News:


  • November 25, 2020, 04:08:04 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Endgame III Build  (Read 1691 times)

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Endgame III Build
« on: June 04, 2020, 02:39:05 PM »
This will be my first shot at a build thread.  I have followed others and was amazed at all  of the useful advice.  I like useful advice.  I am starting it at the design stage for a couple of reasons.  First and foremost, this will be a radical design.  I have been fascinated by canards since I was a kid.  Watching a video of Wolfgang Newcamp's Canard equipped plane in slow motion has me wanting to give it a try.  I am one of those fliers willing to try anything that might improve what i am flying and I always design my own.  Not because I think I am better at it but simply because I want to. 

So I will kick it off with a concept drawing.  When I get working plans done I will post them.  I really want anyone interested to "riip me a new one" if hey see something they don't like or have a better idea.  Intended power will be a Cobra 3520/12 or maybe a 3515/10 on a 2800 5 or 6s battery.

This will be a long build since I cannot actually start on it till the Fall.  Doing comprehensive plans and getting all the pieces ordered is therapy while my house and shop are rebuild from the fire we had in January.

The picture of Endgame II was taken two days before the fire.  I was 1 day from tricking Mike Scott into keeping it at his place and shooting some clear on it.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC


Advertise Here

Offline Randy Powell

  • 2020 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 10437
  • TreeTop Flyer
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2020, 10:00:48 AM »
Sounds fun to me.
Member in good standing of P.I.S.T
(Politically Incorrect Stunt Team)
AMA 67711
 Randy Powell

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2020, 12:55:23 PM »
Sounds fun to me.
I am enjoying working out all of the controls and goodies that I plan to add.  My theory is that if you don't try something you will never learn what to never do again! LL~
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2020, 01:45:12 PM »
Hello Ken,

It feels very good somebody is interested in my design.
One comment:
The CG will be more forward as usual, so you will have to move forward the leadouts and the undercarriage.
This is the analysis I did for my Triala, the small black line is the calculated range (and it did work...)
If you would like, I can do the same analysis for your layout, which has even more leading edge sweepback.


Regards,

Wolfgang

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2020, 04:04:53 PM »
You have some drawings on here somewhere so I should check to see how far forward the CG is.  The Canardless version has a CG that is way back due to the 30% stab.  I drew the leadouts an inch forward of where they are now and they cound go another inch forward.  I hesitate changing the LE sweep.  I have been using 1 1/2" for over 50 years.  The gear can move forward some without much of an issue.  From watching your video, it looks like the plane responds to the pilot about the same as a two surface ship.  You mentioned earlier that the plane was not fully trimmed when you shot that video.  I would love to see it trimmed.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2020, 09:19:20 AM »
Due to Corona our fields are closed until June 15.
New active timer will be tested, and also a 4 blade prop (two drone props bolted together).
Sometime next week I will feed your geometry in the analysis program, and let you know where the CG range should be.
Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2020, 12:38:48 PM »
Due to Corona our fields are closed until June 15.
New active timer will be tested, and also a 4 blade prop (two drone props bolted together).
Sometime next week I will feed your geometry in the analysis program, and let you know where the CG range should be.
Regards,
Wolfgang
That will be great. #^  The size and placement of the Canard are completely changeable.  I liked it forward.  Maybe as such it could be smaller.  The nose is designed so that I can "chop" out 3" and put the plane back to it's original dimensions.  That is why I don't want to change the LE sweep or the stab if possible.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2020, 12:35:40 PM »
Ken,
Your layout is perfect. Due to the large stab and the short coupling of the canard, the CG fits your leadout position.
Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2020, 01:14:26 PM »
Thanks a bunch.  I will proceed with the plans.  I will probably need some guidance to pick my initial control ratios.  I am guessing about equal on the elevator and canard and a bit less on the flaps.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2020, 02:48:49 AM »
My Triala has canard ±45°, elevator ±30° and flaps only ±20°.
You will have to lower the canard, to make space for the drive shaft. The motor has to be as far back as possible to obtain the desired CG location.
Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2020, 08:55:22 AM »
My Triala has canard ±45°, elevator ±30° and flaps only ±20°.
You will have to lower the canard, to make space for the drive shaft. The motor has to be as far back as possible to obtain the desired CG location.
Regards,
Wolfgang
Thanks.  I expected less flap but not less elevator.  I will start with your deflections since you know far more than I do at this point.  I have a 3" range on battery placement to get the proper starting C/G.  Am I correct in assuming that the canard will be the most sensitive surface to trim adjustments?

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2020, 03:36:12 AM »
  Am I correct in assuming that the canard will be the most sensitive surface to trim adjustments?

Yes, I made it adjustable, but kept it at ±45°.
Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2020, 10:53:59 AM »
First of what will probably be several engineering issues.  CONTROLS.  I have included a clip of what my plans currently have for the control layout (expand it, the thumbnail sucks).  The reason I went to driving the flaps and canard from the bottom was accessibility.  I plan to have separately adjustable flaps through a hatch in the bottom and having the horn under the Canard gave me access from the battery hatch.  This presented three issues that need  guidance form those who may have "been there and done that" 

Issue 1 - The length of the moments and their relative closeness to the center line makes for very little clearance for the leadout wires.  Even though I plan to use one with a center cutout and posts, I really don't like things rubbing so I am adding two nuts to either side to give me comfortable clearance.  Question is does this added height cause other problems.

Issue 2 - The length of the pushrods.  I am not as concerned with the 14" canard one as I am the 25" one in the tail.  I plan to use  a 1/4" light weight arrow shaft for that one.  They will flex a little under pressure but I don't have a clue how much pressure is applied in a full up.  The way this ia arranged I am getting push on both pushrods when giving "up" and pull on "down".

Issue 3 - there is no issue three yet but they say you should always have three points.... n1

It is only on paper at this point so if you think this whole setup is crappy and you have a better way - Let me have it, I am always open to considering anything. :!

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2020, 02:05:41 PM »
For the pushrods between bell crank, flaps and elevator I would use the classical layout, to avoid long arrowshafts.
A post on the bellcrank is a good idea.

Both items are considered on the drawing suggestion.
Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2020, 02:14:51 PM »
For the pushrods between bell crank, flaps and elevator I would use the classical layout, to avoid long arrowshafts.
A post on the bellcrank is a good idea.

Both items are considered on the drawing suggestion.
Regards,
Wolfgang


Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2020, 04:18:28 PM »

That would require  the "+" shaped bellcrank.  I will consider it.  I really wanted the flap linkage under the wing for access.  I will be using a "Y" to connect separate flaps for trimming.  That in itself raises an interesting question.  When you split the flaps and connect them separately does the natural rotation of the bellcrank cause the inboard flap to have slightly more deflection?  While I have your attention, is the Canard an effective way to trim for roll or should that be strictly the flaps?  Will there be some induced roll from the propwash?

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2020, 09:38:57 AM »
It will be easier to use a classic flap linkage. Just make a double horn :-)
Until now, no rolling effect apparent on the canard.
Suggestion:


Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2020, 12:03:30 PM »
It will be easier to use a classic flap linkage. Just make a double horn :-)
Until now, no rolling effect apparent on the canard.
Suggestion:


Regards,
Wolfgang
I have a version drawn up that way.  I do think it is better.  I notice that you use a shaft extension to move the motor back.  I assume that is to get the proper CG.  What is your overall weight.  Endgame II was 65 ounces and balanced pretty far back with a 5s 3000 battery about 1 1/2" ahead of the LE.  If it turns out that I need to move the motor back, where does one find such a contraption.?

ken - PS Thanks for all the help.
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2020, 01:11:17 PM »
Yes, the motor is  placed as far back as possible to get the CG right.

You could use rigid 5 mm shaft coupling, and a 5 mm steel or titanium shaft of suitable length.
Of course, near the propeller you need a 5mm ballbearing to support the shaft. You will need an aluminum bearing support, I made a two piece version on my chinese lathe...
When considering a titanium shaft, check the diameter very carefully!

The weight came out at 59,3 ounces, with a 4S 3200 mah battery. So, your model will generally somewhat bigger than my Triala.
Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Howard Rush

  • 2020 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7085
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2020, 12:59:03 PM »
As one of my bosses said when we were working on a canard transport airplane, "I see all those control surfaces, and I see Evil."
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2020, 02:03:51 PM »
Our control surfaces are coupled  H^^
Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2020, 10:03:01 PM »
As one of my bosses said when we were working on a canard transport airplane, "I see all those control surfaces, and I see Evil."
Everything that we consider mainstay today was once a radical new idea.       

This is a 50/50 but if it is 50 I will have a superior plane and if it is the other 50 it is designed to replace the Canard with a conventional nose.  I like to try new things.

Ken

AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2020, 03:12:36 PM »
Update - got the Fuselage designed. I am weighing shortening the tail to 18" due to the added canard.  The "non-canard" original was 19".  Plans are drawn to 18.5.  I am not adding any extra nose reinforcement just because of the canard.  The added lift should compensate for the added "g" forces in turns.

I have not used an over/under flap horn for a very long time.  I did it once on a jet style design with the elevator below the C/L of the wing.  Design was a bust but the controls seemed to work OK.  If anybody has any thoughts I would appreciate it.

Next the Canard, Wing & Stab.   I am going to do either a full foam or SV-11 type lost foam build.  Where would I go to get the tools to draw the ribs for the angled ribs?

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Matt Colan

  • N-756355
  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3175
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2020, 08:47:34 PM »
Is it adjustable?
Matt Colan

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2020, 09:11:28 PM »
 
Is it adjustable?
LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
Everywhere possible!

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2020, 10:42:24 AM »
Ken,
due to the forward motor position, and also due to the lighter tail, you will have to move the battery as far back as possible. Maybe you should consider a recess at the leading edge.
The idea to place the pushrod alongside the battery is excellent!
Regards,
Wolfgang.

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2020, 11:44:55 AM »
Ken,
due to the forward motor position, and also due to the lighter tail, you will have to move the battery as far back as possible. Maybe you should consider a recess at the leading edge.
The idea to place the pushrod alongside the battery is excellent!
Regards,
Wolfgang.
I was leaving that option open.  What concerned me was the length of the battery wires.  I have build wings with a recess at the LE but I don't like to.  May not have a choice.

What are your thoughts on shortening the tail movement?  The original turned extremely well with a 19.5 tail movement (my earlier post was wrong).  I never had the chance to measure it's minimum practical radius since I lost it in the fire but I am guessing it was in the 9' range.  I did take it to full control on an the third outside just to see if it would stall and it turned in what appeared to be about a 6' radius and did not stall as expected. In a normal pattern I would probably fly about 12' corners.  My goal is to get them to 10'.  I do not expect adding the Canard is going to make the corners any tighter.  What I am looking for is how the corner is presented.  I will never have the reflexes again that I had when I was a 35 year old hot shot so I have to fall back on experience (and maybe bribing the judges. LL~) to get back on the podium.

I am very much a visualization type and if the plane flies tangent near the center I can fly some really 1st class rounds.  If it is off,  especially if it pivots near the tail, I can't get my shapes to work and consistently overshoot intersections.

If the Canard will help make the corners smoother and lock onto the flat easier then It will be worth it.  If not then plan "B" is to de-canard and cut 3" off of the nose.  That is why I want to know if leaving the tail movement at 19.5 is OK.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2020, 12:25:06 PM »
Ken,
I would leave the tail at 19".
Sea it this way: The tail provides the stability, the canard the maneuvering.
The extra tailweight limits the amount of taillead you might need....
Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2020, 03:37:31 PM »
After considerable reading I have decided to go with Igor's MaxBee airfoil.  Where I am not finding answers is why recessed flaps make no difference.  The sketch shows the TE airfoil with and without recessed flaps.  Both achieve the smooth top camber at 30 degrees that Igor prescribes but the non-recessed/rounded flap has a significant trough at the hinge line.  Does that matter?

If it matters, I also will be using the logarithmic flap horn (if they actually exist anywhere but in Igor's planes and a few lucky others!)

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2020, 11:18:04 AM »
It has been a while.  Our house construction is going slow so this project just keeps getting pushed back.  Design wise it has given me time to think about some changes.  Today's question revolves around my plan to use Igor's flap linkage.   From those who have used it, does it require maintenance?  As some who fly with me have noticed, I like things to be adjustable.  In my RC days the one thing I liked was the hatch to get to everything.  I am working on a layout that would expose from the bellcrank to aft of the flap horn through a large removable bottom hatch.  Assuming that I have enough building and design experience to keep the wing from folding, what if any are the downsides?  I just don't see any,  other that it will take more time to build.

I am probably going to put off the Canard (Endgame III) and build II first.  Same plane with a conventional nose.  I don't want the only thing I will have to fly for most of next year be experimental.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline john e. holliday

  • 2020 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 21266
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2020, 01:24:24 PM »
I may be late jumping in on this.   I do not consider either design a true canard.  I built the Dick Sarpolous design a few years ago just to see why people said a canard is nopt flyable as far as the AMA pattern.  It is powered with an OS LA 40 and Zinger 11-5 prop.  The first time I flew it I had to get used to the look of it in the air  Also it was very responsive, but was livable.   After adding some nose weight and cutting down the throw on the rear moving surface I could do patterns when the LA co-operated.   I then created the Ringmaster Canard with out the rear moving surface.  I had to cut down the throw on the front moving surface as it was even more responsive than the Sarpolous design.  Power was LA .25 with 9-6 prop.   With out the rear moving surface had to change landing gear to a location as far forward as I could get it so it would take off with out help from pit man as I fly using a stooge.   Right now it awaits new booms as I for got to add nose weight when I rebuilt it from previous accident.   By the way I thing rear moving surface is needed to keep the nose up until some air is moving over the front surface.

By the way the Sarpolous design was flown at VSC one year just to show the guys/gals that a canard is flyable.  John B. when he was here in KC area did see me put it through several patterns.  Never flown in competition because of how strange it looks in the air.   May have to dust it off and have fun again.

By the way the lead out guide is well for ward of the leading edge with the bell crank in normal position.  May add moving rear section when the Ringmaster Canard gets rebuilt with ply wood booms for some weight up front. H^^
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline Howard Rush

  • 2020 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7085
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2020, 11:43:16 PM »
From those who have used it, does it require maintenance? 

Maybe.  In my case, it doesn't get it.  It squeaked for awhile, but now it doesn't.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline jfv

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 539
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2020, 09:15:55 AM »
I use the log flap mechanism on this year's plane and I did clean and oil it after about 100 flights.  Like how it works.  I have a hatch for maintenance.  Used the hatch access for trimming adjustments.  Would not recommend building without the hatch.
Jim Vigani

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2020, 02:25:33 PM »
I use the log flap mechanism on this year's plane and I did clean and oil it after about 100 flights.  Like how it works.  I have a hatch for maintenance.  Used the hatch access for trimming adjustments.  Would not recommend building without the hatch.
Thanks for the images.  This is pretty much what I want to do only on the bottom.  My only concern is stress on the wing fuselage joint at the flap hinge line.  100 flights is not excessive but it is probably enough to develop a stress crack if it was going to happen.  It appears that the only adjustment might be the length of the arm driving the flaps.  Do I need any extra mechanical leverage at the ballcrank?  It appears that the linkage might loose some leverage through the transfer.

By the way, what is the linkage in.  From what I can see that is a cool airplane.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline jfv

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 539
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2020, 08:54:40 PM »
No stress cracks, but I designed the fuse to take the load.  If you are concerned, put some 1/64” ply doublers across the fuselage/flap line joint.  I adjusted the pushrod length between the bellcrank and the flaps to even out the control response.  I adjust the pushrod between the flaps and the elevator through a hatch at the rear.  Made my own 4” bellcrank with the pushrod hole 13/16” from the pivot.  The hatch makes it easy to adjust, clean and lube the parts.  The plane is my own design called the Stalker.  586 in2 wing area.  Here’s a couple of photos.
Jim Vigani

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2020, 11:10:33 AM »
Back to the Non Canard Endgame II.  The Canard will have to wait till I have something to compete with in 2021.  Updated Airfoil and nose.  Added the Igor Flap thingie, a tail weight box and hatches for access to the bellcrank and flap horn.  Anybody spots anything dumb speak out.

The outrageous engine offset is the camera, 1 Degree in the actual.  Rethinking the Elevator.  May thin it and taper the Stab TE similar to the MaxBee.

Ken


AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline jfv

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 539
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2020, 12:36:13 PM »
Looks like you have the elevator pushrod on the wrong end of the Igor transfer crank.  The way it's set up, you will have up flap with up elevator.
Jim Vigani

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2020, 01:55:41 PM »
Looks like you have the elevator pushrod on the wrong end of the Igor transfer crank.  The way it's set up, you will have up flap with up elevator.
Nice Catch ''  I had a conventional horn when I first drew it and I forgot to switch it.  Now I am going to have to rework the CAM rudder since the push rod will go straight through it.  It's all your fault  LL~

I was exiting the wing on the bottom to provide access to the bellcrank.  That may have to go too unless I can see a way to put the elevator horn on top.  Might work but the hatch would be difficult unless I
simply make that horn fixed and do all of the ratio adjustment on the Igor.  Humm, might work.
Oh well,  If I can convert a Nobler ARF to electric and get all of that crap into a nose that is already too short, I can figure this one out. :!

I knew I inked it too soon!  mw~

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Brent Williams

  • 2020 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • Making America Fly Stunt Again!
    • Fancher Handles - Presented by Brent Williams
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2020, 02:10:35 PM »
Ken, this might be an unwarranted over-reach, but here is a subtle revision with the canopy moved forward and a bit of a rake to the rudder.  ;D
Laser-cut, "Ted Fancher Precision-Pro" Hard Point Handle Kits are available again.  PM for info.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/brent-williams'-fancher-handles-and-cl-parts/ted-fancher's-precision-pro-handle-kit-by-brent-williams-information/

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2020, 03:07:23 PM »
Ken, this might be an unwarranted over-reach, but here is a subtle revision with the canopy moved forward and a bit of a rake to the rudder.  ;D
I thought acout doing that to get a top hatch with the canopy but I am trying to keep it as close to Endgame I as possible.  I like the "20's Air Race" look when it is in the air.  Picture of "I".  Revised the controls to get the right results.  I think I need to trace these and re-ink.  Running out of correction fluid!

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2020, 05:09:38 AM »
Ken,
you could also relocate the pushrod as shown. Igors mechanism would be simplified (and lighter).
To keep the up leadout at the front, you could invert the bellcrank.
Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2020, 11:21:03 AM »
Ken,
you could also relocate the pushrod as shown. Igors mechanism would be simplified (and lighter).
To keep the up leadout at the front, you could invert the bellcrank.
Regards,
Wolfgang

I am trying to accommodate both an adjustable bellcrank and a CAM rudder.  Both are compromised by having the pushrod in the bottom position.  I have done it this way before and it did not present any problems other than a slightly more solid up elevator vs down.
I really want to have access to the bellcrank and a top hatch with the far aft canopy just doesn't work.

Having said that I will redraw all of it using your suggestion and see whet I think.  I may be able to relocate the tail weight box and move the CAM down.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Wolfgang Nieuwkamp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #42 on: November 16, 2020, 12:39:46 PM »
Ken,

for the canard version, please look at the motor with an extended shaft,
  https://hackermotorusa.com/shop/hacker-brushless-motors/outrunners/a30-12-xl-glider/

Regards,
Wolfgang

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2020, 09:23:39 PM »
Ken,

for the canard version, please look at the motor with an extended shaft,
  https://hackermotorusa.com/shop/hacker-brushless-motors/outrunners/a30-12-xl-glider/

Regards,
Wolfgang
I like it.  Might work on a standard nose as well.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2902
Re: Endgame III Build
« Reply #44 on: November 20, 2020, 09:28:36 PM »
I am getting close to starting the project (Standard Nose) and I need to find somebody to make some logarithmic flap controls.  My shop and all of my tools are gone so I need help.  I checked with the other fliers in our group and we could order at least 5.  If anybody is interested please PM.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC


Advertise Here
Tags: