Author Topic: Build: Cartoon-scale Mooney Mite (Read 28146 times)

Dane Martin · « **Reply #50 on:** February 10, 2016, 11:13:24 AM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on February 09, 2016, 10:28:31 PM

It needed some tail weight. I decided that I'd get really classy and use a bolt. Even better, it's painted to match the plane. Folks will undoubtedly regret not being able to give the plane the appearance points it deserves.

Well that's some sort of scale. Full scale aircraft use bolts. And, it's SAE so i would say you covered your bases there!

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #51 on:** February 10, 2016, 02:18:59 PM »

First flights went really well. It's got a slight twist in the wing to make outside maneuvers interesting, and the landing gear is misaligned so that it tends to come in on takeoff. It was basically flying itself off the ground, and coming tight on the lines about 1/4 lap after release. The CG is still too far forward, but I got through a pretty nice pattern with it.

I think I'll keep it. My flying buddy has suggested that I move the CG back by trying a 25LA on the thing, since it weighs in at 41 ounces and should lose a few of those going to the different motor. I think he's right. At worst the engine won't be enough and I can just go back to the Magnum 36.

So: it flies like a Skyray only bigger, it's quick to build (if you actually spend time on it), it should be sturdy in a crash, and the controls are really out where you can see them -- what's not to like?

Edit: I added a picture of the thing at the field, with castor on it, for conclusive proof -- proof! that it flew.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #52 on:** February 10, 2016, 02:36:34 PM »

Quote from: Phil Krankowski on February 10, 2016, 06:48:31 AM

Is that fuel tank wedge your contraption or something purchased? Got a picture of the back end of the bracket without the landing gear in the way?

Tank pictures fore and aft. If this isn't clear I'll get more, but it's really just a matter of cutting out a rectangle of aluminum, making four notches, then making some bends.

Phil Krankowski · « **Reply #53 on:** February 10, 2016, 03:02:49 PM »

That looks easy enough.

3003 aluminum states that it is a "general purpose aluminum for tanks, heat exchangers, and generic sheet metal jobs" (first return from Google) so, hardware store/ big box metal?

Glad it flew well.

Phil

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #54 on:** February 10, 2016, 03:17:57 PM »

Quote from: Phil Krankowski on February 10, 2016, 03:02:49 PM

That looks easy enough.

3003 aluminum states that it is a "general purpose aluminum for tanks, heat exchangers, and generic sheet metal jobs" (first return from Google) so, hardware store/ big box metal?

Big box metal, certainly. I think mine came from Online Metals. You could use just about anything that'll bend without breaking, but you might not want to use 1000 or 1100 -- that stuff is too soft. I just happened to have a sheet of 3003 ("half hard") lying around. If a hardware store had sheet that thin it'd probably be pretty close to 3003, and perfectly usable. K&S sells sheet that would work, but it's an awkward size and costs a lot per square inch.

If you really want to go whole hog, McMaster-Carr has a really good alloy selection guide on their website -- but they're expensive as all get out. I'd find the hardest stuff that's still listed as being bendable. I use McMaster to decide what I want, then I go buy it from Online Metals.

Not what I used, but what I'd probably get if I were ordering for this specific part:

Edit: http://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant.cfm?pid=7125&step=4&showunits=inches&id=240&top_cat=60

Brent Williams · « **Reply #55 on:** February 10, 2016, 06:34:18 PM »

Would a little foam padding or split fuel tubing be worthwhile where the aluminum meets the tank sides? I wonder if the vibration from the engine might wear a hole in the plastic tank in time.

tom brightbill · « **Reply #56 on:** February 10, 2016, 06:40:13 PM »

The damn thing flies far better than it has a right to.

Signed, "the flying buddy".

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #57 on:** February 10, 2016, 06:51:42 PM »

Quote from: Brent Williams on February 10, 2016, 06:34:18 PM

Would a little foam padding or split fuel tubing be worthwhile where the aluminum meets the tank sides? I wonder if the vibration from the engine might wear a hole in the plastic tank in time.

I'm not too worried. You could, or you could bed the tank down onto a sheet of plastic or something.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #58 on:** February 10, 2016, 06:55:21 PM »

Quote from: tom brightbill on February 10, 2016, 06:40:13 PM

The damn thing flies far better than it has a right to.

It does. "It flew right off the drawing board" comes to mind. I think I'm going to fly it in competition this year, at least once*, just to see what score it gets.

I wanted something that'd build quicker than a Skyray**, take damage better, and fly as good. I think I'm there, although I need to put the thing in the hands of its chief pilot to do the crash testing part.

* Profile, not PA. I'm demented, not crazy.

** I know -- you're checking the dates on this thread and snorting. None the less, for the time I managed to spend on it, it's less time than a Skyray.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #59 on:** February 10, 2016, 07:54:40 PM »

I'm glad you are happy with it. Also you are building faster than some of us.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #60 on:** February 10, 2016, 08:02:58 PM »

Flying buddy pointed out this morning that the spinner must weigh a ton -- it was 2 ounces. With that all the way off, the CG is another 1/4" back, and the plane is 2oz lighter. Now I know why Steve gave that spinner away with the KISS...

It'll get a Hanger 9 spinner, which will be a lot less than 2 oz. Or maybe a spinner nut, since that's more in line with what the original had.

Phil Krankowski · « **Reply #61 on:** February 10, 2016, 08:44:51 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on February 10, 2016, 03:17:57 PM

Big box metal, certainly. I think mine came from Online Metals. You could use just about anything that'll bend without breaking, but you might not want to use 1000 or 1100 -- that stuff is too soft. I just happened to have a sheet of 3003 ("half hard") lying around. If a hardware store had sheet that thin it'd probably be pretty close to 3003, and perfectly usable. K&S sells sheet that would work, but it's an awkward size and costs a lot per square inch.

If you really want to go whole hog, McMaster-Carr has a really good alloy selection guide on their website -- but they're expensive as all get out. I'd find the hardest stuff that's still listed as being bendable. I use McMaster to decide what I want, then I go buy it from Online Metals.

Not what I used, but what I'd probably get if I were ordering for this specific part:

Edit: http://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant.cfm?pid=7125&step=4&showunits=inches&id=240&top_cat=60

Knowing me I'll whip up one out of some old galvanized duct work I have around here... At least as a test case that might be flown. My piece of stick glued to the paint is excessively inelegant. At least it turned out not ugly.

I do need to order some aluminum sheet soon for some other projects, so it is good to know what I need.

Phil

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #62 on:** February 12, 2016, 09:40:53 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on February 10, 2016, 08:02:58 PM

Flying buddy pointed out this morning that the spinner must weigh a ton -- it was 2 ounces. With that all the way off, the CG is another 1/4" back, and the plane is 2oz lighter. Now I know why Steve gave that spinner away with the KISS...

It'll get a Hanger 9 spinner, which will be a lot less than 2 oz. Or maybe a spinner nut, since that's more in line with what the original had.

The "KISS!" needed the nose weight...including the OEM OS .46LA muffler.

Steve

PS: If you want to test the crashworthiness, just don't use the tachometer to set the launch rpm correctly.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #63 on:** March 30, 2016, 01:59:16 PM »

Update: due to shoulder pain I'm attempting to learn to fly with my left hand. I lawn-darted the thing today -- it broke into a few large pieces, and should be very repairable. So it's met that design goal, with flying colors.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #64 on:** March 30, 2016, 03:05:07 PM »

soft springtime ground is a blessing eh?

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #65 on:** March 30, 2016, 03:11:47 PM »

Quote from: Mark Scarborough on March 30, 2016, 03:05:07 PM

soft springtime ground is a blessing eh?

Isn't it ever! Had it been August, or over pavement, the plane would have been pulverized (and if pavement, the engine, too). Still, I've got a lot less repair to do on the plane than if it were a Skyray or a Flight Streak.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #66 on:** March 30, 2016, 03:46:06 PM »

Man, you aren't suppose to crash it before we even see it (says the the guy that buried his plane in the tarmac after 4 flights).

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #67 on:** March 30, 2016, 04:28:05 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on March 30, 2016, 03:46:06 PM

Man, you aren't suppose to crash it before we even see it (says the the guy that buried his plane in the tarmac after 4 flights).

Yea yea. I may fly it in Expert at the Tuneup if I'm still shaky at this left-handed flying stuff. I'm so freaking happy that I didn't just grab the Atlantis and try to go fly!

Randy Powell · « **Reply #68 on:** March 30, 2016, 05:41:31 PM »

Well, it would be entertaining anyway.

Brent Williams · « **Reply #69 on:** March 30, 2016, 05:55:46 PM »

That is a high quality crash, Tim. Extra points for the submerged engine and the distance between the various parts of the airframe.

I am amazed at the durability of foam wings. I have a Corehouse RST that has been crashed with vigor several times. I have broken the fuselage in several places and quickly put the plane back together with epoxy. The SLC covered foam wing has never broken through all of this abuse.
For trainer planes, it's very hard to argue with the durability.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #70 on:** March 30, 2016, 06:04:15 PM »

Quote from: Brent Williams on March 30, 2016, 05:55:46 PM

That is a high quality crash, Tim. Extra points for the submerged engine and the distance between the various parts of the airframe.

I am amazed at the durability of foam wings. I have a Corehouse RST that has been crashed with vigor several times. I have broken the fuselage in several places and quickly put the plane back together with epoxy. The SLC covered foam wing has never broken through all of this abuse.
For trainer planes, it's very hard to argue with the durability.

These wings split right down the middle, when the fuselage stopped and the wing tips didn't. It'll still be an easy fix, though.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #71 on:** March 30, 2016, 07:05:15 PM »

Paul would have gotten 500+ points with it, on his first-ever flight, left-handed, while eating a butterhorn with his right.

Steve

Brent Williams · « **Reply #72 on:** March 30, 2016, 07:41:35 PM »

Hi Tim, just curious. Did you apply the panels of SLC covering in the manner that Phil recommends? He recommends several panels through the middle and along the trailing edge. I have hammered my plane into the ground and the wing is unscathed. I attached a cropped, edited and colorized version of the Gotcha Psycho combat plan showing one version of his recommended SLC application schedule. The RST is done in a similar fashion.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #73 on:** March 30, 2016, 07:54:26 PM »

Quote from: Brent Williams on March 30, 2016, 07:41:35 PM

Hi Tim, just curious. Did you apply the panels of SLC covering in the manner that Phil recommends? He recommends several panels through the middle and along the trailing edge. I have hammered my plane into the ground and the wing is unscathed. I attached a cropped, edited and colorized version of the Gotcha Psycho combat plan showing one version of his recommended SLC application schedule. The RST is done in a similar fashion.

I missed that in the directions. Oops.

Chris Fretz · « **Reply #74 on:** March 31, 2016, 05:57:01 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on February 07, 2016, 06:30:10 PM

Controls installed, tank mounted, hoses plumbed. It just needs some paint on a few patches of bare wood, some initial guess at proper tip weight (which I'm just going to screw onto a pad of plywood on the wing tip) and a test flight.

Tank's mounted on the inside. For starters I'm running a plain vented tank on muffler pressure -- we'll see what works in the long run. The only concessions to "pretty" in the tank setup are the holes drilled through the fuse for the hoses.

Do tanks work just fine mounting them on the other side like that or can you have problems with it? Would it work ok without muffler pressure?

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #75 on:** March 31, 2016, 10:04:37 PM »

Quote from: #Liner on March 31, 2016, 05:57:01 PM

Do tanks work just fine mounting them on the other side like that or can you have problems with it? Would it work ok without muffler pressure?

If anything they work better -- they tend to self-regulate because as the plane goes faster centrifugal force pushes more fuel toward the engine, richening it up and slowing it down. Visa-versa for slowing down/leaning out.

I haven't tried it without muffler pressure -- one of these setups without muffler pressure probably gains even more than with, but I'm just guessing.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #76 on:** April 03, 2016, 01:41:04 PM »

Update: this thing is living up to expectations for crash resistance. Ironically, I'm the one doing the crashing (I've got problems with my right shoulder & I'm trying to learn to fly left-handed -- I keep learning what all I just can't do, unfortunately).