Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 72 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RCExplorer community PLANE #33309
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Nice build Terje! How is she flying?

    I’m currently writing on my master thesis so not much time to spend on the RCExplorer Plane.
    The forward swept wing looked pretty cool, but was so touchy in terms of CG. There was no practical way to mount a gopro on it –> CG to far up front. Batterie all the way up front was fine and it flew quickly with a nice roll rate. But what stressed me most was the fact that above 50-60% throttle the damn thing just generaded noise and I mean heavy metal concert volume noise without getting any faster.
    What I’m about to say here is: I haven’t gave up on that project! In 2-3 weeks I have the time to create something worth flying. Hope you guys are still with me 😉

    in reply to: Hot motors! Recommendations? #33306
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Hi Anthony,

    there is one more thing you could check. If you’ve run this motors on a different setup with nearly same conditions and you just updated your frame without to much weight gain, maybe you should check the length of the screws holding the motors. Maybe they are a tiny bit to long an touch the wiring inside the motors. lot of people have this problem with the Emax RS2205 motors.
    By touching the copper wires you increase the resistance and therefor the motors get really hot but are still working.

    in reply to: Optima SL Rx #33305
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Thank you!
    I’m running the same firmware version so it should work just fine hopefully!

    in reply to: Optima SL Rx #33242
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Hi Anthony,

    go to your Tx’s menu –> system –> Sys.info and there should be the FW version.
    The 2.4 GHz module can’t be read without the hpp-22, so we’ll never know 😀

    in reply to: Hot motors! Recommendations? #33241
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Hi Anthony,

    your EMAX motors should be fine with your setup. Before running off and buying new motors I would test some other props first. Maybe using 2 bladed props 9×4.5 would do.
    I’m using Sunnysky X2212 980 kV motors with 30A Afro ESCs on my XuGong V2 quad with 1666g. They are not rated for 4S but work just fine. After 20 min flight you can still touch them and I’m running 10×4.5 props on 4S 5200mAh 10C.

    If you want a really good and approved setup, go ahead and buy Davids BE2217 1300kV motors with 8″ props 😉

    in reply to: Optima SL Rx #33233
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Hi Anthony,

    Thanks for the reply on this topic. I am surprised that the Optima SL rx is working with Aurora 9! Everyone told me that it wouldn’t work as I tried to purchase a SL rx. It’s even in the resellers description. So I gonna try it for myself now and fetch One of those rx’s.

    Do you have a hitec hpp22 programmer? I would like to know which firmware version your Aurora 9 is running. On the tx and tx module .
    Would be nice to know.

    Thanks a lot !

    in reply to: Optima SL Rx #32833
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Hi Anthony,

    funny that even Hitec support doesn’t know their products. They basicly changed the signal timing from 41 us in the Aurora 9 transmitter to 19 us in the Aurora 9X because the decoding of the signal gets done by two seperat processors in the 9X. Also the Rx’s has now a 7 ms timing, which is faster than the old Optima Rx’s. Thats the reason why you shouldn’t be able to bind a Aurora 9 with a new kind of Optima RX. THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER!

    Here are some links to products that should work:

    http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__42310__FrSky_Delta_8_2_4Ghz_8CH_Multi_Brand_Receiver_D8_V8_Futaba_S_FHSS_FHSS_Hitec_AFHSS_Compatible.html

    http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__41273__2_4Ghz_A_FHSS_Compatible_4CH_Micro_Receiver_Hitec_Minima_compatible_.html

    The 4 channel Rx should give you more than 4 CH if using PPM but I am not 100% sure.
    Bruce from RCModelReviews testet the 8 CH type and it had even better range then the original Optima 7.
    Only downside: no telemetry to TX

    hope I could help!

    I almost forgot: You have to update your TX modul to the latest firmware for those Rx’s using a Hitec HPP-22 programmer!

    in reply to: Optima SL Rx #32772
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Hi Anthony,

    The optimia SL Rx is not compatible with the Hitec Aurora 9. It only binds to the Aurora 9X . I have the same problem with my Aurora 9…. No Rx with sbus or ppm. I’ll order some ppm capable Rx from hobbyking next time I order from China. They can handle ppm and should work with the F3FC and a Aurora 9 as far as I know.

    in reply to: RCExplorer community PLANE #30281
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Hi guys,

    just a quick update:

    Version 1 of the RCExplorer plane flew, but not very well because of some CG issues.
    The fuselage generates so much lift due to its profile. Also the vertical stabilizers were way to small.
    Roll rate and power were excelent with a 5×4 prop on 4S 1600 mAh.

    ChangeLog Version 2:

    – new fuselage, shorter and more compact
    – overall new materials for wing and fuselage
    – bigger fins
    – landing skids to protect the prop
    – reinforced elevons
    – weight reduction

    Pictures will follow!

    in reply to: RCExplorer community PLANE #29263
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Sorry for the long wait, but my father, brother and I had to expand the family mancave for the newest arrival: A brand new lasercutter! What a beauty.

    Just a quick update on what I’ve done yesterday:

    CNC hotwired the fuselage and the wings, lasercut the side panals for the fuselage and assambled everything. I had some issues with the hotwire so yes I know, the nose of the fuselage isn’t that good, but will do for first flight. Used plywood for the side panels, but man is it hard to find some quality plywood that isn’t bend and twisted.

    The frame weighs in at 190g so far, but will be lighter about 50 – 80g next revision. The reason: had to use what I have at the moment. That means that the wingjoiner spars are made of aluminium and the mainspar out of heavy wood. Will be changed for carbon fiber tubes.
    Secondly and most important, the styrofoam is way to stiff and heavy. I’ll get some great light one tomorrow, so I will rebuild the hole plane next week if the carbon arrives.

    Things still to do:

    – Plan and cut the fins
    – design and cut motor mount
    – design and cut fuselage interior (plattform for HD cam, battery, FC and so on)
    – Get a EMAX motor and ESC from David

    As you can see, it’s still a work in progress. Have a look at the pictures and give me your opinion, criticism and ideas for improvement!!!

    in reply to: RCExplorer community PLANE #28791
    Chris7485
    Participant

    @ martyn: I agree to the point you made with the third fin. Also agree that the inverted V isn’t a option. Using directed air seems to be overkill for such a small airplane. Tried that once with a horten wing to increase yaw stability. The effect was next to nothing compared to a small change in the twist of the wing and airfoil. The electronics stayed cool though.
    So lets keep the two fin solution for now, but I’m still hoping to find a design element for this plane with you guys that make it pop from everything else.

    Btw: I’m going on a short vacation for the rest of the week, so there is no chance for me to cut or mill anything. But monday next week we can start on the prototyp!

    in reply to: RCExplorer community PLANE #28767
    Chris7485
    Participant

    @Terje thats exactly my point. I don’t want to copy the Drak 1:1. Maybe we can come up with a different Design for the fin(s).
    Two smaller fins between Panel A and B and a big fin in the middle in front of the Motor. That would change the optics and we have the concept of RCExplorer: Tricopter = Trifins.

    in reply to: RCExplorer community PLANE #28759
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Here are some pictures.

    wingspan 800mm + width of the fuselage (not sure yet maybe 80 mm)

    Wingplan shows a half wing.
    Panel A has halfwing joiners and the trailing edge will be cut as the last blue line in the picture shows.
    Panel B has integrated rudder surfaces and a main spar to join with Panel A.

    in reply to: RCExplorer community PLANE #28752
    Chris7485
    Participant

    Terje: The man I was waiting for!

    As David said, motor and ESC will be the 2205 with 30 A ESC….. check.
    My personal opinion on the battery topic, I would go 4S but with enough space in the fuselage to even go bigger like a 1800 mAh. The weight won’t increase that much but the flighttimes would be a little longer. Lets see how the CG is working out.
    F3 FC, hell yeah why not (because we can).
    PDB yes if we are going to use the FC.
    FPV Cam + second HD cam is already planed.

    Things I like to add:

    – electronics sled (like the one the TBS Vendetta uses) made from G10 (plywood for testing). Easy to use with removable nose
    – CNC hotwire cut wings with a 3-5° twist from root to tip chord (will improve STAL characteristics)
    – MH60 and MH45 airfoils (maybe something completly different but we will see)

    What about winglets? Has anyone a design which he/she prefers? (on wingtips, middle section, how many?)

    in reply to: RCExplorer community PLANE #28714
    Chris7485
    Participant

    @martyn

    I wasn’t going to build it with foamboard or Depron but we could transform the shapes of the plane later for such a model.
    To use the cnc foamcutter, the aircraft has to be a 3D Design and will be cut out of a huge foam (styropor) block. This has the advantage to create a working airfoil and the fuselage will have nice looking shapes.
    So my plan for the weekend is to draw some first scale pictures to see how the dimensions will be. I’ll keep you posted.
    And please, if anyone wants to join in, post your ideas or criticism here! Thank you!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 72 total)