Author Topic: Take-Apart ARC/ARFs (Read 3305 times)

Rudy Taube · « **on:** March 17, 2010, 01:43:55 AM »

(Moderator note: this thread was split from Steve Moons thread that was announcing his release of his hi quality ARC of Paul's Impact design, please see Steve's thread for more info. on his ARC)

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reply. Is your two part wing put together with a blade spar or tube spare that could be converted to a take apart? Or is it like the wood spars in Brads T-Rex that are only meant to be glued together?

I wish we could start using CF tubes through the fuse, they work so well and would sure help us fit these CL planes in our shops and cars. :-) ..... I know what you are thinking, why don't I get off my duff and design one? Simple reason, I know how much work you guys put into this to bring us great ARF/ARCs for CL, and I don't want to work that hard!

I just want you to do it.

Thank you for bringing us another great CL design in ARC form.

Warm Regards,

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #1 on:** March 19, 2010, 03:13:57 PM »

Quote from: Steve Kocher on March 19, 2010, 10:28:55 AM

Rudy,

You aren't related to my wife are you? She makes the same type requests of me.

Steve.

Hi Steve K,

Good one.

I just wanted to let Steve M know that I knew that since I was not willing to work that hard it made my request unreasonable .... but that still did not stop me from asking him, and the other designers, to do it!

After writing the above, Yes maybe I am related to your wife?

Regards,

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2010, 03:33:08 PM »

Quote from: SteveMoon on March 21, 2010, 04:36:59 PM

Rudy: The Impact will use the wood spars like the T-Rex. As Brad
has posted elsewhere, I am sure it would be okay to build it
without these. I also don't see any problem with designing some
kind of take apart system with the two wing halves. Until I see
something better I'm going to say that the Yatsenko system
used in the Shark is the best take apart system going.

Steve

Hi Steve,

1. congratulations on your fantastic results at the Nat's. 1st place in Classic, with the most classic plane of all! :-)

2. Do you know where I can get a Yatsenko take-apart system? I already have the Morris system, is that the same thing? I would like to see how they work compared to using CF wing tubes.

3. If you have any plans to bring us another high quality ARC, is there any chance of incorporating a take-apart system? At least an inexpensive and easy
system using dowels in the front and two bolts in the back like we have used in RC for decades. Our cars will get smaller soon. A take apart will be a big help.

While I'm dreaming, how about a top hatch instead of (or in addition to) a bottom hatch so we can load our batteries from the top. Electric power will be very popular by next
year, especially among the competition pilots that buy your ARCs. :-)

4. Thank you again for going through all the hard work to bring us high quality ARCs. I hope we continue to see more in the future.

Regards,
Rudy

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2010, 06:58:59 PM »

Rudy, I don't quite envision where you expect to put the bellcrank, if you used slide-in CF tube wing joiners! I think you'd also have to spread the loads via some plywood ribs, much like my F1A's did. I had some troubles with spanwise cracks at the front or back of the spar, fixed by adding doublers across the spar notches. You start something like that, the fixes just keep piling up...and adding weight. IMO.

However, for what it's worth, there was once a post about PW's "For Reals", a plane I've seen a bunch. It's basically a sorta I-beam Impact. But I couldn't recall if it was a take-apart or not. Next I saw Paul, I asked. He said it was originally a one-piece wing take-apart, just like his published version of the ImpAct. But then, he sawed the wing in half and converted it to a 2-piece wing, using the Tom Morris hardware (now from CLC). This takes a good bit of skill and care to get it all aligned right, but it does show that it's possible. If PW can do it on his "For Reals", you can do it on any ARF, as long as you're willing to strip the covering off. Easier if the wing is already in two parts.

I'm not saying that the Tom Morris take-apart hardware is superior to the Yatsenko style, but the nice thing about it is that it's adaptable to any wing thickness, it's available, and it's relatively inexpensive, tho I haven't seen a price on the Yatsenko style, even from Aussie. I'm having thoughts of using the Tom Morris type on my new SV-11 ARC, OBTW. Also, AFAIK, Paul has used the Morris type on all his 2 piece wing planes since the B-17's...starting with the 4 stroke PW-51's.

Steve

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #4 on:** July 25, 2010, 09:10:19 PM »

Hi Steve H,

Thanks for all the input. I knew Paul had used the Morris (CLC) system on his last ship, but I did not know he has been using it so long. This is good news. I have two sets of these units. I did more research on this forum and found Kim's excellent article showing this system with many helpful photos.

I too plan on using it on an ARC. It looks like I can just cut off the sheeting over the spar so I can wrap the unit to the spar with some CF thread/epoxy. Then put the LE sheeting back over this assembly. I have already put vertical sheer webs on this plane so this should help strengthen the whole assembly and make the wing bulletproof. It will be interesting to see how this all works compared to the tried and true method used on 10s of thousands of RC planes.

I must admit, after seeing Kim's helpful photos and his method of aligning the wing while the unit is attached, he sure does make it look easy. And the unit if very light. It also looks like it will be the easiest method to use on an already built wing (like in an ARC or ARF). This system is also very inexpensive. The CLC system is only $38 for three complete units (two at the front spar area and one at the rear wing area). You would only need one unit to make the stab take-apart too. If we are willing to keep our wing and stab in one piece we can have a very simple and very inexpensive take-apart using the tried and true old fashioned method we used in RC for decades. Dowel (s) in front, two 1/4 10 nylon bolts in the rear. :-)

RE: the CF tube method I suggested. If I was building a wing from scratch, balsa, foam, foam ribs, etc. (very unlikely for me, I have built enough of them in the past for a lifetime, now that we have great alternatives I see building my own wings a total waste of my time), then I would use CF tubes for the wings load carrying spar and joiner system. This is used on thousands of RC models. Our IMAC models cost around $8,000+, my guess is that if there was a better method we would use it. The cost of the spar/joiner system is a very small % of the total cost and we would use the best system that is available. The same goes for all those thousands of smaller size, inexpensive RC planes that use the CF tube system.

I hope to take some photos of my CLC system in my ARC. I will post this on a separate thread.

Steve M., I am sorry for sort of hijacking your thread on your great new ARC. Maybe our moderator would be kind enough to move the past few take-apart posts to their own thread on the ARF forum?

Steve H., Thanks again for your good info. Regards,

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #5 on:** July 26, 2010, 04:50:21 PM »

Steve H,

I forgot to address your question, (this is what happens when you pass 50+! You will see how it is when you get there! ;-)

There are several ways to get around the bellcrank issue when using tube spars.

1. Use two 1/4" CF tubes in place of the top and bottom wood spars we normally use. This leaves the center free for the BC. This is very easy in foam wings and still easy in wood wings.

2. Use one 1/2" CF tube offset up or down enough to allow room for the BC.

3. Use one 1/2" CF tube in the center of the wing and modify a BC to compensate for the CF tube location.

............... .............. (you will have to use your imagination on this one, my drawing was done by a two year old

) This would not be hard to do in a CF layup. Or bending Aluminium.

.............

4. Since our lead-outs already come into the wing tip guides at an angle from the BC, then there is really no reason that the BC could not be located above or below the center located CF spar. The small vertical angle between the BC and the wing tip would be less than the horizontal angle we all already have now.

I'm sure there are other methods, but I think this would be a very minor problem that would be easily solved by many of the excellent CL model designers we have out there.

I hope more is done to bring us take-apart ARC/ARFs. It would be one more thing to make it easier to keep people in CLPA and maybe even bring in a few more retreads who are already used to all the benefits of having their fully take-apart RC planes. Our cars will have to continue to get smaller, and shop space is already at a premium, etc.

Regards,

john e. holliday · « **Reply #6 on:** July 27, 2010, 07:10:15 AM »

Rudy, if you're bad at 50+, wait til you get to 60. I like your idea of the carbon tubes. But it seems to me years ago someone had an aluminum tube in the fuselage in which the bellcrank was in the tube. The tube came out on each side of the fuselage. Don't remember how far it extended, but there were tubes also for and aft for anchoring the wing panels to. The aluminum tube was epoxied to the fuselage so the fuselage was hed for pull testing and not the wing. Maybe that person will see this and speak up.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2010, 12:44:08 AM »

Hi Doc,

Now that we have our own thread I hope we can all talk more about take-apart CL planes. The future is clear, smaller cars and shops. Take-aparts and ARC/ARFs go together well.

BTW: my 50+ number is a little heavy on the +. Like many of us, I'm just in denial!

...... It runs in our family, my mother was still 39 when I was well into my 40s!

RE: the two small CF tubes, above and below the BC, the 1st time we used this was in a 1/4 Midget RC Pylon design in the 1970s. We did not have to clear any BC, we just thought it would be light and strong. We used FG arrow shafts for the spars and the take-apart system. They worked great. These planes were put under more stress than our CLPA planes so I am sure it would work well. I think Bob Z. has already done it in one of his many take-apart (T/A) CL designs. I talked to Bob H. and he is interested in trying it. I wish I was not so lazy, I would make one from scratch myself. ;-)

If you have seen the clever Yatsenko tube design sold by Jim at CLC then you can envision the two CF tubes (long male tube inside a larger female tube in ea. wing). This would be even easier to install and use than the Yat. unit. All you would need is a locator key in the aft section of the wing and a simple Nylon thumb bolt (inside the fuse.) to hold in ea. wing from sliding off the male tubes. The aft key could even be one of those waaaay cool incidence adjustors we use in our RC pattern planes that allows micro adj. of the incidence of ea. individual wing. This would allow perfect trim adj. :-)

If we could find close to 1/4" square CF tubes it would be even better. Then we could just slip the female part right over our wing spars. This would be a strong and easy construction method. I think we could still do this with the round ones, rather than lace them on like the Yat. method.

RE: your BC in the middle of the large tube. That would work, but I think that it would not be needed, per reasons on a prior post. But once more CL people start thinking in terms of T/A designs I think that we will find many different solutions to this.

Larry Wong (in SFO) just sent me a photo of his excellent solution. It is a nice wooden version of the metal cast design where a square unit the size of the inside of the fuse. is mated with small bolts to a square cast unit in ea. wing. The metal casting units are beautiful, but I think way overkill in strength for our relatively small planes. Larry's wood units are more than strong enough, and they mate very easily with the wing and fuse wooden structure. It is also very light and almost free, ...... compared to the $100 for the AL cast unit from Australia, a little less from China.

Kim's T/A thread on SH has great photos and how-to instructions. It shows the CLC version.

Regards,

Larry Wong · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2010, 06:18:54 AM »

Rudy You do know that weather ARF or Kit the two piece take apart system you have to cut the center section of the wing out were the fuselage is this makes the wings shorter with the center space is fuselage.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #9 on:** August 01, 2010, 01:30:12 AM »

Hi Larry,

Thanks for your input. I hope you get a chance to post the photos of your "I-Beem" take-apart system here.

Your right about the ARC/ARFs needing a little help to use any T/A system. You could cut out part of the wing like you said and make the wing a little shorter. Or we could do what we have done in RC for many years which will actually make our wings a few inches larger.

The best example's are all the new ARC/ARFs coming to market now, Steve Moon's ARC "Impact", Randy's SV-11 ARC/ARF, and Brad's ARC/ARF T-Rex, and Windy's ARC/ARF Strega. Thankfully they all come with the wing already in two neat pieces. This makes it much easier for us to do a T/A. All we need to do now is use the inboard part of the wing to draw a pattern on two pieces of balsa that is the same thickness as our fuse, cut out two "ribs" and fit them into the fuse wing hole. We really only need the wood to be in the center section and a little at each end. Some 1/32 ply laminates on the inside in stress areas would help too. Now our plane looks just like a scratch built plane that was designed for T/A. :-) Attaching our wings this way actually increases our WS and WA by a few in.

Due to the limits and expense on overseas shipping sizes from the USA to the rest of the world, and the added expense of domestic shipping of large boxes caused by the older ARC/ARFs one piece wing makes me think that we will see more ARF/ARCs made with wings in two pieces. This shipping issue was one of the reasons we have ALL RC planes with two part wings. The RC designers wisely choose to go to the next reasonable (and customer friendly) step and make them take-apart wings while they already had them in two pieces at the factory. I'm sure we will see this someday in CL, it will just take some time and the CL designers willing to include this feature in their plans to the mfg. The mfg. just needs to be shown that this will be easier and save them money. Even if it costs the customer $5 to $10 more it would be well worth it both in the convenience and the time saving to the customer.

Mfg. would love your system:

If the mfg. used your wooden I-Beem system they would love it. It would be very inexpensive (all wood, and no expensive metal machining). In fact, it would be less expensive and less labor time than making the present tongue in the box alignment method used now. And it would only add about the same weight as the epoxy glue that is now used by the customer to join the wing and then epoxy it onto the fuse. This would be outstanding for us customers. It would be easy for the factory to make and use a small alignment jig for this assembly so that we would get nice straight wings aligned perfectly to the fuse. and save all the trouble of aligning, gluing etc. The mfg. would also like not having to make and custom fit the bottom piece for the wing, now it would already be part of the fuse. It also saves them the trouble of making an accurate cutout for the wing in the fuse. And the fuse would be stronger too. .... The more I think about it, this is a win, win for everyone! :-)

PERFECT FOR PROFILE

After you put a wood plug in the fuse, where the normal wing would go, you can see where the I-Beem would easily be glued to the fuse. Then you are right at the place you would be with a full fuse. :-)

I will try to transfer Larry's photos here, but it may take awhile with my new computer. ;-)

Larry Wong · « **Reply #10 on:** August 01, 2010, 06:58:13 PM »

Rudy hope this works , P/C to Mac !

Larry Wong · « **Reply #11 on:** August 01, 2010, 06:59:20 PM »

YES !

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #12 on:** August 02, 2010, 01:03:04 AM »

Thanks Larry,

Worth a thousand words. :-)

These photos show how easy it will be to convert one of our ARC/Fs to T/A. I hope to put up photos of my conversion soon. I'm looking forward to receiving my ARF SV-11 and ARC Impact very soon. They will both become T/A. I'm looking forward to attending the NW Regionals in OR early next year, way too far to drive. I plan on using Eric's cool idea for transport on the airlines and it requires a full T/A plane.

Anyone out there who has converted from P/C to Mac will understand what Larry and I are going through with photos to the net. We are both in the middle of our conversion. I love my new iMac, but it is a little different. I will celebrate too when I get one posted.

(NOTE: I have been using the term "your system" giving Larry credit. This is referring to credit for Larry's neat installation of KAZ's system. To the best of our knowledge Kaz created this system in Japan and Kaz should get the design credit. :-)

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #13 on:** August 24, 2010, 02:39:33 PM »

Rudy,
Do you plan on making your model take apart? if so, I'd love to buy you lunch and see what you're up to in the shop. I'm home until the end of the month. Maybe longer, bids haven't been awarded for relief yet.
Chris...

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #14 on:** August 25, 2010, 04:26:00 AM »

Hi Chris,

Yes. My goal is to have it fit inside my light hard case "Sport Tube", snowboard carrier. This is the perfect container to ship our planes in. We can thank Eric Rogers in SF0 for the great idea :-). The airlines will take them, and so will UPS.

This means we can have a very simple "one piece wing" take-apart system. And use any one of several tail systems. The fuse can remain in one piece too. The gear needs to come off. I plan on using the gear mounted on the fuselage like Paul had on one of his Impacts. This is very easy to make removable, and I can use the nice CF TALL FAI style gear that Randy sells.

I would like to use the CLC, Morris/Russian type take-apart but it is a lot more work and having a two piece wing is not needed for my shipping container. But I am using this method on the Extra 300L that I am building slooooowly. To use it on the Impact means we would have to rip out the very nicely installed BC that already is in the wing of the ARC and install a new one in the fuselage. Then you have to build an insert for the fuselage wing hole. This would not be hard at all and would sure make a nice small package, but I am too lazy and want to get it in the air in time for the GSC in late Oct.

If you want to spend a little time and work, the two piece wing method is very nice and looks like a solid setup. I have two sets, your welcome to use one of them. If you do use this method you may want to look at the "How To" DVD I have from Windy on installing this system. It is very helpful and he makes it look relatively easy to do. Your welcome to use my DVDs. :-)

I will post the link to some good photos. It is a very KIS system that should be easy enough for a lazy guy like me! ;-)

Lunch would be productive, and fun. I will let you know as soon as I have the Take-apart part completed, probably by next week.

The Method Larry showed us is also a very good alternative. I am considering using it on my Profile/Classic plane.

Regards,

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #15 on:** August 25, 2010, 04:43:59 AM »

Hi Chris,

Here is the link to some very good photos and excellent instructions from Kim D. on this forum:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=10958.0

Below is a photo of a really KIS system that is my favorite, I hope to use this method on my Impact. This is the method I used on my E-Vector.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #16 on:** August 25, 2010, 05:18:39 AM »

Chris,

Here is a photo of Eric Rogers and his Sport Tube. This is a very nice carrier. It has small wheels, a handle and telescopes to fit different size wings/planes. The 2nd photo shows it with the telescoping top off and his Score inside. This carrier will take our largest CLPA planes with no problem. Eric is one of the nicest guys you are ever going to meet. He is a bright engineer from the San Francisco Bay area. He is a fellow ECL flyer. :-)

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #17 on:** August 25, 2010, 05:22:58 AM »

Chris,

Here is a photo of my CLPA Extra 300L. It has a very nice 2 piece take-apart wing and two piece take-apart tail. They both use a CF tube.

I received a special wavier from the AMA to fly it at CL demonstrations. The crowd seems to really like it when I turn my smoke system on. It flys on .075 braided lines at 80 feet. It has a smooth running 6 cu. in. twin that puts out 10 HP. It uses a 28 x 10 CF prop. The AMA said I still had to use our current 10G pull test rule. This means it requires a 280 pound pull test, it takes four big guys to do the test. There is a minimum weight limit for the pilot of 200 pounds. Sadly, I meet this minimum limit. It has a nice pull during all maneuvers. Lifting weights for a few years does help, especially on the overheads. Let me know if you want to fly it the next time you are in Las Vegas. :-)

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #18 on:** August 26, 2010, 09:28:43 PM »

Hi Rudy:

A few observations:

1. Your garage is obscenely large. 99% of the people on SH are jealous of your garage space.
2. I can vouch for the Sport Tube, which carried my take-apart Smoothie to England in 2007 and Brodaks in 2008 from California, with a one-peice wing and detachable stab/elevator/fin. Airport people assume it is golf clubs and don't give it a second glance.
3. Re Erik, nobody from Finland has ever been less than nice, at least after the age of the Vikings. He is a real gentleman and very knowledgeable about electric CL.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #19 on:** August 27, 2010, 12:20:01 PM »

Quote from: Rudy Taube on August 25, 2010, 05:22:58 AM

Chris,

Here is a photo of my CLPA Extra 300L. It has a very nice 2 piece take-apart wing and two piece take-apart tail. They both use a CF tube.

I received a special wavier from the AMA to fly it at CL demonstrations. The crowd seems to really like it when I turn my smoke system on. It flys on .075 braided lines at 80 feet. It has a smooth running 6 cu. in. twin that puts out 10 HP. It uses a 28 x 10 CF prop. The AMA said I still had to use our current 10G pull test rule. This means it requires a 280 pound pull test, it takes four big guys to do the test. There is a minimum weight limit for the pilot of 200 pounds. Sadly, I easily meet this minimum limit. It has a nice pull during all maneuvers. Lifting weights for a few years does help, especially on the overheads. Let me know if you want to fly it the next time you are in Las Vegas. :-)

Hi Rudy,
I take it then that you have moved from Manhattan Beach and now reside in Las Vegas? No sweat for lunch, just a little bit longer to get there.
Thanks for all of the written commentary and helpful pics and thread links. One of these will be used on my new model, probably the single piece wing system and the purchase of a sports tube. I'm simple too, er... well, you know. Lazy.
I have a nice Global Raven I've been collecting stuff for years to complete so I can fly C/L Scale competitively. A smaller version of your Extra. I doubt yours pulls much more than my old 60 ship! That's the great thing abut trimming, line tension is adjustable. Looks like fun.
Chris...

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #20 on:** August 27, 2010, 06:18:18 PM »

Hi Chris,

In the May 1991 "Impact" article in Flying Models Paul's model is a take-apart that uses a one piece wing with one of the systems shown in my photos. He now uses the two piece wing take-aparts, the CLC/Morris/USSR version. If you break the fuse in two pieces too, this makes a much smaller box for overseas shipping, but like you said the Sport Tube makes it easy for us to have everything "KIS". :-) I think you will find that you will be taking your take-apart Impact and your Sport Tube to many more flying sites and contests all across our little space ship in the future.

I haven't moved. I have had my home in LV and one here at the Beach for many years. We spend most of our time here at the Beach. We love it here, but I really miss my large shop at our home in LV.

The Raven is a very nice airplane. It looks great in the air with that spectacular paint scheme. Thanks for going along with my lame little Extra CL joke. ;-)

I look forward to seeing your take-apart Impact.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #21 on:** September 02, 2010, 04:18:51 PM »

Quote from: Rudy Taube on August 25, 2010, 04:43:59 AM

Below is a photo of a really KIS system that is my favorite, I hope to use this method on my Impact. This is the method I used on my E-Vector.

WOW that looks just like the E-Strega I built for the Brodak test program!

I reverse engineered (copied) something posted by one of the Spaniards (wish I cold remember who) did with his 4-stroke powered Strega-Lite. The Strega has a very shallow (flexible) fuselage over the wing cutout, so I added a bolt straight down through the top of the fueslage into a blind nut added to the upper bellcrank platform - don't have a good picture of that tho. Thus there are a total of 5 6-32 bolts holding the wing & fuse together. The tail is glued on per normal, but simply being able to remove the wing makes the Strega MUCH easier to carry around in the old Econo-box!

Recently I took the same approach on an ARC Smoothie, only this time I made the tail removable too. The aluminum landing gear straddles the lower front fuselage joint, I added a top belcrank platform with a blind nut and used 4-40 sized hardware. Hardest part was the tail... Someone pointed out I could have have cut the wing somehwere around mid span on the OB panel and made that a plug-in too. However, the "Traveling Smoothie" breaks down into a nice tidy package

Tieing into the title of this thread, take-apart (Brodak) ARC's & ARF's are quite feasible and not all that difficult to do.