amount of adjustability (wing can be shimmed and slid fore and aft). Builds quite quickly.

The Freedom Flight model is the standard this year for flight performance. The supplied propeller is nearly perfect, and you'd be hard pressed to build a better prop. There is a self-aligning prop mount and the wing/tail spars are excellent. Things I don't like: 1. Fin is too small. 2. The carbon reinforcing is completely unnecessary. 3. There is waaaaaaaay too much adjustability on this model. Having the stab removable is great. Having it adjustable in position and incidence is ridiculous, and worse, you can't replace the attachment bands because of the tail fin. 4. The wing and fin mounting tubes are insane. I couldn't make myself work through them and modified them slightly which tremendously improved the usability of the plane

Senior Flyer (biased since it's my kit). Several folks like it. Many found it hard to build. I'll never produce another SO kit with a balsa prop. Yes, it works, but it doesn't provide enough advantage over Ikara props. The spars are too thick and impact flight performance when sent head to head against carbon models. Other than that, it has the advantage of robust construction, properly sized tail fins, modern wing mounting methods, a complete covering frame, and quality aluminum bearings. Next year's model will have preformed S hook prop shafts, too.

Here are the reviews:
Lasercut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWf_bSGrATQ
Guru: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6zTVNurd0o
Freedom Flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX0wehqO43Q

Flight comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqrTzIv0m6o
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #152 on: June 02, 2019, 11:22:03 AM »

The 2019 WS Nationals are history. Chuck's Albuquerque Home Schoolers team put away the win early in the day with an outstanding 5:08 flight. Andrew Welter from Rustin HS took second with 4:25 with his Finny 19. Third place was 3:55 from Northville HS.

Andrew was flying on 5/15 and 2/16 TSS rubber with a modified Ikara SO prop using my hub design.
Logged
ceandra
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 11
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 216



Ignore
« Reply #153 on: June 02, 2019, 03:13:30 PM »

We flew early in the day because I had to get to Ann afternoon wedding.The girls flew a great flight with 2 light touches on lights. The first lap was a little precarious, it tilted a bit and flew in a straight line for a few meters. Once the plane settled, the circle was within a matter of the wall advice the spectators. On the 4th lap we got a touch on a light, and that actually increased the distance from the wall. Sometimes touches are good.

The crowd was large, and this caused a substantial thermal, then strong upper drift across the room toward the nets. Near the nets the drift stopped, turned into a down draft. This cost us a bit of time in the letdown. The plane was near the girders until about 3:30, then a long slow letdown.

We used a balsa flaring prop, with very soft flare. It was a helical pitch on a student made prop block.we had a modified carbon spar, and use a reverse s hook. We built 28 props this year, and this was #27. We used 8/18 TSS rubber.

Interestingly, in testing Thursday night in town, much lower altitude than ABQ, our ABQ settings had  just over 2 minutes on half rubber under the 18' ceiling, whereas we should have had about 2:30. We incrementally increased rubber width 2mg/inch steps. No change in time for the first 3 steps, then boom, we got 2:37 twice, then a 2:44 one touch. Scaling to full rubber at the contest worked well, accounting for the down draft on letdown.

The kids did a great job this year. This was the most hands-off bunch I have coached. They really absorbed the concepts. I had 4 kids build Lpp's for Round Valley, and this experience really helped them improve their WS game.

The plane had a lot of design features from Bill's Carbon Penny, as our designs have over the last 3 years.

Chuck
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #154 on: June 03, 2019, 03:41:00 PM »

Andrew's second flight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e6LYi0EHWQ&fbclid=IwAR3WvDNXoN-BaiKT4eMRsNjrg7UddFgN0A4Mcw2QBxbl-1OqICOdERQs-pE
Logged
ceandra
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 11
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 216



Ignore
« Reply #155 on: June 04, 2019, 10:18:07 AM »

Here is our gold medal first flight. Scary close to the wall on first two laps!

https://vimeo.com/339970934?fbclid=IwAR24AgSs0zfySiLW9YodXs7GQV54PAbYZJkubykXlZRRuCCzqfIkwajXVbE

Chuck
Logged
SyLa-20871
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 24



Ignore
« Reply #156 on: June 04, 2019, 10:40:45 AM »

Chuck,

Congratulations!

Regards,
Lee
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #157 on: June 05, 2019, 01:36:24 AM »

That was an amazing flight Chuck! I think it would have climbed 50' if the ceiling hadn't got in the way. Your model was definitely a better setup than mine
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,111



Ignore
« Reply #158 on: June 05, 2019, 04:43:16 AM »

Incredible flight! Very well trimmed - very good recovery from contacts and nice nose high cruise. Great design Bill and a very impressive team effort Chuck.

John
Logged
ceandra
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 11
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 216



Ignore
« Reply #159 on: June 05, 2019, 10:35:34 AM »

Bill:

At home that prop optimized with 0.066g/in rubber (half length loop). We knew we would need changes, but the 0.066 was sorely lacking in our testing. We then tried 0.068, 0.070, and 0.071, all with no gain. We were ready to try a different prop, but moved to the next piece of rubber, an 0.0721g/in, and saw great times on multiple flights.

The girls then cut 5 pieces full length, and we selected an 0.0723 and 0.0724 as our primaries. They test wound (broke in). I was reviewing the numbers, and found that the new pieces were about 2cm (loop length) longer than twice the half rubber, but we were over 300 turns short of doubling the turns! This either meant the rubber was stiffer, or they did not adjust their winding pace for the longer length. We did another wind, and got within 200 winds. The problem was this was behaving differently. However, all of the lighter half rubber had been cut from this box two days before, while the 0.0721 had been cut a month before. I did not recall a splice, but did not want to go to the thinner rubber due to the step change at 0.072 we saw in testing Thursday night. So, we stuck with the plan, and had options for lighter and heavier rubber for second flight.

So, it seems the winding data was right, this piece was stiffer than the 0.0721 half length piece. I even re-weighed the half piece and the full pieces to verify the density, and re-checked my notebook to convince myself it came from the same batch.

I have not been able to debrief the girls yet, but the look on their faces when they picked up the plane makes me think they used all (or nearly all) of the winds. We definitely got our best times when we left about 3/4 to 1 full row of knots in the rubber, so again I think this was too stiff.

Second flight did not do the straight line thing after half a lap, so I think they backed down a little on launch torque. They did tell me they used the same density rubber for second flight (I would have tried something different!).

The plane was set up with about 3mm total decalage (I think tail was at 0), and a fairly aft CG. This got the nose up a little. The last adjustment we made to trim got the nose up on letdown, and made a significant advance in our times (by getting RPM down). We never stopped trying new adjustments and exploring new combinations of trim. These planes were difficult to trim because they would not set up a classic stall on letdown when trimmed to too much decalage. We did sometimes purposely launch with stronger rubber (after a trim adjustment) to purposely hit the girders and see how it would respond. So good recovery from hits was part of our plan. CG too far back would result in a tail slide after a hit.

We also I think got some additional lift off the crowd at the near end, but i think the biggest climb issue was the rubber was stiffer than the test piece was.

That plane, though, was a thing of beauty in cruise and letdown. Every time we had a good test flight I was amazed at how it hung in there during letdown! The girls got tired of my comments, I just loved watching it!

Chuck

Logged
ceandra
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 11
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 216



Ignore
« Reply #160 on: June 05, 2019, 10:46:28 AM »

Just watched Andrew's flight. Very nice flight, one touch.

It looks like he did not have the drift issues we had. Sounded like less of a crowd, and perhaps the building was well warmed up by then. Had we launched that far over, we would have been in the nets!

I think the difference was the letdown, ours hung in there a bit longer. I think we left cruise at about the same point in the flight. I also think, though I would have to do a better comparison, his forward speed was a little higher. Getting our nose up a little really slowed the forward speed.

Our second flight was a 1-touch, and very similar in climb and cruise to Andrew's.

It was funny, Andrew asked me to look at his plane on Friday, to inspect a repair he had done. The young man is a craftsman. The plane was pristine. I could not find a repair, nor any evidence the plane had ever flown (though I know he put in a LOT of test flights). It was a very well executed machine.

Chuck
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #161 on: June 05, 2019, 11:27:49 AM »

Thanks for all the info!

I pretty much decided at the beginning that I was going to stick with 1/8" rubber out of the box. Mentoring at a range of 700 miles made it seem like a good idea to keep things simple. I knew that a 12" hook to hook distance was limiting flight time but I got involved to late for him to build a new model with a longer MS. In order to match your flight time he would have to have launched with no backoff. I think he realized that your time was out of reach and opted for not doing a smash mouth second flight.

I did get Andrew into motor testing which he seemed to enjoy as much as the rest of optimizing his flight time. I had sent him bits of 3 or 4 different batches of TSS and he wound up with about equal results from 5/15 and 2/16. (I resisted sending him by bag of 5/99!)
Logged
ceandra
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 11
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 216



Ignore
« Reply #162 on: June 05, 2019, 11:35:38 AM »

Andrew was a pleasant young man to talk to, and obviously put in a lot of effort to excel. He was in awe of my kids, and got to congratulate them after their flight. I hope to see him again at the Junior Team trials! So far 3 of my kids are seriously considering...

Chuck
Logged
klastyioer
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 12



Ignore
« Reply #163 on: June 05, 2019, 11:36:53 AM »

much agreed^ congrats to everyone here
Logged
ceandra
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 11
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 216



Ignore
« Reply #164 on: June 05, 2019, 11:42:19 AM »

Almost forgot, Bill. We were at about 1/8" (0.084-0.086 g/in) at State. However, this year's box of 1/8" I got came in strangely light at 0.076-0.078 g/in. So we cut from 3/16". The State prop climbed too strongly, was a bit stiff on flare. We had to unwind to 0.42 oz-in in a 24- gym. Might have been ok for 40' gym. However, we went to a softer flare and lower static pitch. We were at 35 degrees at 4" radius, and a very soft flare. This prop optimized out at much finer rubber. We never went back and re-tested prop S for higher ceiling, as we had moved on and saw great results. It might be interesting to test it again, though.

We also stretched MS after State. We were at 23" hook-hook for Nationals. Length was set by the carrying box we bought!

Chuck
Logged
cxflyer
Copper Member
**

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 7



Ignore
« Reply #165 on: June 05, 2019, 03:23:27 PM »

Andrew was a pleasant young man to talk to, and obviously put in a lot of effort to excel. He was in awe of my kids, and got to congratulate them after their flight. I hope to see him again at the Junior Team trials! So far 3 of my kids are seriously considering...

Chuck


Hey!

Andrew here. Thank you for your comments; I'll be considering the Junior Team trials; am seeing how I could fit it into my schedule.
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #166 on: June 05, 2019, 03:31:38 PM »

Welcome young grasshopper!
Logged
jdpsloflyer
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 71




Ignore
« Reply #167 on: June 06, 2019, 01:18:47 PM »

I enjoyed officiating Wright Stuff as a timer at Nationals.  There were many great flights, first and second place particularly outstanding!  Congratulations to all.

Jerry
Logged
ceandra
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 11
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 216



Ignore
« Reply #168 on: June 06, 2019, 03:11:42 PM »

Thank you for your service, Jerry! Nothing like a front row seat! I unfortunately had a wedding 4 hours away and had to leave right after my kids flew. Would have lined to watch all day. Great that Andrews flight also got filmed.

Chuck
Logged
bjt4888
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 228



Ignore
« Reply #169 on: June 07, 2019, 12:34:53 PM »

Chuck,

Congratulations again for the repeat National Championship! Great flying in tight conditions (considering drift). You had your students very well prepared to accomplish the big challenges this year.

All,

Just wanted to pass on a little more of my team's solution to this year's rules. We started custom propeller building using Bill's carbon rod hub and a diameter/span ratio similar to F1L. Considerable testing was needed to fine-tune diameter, static pitch, flaring stiffness, blade area and blade shape to match numerous variations in airplane trim (CG, decalage, turn settings, etc.). We used a trimmed, sanded Ikara flaring for all of the Invitationals while developing Bill's prop. Won all the invitationals entered (usually 1,2,3 or 1,2,3,4 if all teams entered).

Most fun at an invitational for the team that won was the University of Michigan Invite. They flew 2:55 (trimmed, sanded Ikara) in a 16 ft. ceiling "study hall". Very tight room and several lucky ceiling touches. They had a safe flight of 2:18 prior to the 2:55, so they went for more power.

We did end up using long motor sticks, although we got almost identical results with a moderately long motor stick (3:54 moderate vs. 3:58 long at 23 ft no-touch). To match the large propellers, we also used highish density rubber motors and, of course, very long motors.

Best flights were all low ceiling as our States were held in a nice gym (90 ft x 110 ft) with a 22 ft ceiling (listed as 27 ft, but slightly peaked ceiling, and unforgiving rafters of 30" depth meant really 22 ft at 50 ft dia circle; also about 30 ft of drift that day). Best flights were 3:58 at 18 ft climb no-touch from one team and 3:54 at 23 ft no touch from another team. These were not one-off flights; they could repeat these times over and over. The 3:58 at 18 ft was a special trim combination that did not climb for the first four circles. When we undid this trim, the airplane flew the identical time at 23 ft no-touch. Unfortunately for that team, their best propeller was damaged one week before States and they were only about 90% finished retrimming to their backup propeller (almost the same pitch/diameter/flaring specs, and performed slightly different requiring different CG and decalage, etc.). Although we didn't deliberately fligh higher than 21 ft towards the end, we did have occasional, accidental higher flights. The best of these was 4:17 at 27 ft. no-touch. This flight was with an 8 times used motor as we were not flying for performance but for more basic trim testing. The motor on this flight was so tired, that the last 15 ft of the flight almost looked dead-stick (it wasn't though, lots of turns remaining). Other higher test flights indicated about 8 seconds additional duration for each foot of climb height.

Final results in competition were not their best flights (all were their safety flights as more aggressive did not work that day); Michigan State Championships: 1st 3:29 (flying 20 to 21 ft high), 2nd 3:28 (flying 17 to 18 ft high) 3rd 3:07 (didn't use Bill's prop; flying 20 to 21 ft high) and 6th 2:40 (overly safe flight flying 18-19 ft high).

Best flights with the trimmed, sanded Ikara flaring were between 3:42 and 3:51 at 27 ft no-touch for three of the four teams.


Bill,

Thanks so much for the great propeller design. My four teams built a total of a dozen of them with about 8 significant variations in total. With unlimited rubber and prop variables this year, the prop/rubber/trim testing was very challenging; but lots of learning and fun for the students!

Brian T.



Thanks to
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #170 on: June 07, 2019, 03:50:06 PM »

Brian
Thanks for the info and congrats on your successful results!
Logged
bjt4888
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 228



Ignore
« Reply #171 on: June 07, 2019, 06:51:45 PM »

Bill,

Got the students to this point by studying your posts for the last 10 years.

Also studying the other pros (Kang, Brett, Fred R., Leo P., John Barker (RIP) and many others).

Thanks for all your help.

Brian
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]   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!