Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
September 23, 2019, 03:52:12 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] 2 3   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: 1/2A  (Read 5443 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 442


Topic starter
1996 World Champs



Ignore
« on: November 29, 2011, 10:42:22 PM »

Wally Miller (Mr. EZB) has proposed a new fun event called 1/2A.  As the name suggests it's basically half the size of an AROG model, but without the ROG part.  The rules are as follows

Max wing area = 15 in^2
Max stab area = 7.5 in^2
Minimum weight = .010 oz

Andrew Tagliafico sent me plans of his first prototype and that's what I used to build this model.  This one came out a little heavy at .0116 oz with most of the extra weight in the prop.  If anyone else is interested a few people will be bringing these to fly at the Kibbie Dome this summer (assuming it happens).

Attached files Thumbnail(s):
1/2A
Logged
Tmat
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 2,931




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2011, 11:39:04 PM »

Very pretty airplane!
I like the mylar covering much better than the condenser paper used for A6.

Tmat
Logged

F1B guy...
But don't hold that against me!
Hepcat
OOS, January 2019
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 278
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,777



Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2011, 09:18:55 AM »

I agree that is a pretty aeroplane but what is the purpose?  I would have thought that Indoor needs another new class, with no original or challenging features, like it needs a hole in the head.  Perhaps the idea is to have a class for each indoor flyer then everyone can be a winner. Smiley

John
Logged

John Barker UK - Will be missed by all that knew him.
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 442


Topic starter
1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2011, 01:02:23 PM »

I agree that is a pretty aeroplane but what is the purpose?  I would have thought that Indoor needs another new class, with no original or challenging features, like it needs a hole in the head.  Perhaps the idea is to have a class for each indoor flyer then everyone can be a winner. Smiley

John

This thread really needed your post.  Thanks for contributing.
Logged
Tmat
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 2,931




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2011, 02:12:02 PM »

I can see John's point though. There are ministicks, A6's, pennyplanes, and so on. Seems like the 1/2A would be smaller than an A6 but bigger than a ministick? What was the original intent if I may enquire?

Tony
Logged

F1B guy...
But don't hold that against me!
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 442


Topic starter
1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2011, 02:42:01 PM »

My understanding is that Wally doesn't have regular access to a decent indoor site.  He devised this model to be small and light for flying in small sites.  Without the wingspan restriction of mini-stick you can create a model that flies much better and is capable of handling torque without barrel rolling.  It's also lighter which should enable longer flight times.  Beyond that you would need to ask Wally since it's his creation.  

I personally built one to mess around with at local contests.  A couple other local guys have them and the site we fly in isn't good for anything larger than a pennyplane or EZB.  I could build a mini-stick, but they're a pain to trim and I don't really care for them.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 02:55:04 PM by jakep_82 » Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2011, 06:32:23 PM »

Ah - a new can of worms - or maybe just a rehashed old one. I think if you like the idea of this model and want to build one then go ahead and have a blast. If you're looking for something new for your local club to play with then go ahead and give it a shot. If you want to start a new AMA class with an event at the NATS then you're probably wasting your time.

Yes Ministicks are pretty ridiculous. Yes A6 should allow Mylar covering. Yes LPP is too restrictive. Yes F1M is wonderful but hardly anyone flies it. Yes F1D is awfully hard. But starting a new event and getting nationwide or worldwide support for it is the longest of longshots.

I DO like the model, but if I were going to campaign for a new event it would probably be an "A" class (30si) model without the huge wood sizes, small prop and paper covering of the A6. In the absence of such a logical event I'll continue to fly and enjoy all the current "beginner" events.
Logged
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 442


Topic starter
1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2011, 06:43:57 PM »

I don't believe Wally has any intention of proposing this as an AMA sanctioned event.  It's just something that a few local people picked up and it's now an "official" event at our contests.  It will also be an "official" event at the Kibbie Dome if Andrew is able to pull together the contest.

Regarding other events; I think they're all hard when you boil it down.  Too many people are too good at pretty much every event to make any of them easy.  Some models might be easier to build and fly than others, but extracting a winning time from that model is something altogether different.  Just because I can quickly toss together an F1M doesn't mean I have any hope of beating you in a competition  Smiley
Logged
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 442


Topic starter
1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2012, 05:53:04 PM »

A quick update on this model.  The original model in the pictures was damaged so I built a new one that was right at the minimum weight (290mg).  This past weekend I set a site record at 10:03.  The model flies very nicely with none of the torque roll problems associated with mini-sticks.  It just spirals up to the ceiling and begins bouncing around.  The motor will take a few hundred more turns so I should be able to reach 11 and maybe 12 minutes in our Cat II building.  I know some here aren't in favor of more events, but it's become extremely popular and competitive at our local contests.
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 95
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2012, 11:38:42 AM »

Jake, while I disagree with you on the stability issues with ministick--the only rule about them I dislike is the motorstick length limit--, I do find your model quite interesting. Are you finding the solid motorstick to be better than a rolled one? Also, has anyone tried a VP prop yet?

By the way, what I really like about ministick is that you can pack them into a tiny box in a suitcase. They travel better than any other class of models I've encountered. I reckon this would be true of the 1/2A's as well, though the box would have to be longer to accomodate the longer wingspan.
Logged
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 442


Topic starter
1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2012, 12:01:53 PM »

I've actually considered making a VP prop for it, but making something that small and light is challenging.  The smallest music wire I have is .006" which might be too heavy for a spring considering the rubber and torque involved with something this light.  Down the road I want to experiment with it, but for now I'm just going to bang the ceiling and see if I can get to 12 minutes.

The torque roll issues I see with mini-sticks are related to the low aspect ratio required by the rules.  I always see minis helicoptering.  I prefer a model that flies like a real airplane, but perhaps some have mastered the torque issues on mini-stick.  I have yet to see one that could handle any reasonable amount of torque.  I keep adding torque to this model and all it does is climb faster.  I haven't been able to make it helicopter yet.

The solid MS is easier to make and it's still quite easy to hit the minimum weight.  I haven't had any problems with stick bow or twist which leads me to believe a rolled tube isn't necessary.  If I do build a VP prop I will probably make one because I'll want to offset the heavier prop and the launch torque will be much higher which could create problems with a solid MS.
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2012, 02:15:24 PM »

I made a VP hub for 35cm that uses the prop shaft as the spring. I didn't get it working very well before dropping 35cm due to a lack of time. Larry Coslick was interested in this idea and made similar VP's for F1M and IS. He seems to like the idea. I think his Cat 2 F1M record was set with this type of VP.

For 35cm I didn't have any adjusters so it was very light.
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 95
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2012, 02:50:40 PM »

Thanks, Jake. Interesting information there.

The torque roll issues I see with mini-sticks are related to the low aspect ratio required by the rules.  I always see minis helicoptering.  I prefer a model that flies like a real airplane, but perhaps some have mastered the torque issues on mini-stick.  I have yet to see one that could handle any reasonable amount of torque.  I keep adding torque to this model and all it does is climb faster.  I haven't been able to make it helicopter yet.

Ok, got it. This is the problem with a lot of ministick designs out there. Good high performance designs have high wingposts (this is a function of some computer simulation I've dabbled with) which carry the side benefit of better roll stability. That is not enough in itself, however, because you also have to have enough rudder area to prevent the barrell rolling tendency. Another way of achieving this is to use a droop boom, which produces a very stable model capable of handling a lot of torque. I've built three droop boom minis and all of them handled power well. Anyway, you need the rudder area as low as possible. High mounted rudders do not work well on minis for some reason.

I do have two minis that tend toward barrell rolling at launch, but they are intentionally short-coupled to get a layout that seems to perform better. I think my droop boom model could fly longer than them since it handles power so well, but it has yet to make the leap.

If there's sufficient interest, maybe we should start another thread on ministick trimming. Seems to be a common malady. There are a lot of folks who struggle with trimming them, and I've banged my head against the wall enough to finally learn how to tame them. Or you could just build Alan Cohen's design, which always seems to fly perfectly (where I got my solution from).
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 95
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2012, 02:51:42 PM »

I made a VP hub for 35cm that uses the prop shaft as the spring.

I hear this was the basis for modern VP designs...

Can you post a photo of yours? I don't seem to remember seeing it.
Logged
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 442


Topic starter
1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2012, 03:05:02 PM »

I made a VP hub for 35cm that uses the prop shaft as the spring. I didn't get it working very well before dropping 35cm due to a lack of time. Larry Coslick was interested in this idea and made similar VP's for F1M and IS. He seems to like the idea. I think his Cat 2 F1M record was set with this type of VP.

For 35cm I didn't have any adjusters so it was very light.

This is really good idea.  I've seen drawings of very early VP designs that used this principle, but I completely forgot about them.  On lighter models like this that might be the perfect solution.  I'm going to experiment with this idea and see if I can put something together before the next contest.  I might be the cause for a new rule.
Logged
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 442


Topic starter
1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2012, 03:14:54 PM »

Or you could just build Alan Cohen's design, which always seems to fly perfectly (where I got my solution from).

I might build a mini-stick down the road, but they aren't very popular at my local contests.  Only 1 or 2 people fly them versus 4 or 5 people flying 1/2A. 
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2012, 04:52:43 PM »

Here's the link to my 35cm thread. The torsion VP hub is near the bottom of the first page (reply 23). Lots of good info in this thread from or about others besides me!

http://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_forum/index.php?topic=2568.0
Logged
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 442


Topic starter
1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2012, 07:32:25 PM »

What I have in my head is quite a bit different than your design, but essentially works the same.  My design would have adjustable preload tension.  I also have an idea for limiting high pitch that would add almost no weight.  I'll post pictures once I have a prototype built.
Logged
Ron_P
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 11



Ignore
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2012, 08:41:55 PM »

I just returned from a meet held at the Kibbe Dome in Moscow,ID. For those who think that this class might be a joke and not needed, for the challenge of building small, there is a lot of performance in these little jewels! The model aircraft in many instances fly much better than the A-6, plus if you like to innovate and experiment and do not mind working with an optivisor a bit, then this class should be on your list to try, I certainly will! Smiley
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2012, 11:16:52 AM »

In spite of my earlier comments that may have sounded too negative I really like this class. I hate restrictive rules which is one reason I've flown F1M for so long. I love my A6 but hate the class. I've come up with workable solutions to the problems in the A6 class and have a model that is basically just wind it up and let it go and it always does well. But the beauty of this class (as I see it) is that there are so few restrictions on the model design. You can build a real indoor model with real indoor construction and it will be easy to transport and easy to handle. Those scraps of 5/99 and 3/02 should make lots of high quality motors whereas LPP motors make a really huge dent in your rubber supply.
Logged
ykleetx
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 652




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2012, 12:14:04 PM »

In spite of my earlier comments that may have sounded too negative I really like this class. I hate restrictive rules which is one reason I've flown F1M for so long. I love my A6 but hate the class. I've come up with workable solutions to the problems in the A6 class and have a model that is basically just wind it up and let it go and it always does well. But the beauty of this class (as I see it) is that there are so few restrictions on the model design. You can build a real indoor model with real indoor construction and it will be easy to transport and easy to handle. Those scraps of 5/99 and 3/02 should make lots of high quality motors whereas LPP motors make a really huge dent in your rubber supply.

Many of us think that there are too many official classes.  Perhaps when the number of indoor participants was high, that was okay.  Today, when the number of indoor fliers is down significantly from the past, it seems that having too many events dilute the field of participants.

I like the FAI system of F1D, F1M, F1L, F1R.  That's it.
Logged
frash
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 12
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 462



Ignore
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2012, 05:53:28 PM »

Perhaps any new or old event should have weights specified in grams, not ounces.

Fred Rash
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 66
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,541



Ignore
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2012, 08:54:57 PM »

Fred
It drives Leo crazy that I measure rubber in grams per inch.
Logged
Ron_P
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 11



Ignore
« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2012, 11:20:14 PM »

Few things in my honest opinion concerning indoor free flight duration make sense. What keeps an F1D in the air with the prop spinning so low an rpm?

The weight of the 1/2A comes down to .284 grams, or 284 mg. There were a number of different types of aircraft flying, since the AMA rules require at least two models for an official event, many flew for pleasure and enjoyed every moment.

I learned enough about indoor during my trip to Moscow, ID, that I'm probably forever "hooked" on the activity. This was a meet, funfest, contest, and the gathering of like minded friendly model airplane enthusiasts all rolled into one happening, which made for a very enjoyable experience!

Ron Patten
Logged
frash
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 12
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 462



Ignore
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2012, 08:10:14 AM »

Fred
It drives Leo crazy that I measure rubber in grams per inch.

Tell Leo that we are inching toward metrication!  Grin

Fred Rash
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   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!