Author Topic: New Toad (Read 26474 times)

Allan Perret · « **Reply #50 on:** November 15, 2010, 02:16:42 PM »

What are the pros and cons of the geodetic rib layout versus standard parrallel rib layout.
Lighter, if so how much might you save on a wing this size ?
I've heard some claim more torsional rigidity, and I can see that might be the case before the wing is covered. But once the covering is applied to any wing, thats where most of the torsional strength comes from.
It looks like its extra work and I'm just wondering if its worth it. I like the appearance for a modern ship, but prefer the standard layout for classics.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #51 on:** November 15, 2010, 04:02:57 PM »

Allan,

I've built them both ways. I can say that if you cap the ribs to provide a T frame, then the torsional stability is a lot higher with the Warren Truss layout than with parallel ribs. Resistance to the tip moving is much higher. The covering will give a certain amount of rigidity, but this layout is a lot more stable structurally. Particularly with the box layout with the main spar and trailing edge. And the way I build wings, it's no more difficult to build this way than with parallel rib layout.

Chris Wilson · « **Reply #52 on:** November 18, 2010, 09:01:22 PM »

Randy, forgive me if this is a silly question but why are there double ribs at the wings tips?

Thanks.

Claudio Chacon · « **Reply #53 on:** November 19, 2010, 05:02:09 AM »

NEAT as usual Randy!
I can smell the wood of that wing...

Keep those pictures coming...

Regards,
Claudio.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #54 on:** November 19, 2010, 09:48:54 AM »

Chris,

Only on one wing tip. The wing has about 5/8" asymmetry.

Claudio,

Yea, this plane looks very different from what I've been doing, but the numbers are just a progression of the design series I've been working on for the past few years. Different look, but really an evolution of the same plane.

Mike Ferguson · « **Reply #55 on:** November 19, 2010, 12:18:33 PM »

Just noticed the twin rudders on the stab ... going for the "Stunt Machine" aesthetics, Randy?

Randy Powell · « **Reply #56 on:** November 19, 2010, 12:47:51 PM »

Mike,

Not particularly, though I like that plane. This was more in keeping with the overall look of a '59 El Camino low rider. It will be clearer when the rest of it is together.

Mike Ferguson · « **Reply #57 on:** November 19, 2010, 01:08:59 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 19, 2010, 12:47:51 PM

This was more in keeping with the overall look of a '59 El Camino low rider.

That sounds pretty cool, too.

Looking forward to seeing how this one comes along!

wwwarbird · « **Reply #58 on:** November 19, 2010, 07:39:32 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 19, 2010, 12:47:51 PM

Mike,

Not particularly, though I like that plane. This was more in keeping with the overall look of a '59 El Camino low rider. It will be clearer when the rest of it is together.

'Cept that's a '63 or '64 in the pic.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #59 on:** November 21, 2010, 08:38:56 PM »

Faird not, Wayne, it's a 59. I have a friend with one. We've talked endlessly about finding parts. His is about half done because he wanted to use original parts and they are not easy to find. That little shade on the back window notoriously rust out. The 1960 is similar, but doesn't have the "brows" over the headlights. Here's a pic of a 1960, 1963 and a 1964. The Impala version of the 1963 was once thought of as the ultimate low rider car. I couldn't find a decent pic of the 1963, so this is a pic of a 1963 convertable. sigh...

Randy Powell · « **Reply #60 on:** November 21, 2010, 08:45:55 PM »

OK, here's a pic of the simi-completed wing. It's done, just rough sanded on the tips and rough shaped on the leading edge and trailing edge. Lot more sanding to do there.

The wing is now in the fuse, sort of. Have to replace the cut out and do some fidgeting, but it's largely in.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #61 on:** November 21, 2010, 09:54:20 PM »

Randy....It's a '60 El Camino. The '59's had "cat's eye" tail lights and a smooth arc in the "fins" over the tail lights. I've got some seat time in a '59.

Steve

PS: Your plane is looking cool, so far...keep up the good work.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #62 on:** November 21, 2010, 11:32:07 PM »

Oops that's right, no fins on the '63 and the '64 was the first year of the smaller car. I got faked out by the rear fender sides. Steve is actually correct, '60 had a defined kink in the middle of the fin like in your pic and '59 was a constant radius end to end with the "cat-eye" lights. I've always thought a fire engine red low riding Pro-Street '59 Camino would be a totally bad a__ ride.

Let's get back to the plane-she's lookin' good!

Randy Powell · « **Reply #63 on:** November 22, 2010, 09:47:23 AM »

That's interesting. The pic came from a Chevy club site and was marked 59. But you're right. As I said, the 59 had the "eyebrows" over the headlights on the front. I suppose if it was a front view, I would have picked that up. The rear had the fins without the break. According to the classic Chev site I was looking at, the change over came mid year, so I suppose they are both 59s, but the point is good.

By the want, the wing, as it sites there in the last picture, came in right at 9.4oz. That's about .6oz under budget which is pretty cool. I may have to build another tail. The current one with stab, elevator and rudders already on along with hinges and horn is about 3.5oz. It's quite straight, but I imagine I could probably know as much a half ounce off that if I took another go. We'll see. I had hoped (probably foolishly) that I could get the tail under 2.75oz. It's a big tail.

This plane needs to come in in the 52-55oz range to be a good flier. So far, I'm in the park, but I can't have any heavy components. Particularly the tailplane. I don't want to be adding lead to the nose.

Chris Wilson · « **Reply #64 on:** November 22, 2010, 04:18:18 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 19, 2010, 09:48:54 AM

Chris,

Only on one wing tip. The wing has about 5/8" asymmetry.

Thanks for the reply mate but I am referring to 'ribs' not tips here.

You have two sets of ribs parallel on the jigged wings extremity (see attached pic).

I assume that this for strength?

Cheers.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #65 on:** November 22, 2010, 04:31:14 PM »

Hi Chris,

Not really. The wing has 5/8" asymmetry. The extra rib is on the inboard side only and is just extending the wing 5/8". I suppose I could have just increased the rib spacing a bit all they way down the wing and eliminated the extra rib, but I wanted to keep both wings with the same rib layout. Also kept the airfoil consistent from the inboard side to the outboard.

Hope that's clear.

Chris Wilson · « **Reply #66 on:** November 22, 2010, 05:19:15 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 22, 2010, 04:31:14 PM

Hi Chris,

Not really. The wing has 5/8" asymmetry. The extra rib is on the inboard side only and is just extending the wing 5/8". I suppose I could have just increased the rib spacing a bit all they way down the wing and eliminated the extra rib, but I wanted to keep both wings with the same rib layout. Also kept the airfoil consistent from the inboard side to the outboard.

Hope that's clear.

Very clear now, thanks.

You are a fussy builder mate but at least you will never confuse which is outboard and which is inboard with this method!

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #67 on:** November 22, 2010, 06:58:46 PM »

Randy...The double ribs would be great if you are sheeting the last bay and tips...but only if you do both ends!

I do like the idea of sheeting the last bay on each tip to improve torsional stiffys.

I also like the 5/8" wing assymetry.

Regarding your heavy tailplane...less balsa helps, usually. And I keep thinking that all that iron in the control horn is something that needs a fresh approach. There just has to be a way to do this job with carbon fiber...at least on the elevators, if not the flaps. How about a carbon tube (or flat plate) to connect the two elevators, with a carbon lever epoxied on?

Steve

Will Hinton · « **Reply #68 on:** November 22, 2010, 08:36:40 PM »

Steve,
I personally wouldn't like the epoxy idea; we often allow our ships to set on hot tarmac and the temp can really get a boost like that. Epoxy softens with heat, and I'd be leery of that possibility under many summer conditions. With the stress our horns undergo, that would seem a bit of a gamble to me. Whadayathink?
Will

Allan Perret · « **Reply #69 on:** November 23, 2010, 09:46:37 AM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 22, 2010, 09:47:23 AM

That's interesting. The pic came from a Chevy club site and was marked 59. But you're right. As I said, the 59 had the "eyebrows" over the headlights on the front. I suppose if it was a front view, I would have picked that up. The rear had the fins without the break. According to the classic Chev site I was looking at, the change over came mid year, so I suppose they are both 59s, but the point is good.

By the want, the wing, as it sites there in the last picture, came in right at 9.4oz. That's about .6oz under budget which is pretty cool. I may have to build another tail. The current one with stab, elevator and rudders already on along with hinges and horn is about 3.5oz. It's quite straight, but I imagine I could probably know as much a half ounce off that if I took another go. We'll see. I had hoped (probably foolishly) that I could get the tail under 2.75oz. It's a big tail.

This plane needs to come in in the 52-55oz range to be a good flier. So far, I'm in the park, but I can't have any heavy components. Particularly the tailplane. I don't want to be adding lead to the nose.

Hey Randy:
Did you ever see the custom Chey that was a combination of the 57, 58, & 59 models. Really cool. I might have saved the pics somewhere if you've never seen it.

52-55 oz.
Thats a big hurdle..
What's the area and power on this one ?

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #70 on:** November 23, 2010, 10:18:38 AM »

Will, my latest stunter uses two layers of 1/16 ply forming a horn that is also cut with the shape of the elevator airfoil, epoxied onto the end of th surface with CF pins locking it. Its integral to the surface and SOLID. The two halves are connected with a standard wire but no horn on it.
sorry for stealin the thread Randy, i dig the new concept,, now get it finished,, you know you cant go to work in this weather,, just stay home and build,, well assuming you still have power?

Will Hinton · « **Reply #71 on:** November 23, 2010, 03:07:20 PM »

Mark, I would be comfortable with that. The pins are what makes me that way, and also, the surface you have used for the epoxy. My lack of comfort would be with a horn relying on the epoxy holding it to a round, tubular surface that experiences twisting forces with no pins, or other locking . (I'm a pansy.)
Have a great Thanksgiving. In fact, everyone else, too!!
Will

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #72 on:** November 23, 2010, 09:10:55 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 21, 2010, 08:38:56 PM

Faird not, Wayne, it's a 59. I have a friend with one. We've talked endlessly about finding parts. His is about half done because he wanted to use original parts and they are not easy to find. That little shade on the back window notoriously rust out. The 1960 is similar, but doesn't have the "brows" over the headlights. Here's a pic of a 1960, 1963 and a 1964. The Impala version of the 1963 was once thought of as the ultimate low rider car. I couldn't find a decent pic of the 1963, so this is a pic of a 1963 convertable. sigh...

Sorry guys, but that's a 60 El Camino, the 59 had the teardrop tail lights and the 60 had the round ones. They carried the same styling ques as their parent vehicles.

Now the tricky ones are the '57 and '58 Rancheros, both had the 57's round tail lights but their respective year's front clip. You couldn't tell then apart from the rear.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #73 on:** November 23, 2010, 11:18:43 PM »

Yep, look backwards a few replies Randy-we got'er sussed a day or two ago.

I'm checkin' out the airplane now, this is gonna be a cool one.

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #74 on:** November 24, 2010, 10:02:03 AM »

Quote from: wwwarbird on November 23, 2010, 11:18:43 PM

Yep, look backwards a few replies Randy-we got'er sussed a day or two ago.

I'm checkin' out the airplane now, this is gonna be a cool one.

Dang, how'd I miss that!? But I supplied pictures!!!

Randy Powell · « **Reply #75 on:** November 27, 2010, 12:32:45 AM »

Well, it's in almost one piece. Having a dilemma figuring out the bottom block and how to get the pipe to fit. Should have it sorted out tomorrow. It's nitpicking details right now.

Matt Colan · « **Reply #76 on:** November 27, 2010, 08:05:58 AM »

Very slick Randy!!! Is that drawing I see on the wall the sketch for this plane?

Allan Perret · « **Reply #77 on:** November 27, 2010, 08:45:30 AM »

That is a sharp looking tail.. Are the wheel pants going to match the shape of the rudderlets ?

Randy Powell · « **Reply #78 on:** November 27, 2010, 01:39:05 PM »

The plan on the wall is an early rendition. I've redrawn the wheelpants about six times since then. The current shape is similar to the rudders with a quirk.

Allan Perret · « **Reply #79 on:** November 27, 2010, 04:46:35 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 27, 2010, 01:39:05 PM

The plan on the wall is an early rendition. I've redrawn the wheelpants about six times since then. The current shape is similar to the rudders with a quirk.

Hey that sounds cool.
Early on you mentioned "weird flap design". Any pictures on that yet ?

Randy Powell · « **Reply #80 on:** November 27, 2010, 05:24:18 PM »

Allan,

Not built yet. I had planned to put a hatch on the bottom block, but have decided to just cut a hole and put in vents. I'm a bit paranoid about weight. The less stuff glued on, the better.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #81 on:** November 27, 2010, 10:22:17 PM »

Seems like I spent half the day working on two issues. Trying to get the canopy and cockpit worked out (that one is mostly solved) and figuring out how I'm going to get the pipe in and out without a hatch. Still working on that one, but I'll figure it out eventually.

I don't want the hatch because I'm trying to keep the weight down. It's pretty light right now and I'd like to keep it that way. Looks pretty cool so far.

Matt Colan · « **Reply #82 on:** November 28, 2010, 08:37:56 AM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 27, 2010, 10:22:17 PM

Seems like I spent half the day working on two issues. Trying to get the canopy and cockpit worked out (that one is mostly solved) and figuring out how I'm going to get the pipe in and out without a hatch. Still working on that one, but I'll figure it out eventually.

I don't want the hatch because I'm trying to keep the weight down. It's pretty light right now and I'd like to keep it that way. Looks pretty cool so far.

Randy, here's how I did mine without a hatch. The tunnel was 1/64th plywood just pressed layed in place and since 1/64th plywood is very flexible, and it gave a very round pipe tunnel. If I remember right, I think it added about 1 or 2 ounces of weight. The pipe gets a lot of cooling, and it's very easy to get it in and out of the plane.

Edit: I glued it in with white glue and pinned it down. After that, I capped it with 1/4 x 1/4 balsa strip, and just rounded the edges.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #83 on:** November 28, 2010, 11:12:21 AM »

Randy,
I like it alot, but I think you missed a chance to carry the theme,, you needed to sculpt a couple tail fin strakes to tie the top block into the horizantal stab , slightly uncercut, and maybe a couple "blue dot" LEDs at the end of the fins to carry the theme. I hope you have a chain steering wheel for it too?
all kidding aside, its looking lean,, I like it

John Miller · « **Reply #84 on:** November 28, 2010, 11:40:22 AM »

I like it too. Awaiting more pics of the finishing, and flight reports.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #85 on:** November 28, 2010, 02:41:45 PM »

Matt,

I want the pipe enclosed for cooling and coolness reasons

Mark,

I have an idea for the pipe tunnel that should enhance the lowness. Right now, I'm getting ready to dye the canopy.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #86 on:** November 29, 2010, 01:44:20 PM »

OK, canopy died and the base cockpit is complete (or as complete as it will get - not much of a cockpit guy). I even got the little Pete's Pilots pilot painted. He is definitely a lowrider. Hmm, maybe hydraulics for the gear...

The bottom block is still in flux. I came up with an idea, but haven't decided yet what I really want to do. In the mean time, I'll get the flaps built and get the fairings on and complete the cockpit and put on the canopy. Can even do the gear before I have to decide. Maybe I'll have an epiphany or inspiration or something.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #87 on:** November 29, 2010, 07:29:20 PM »

I'm sorry to hear about your canopy.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #88 on:** November 29, 2010, 08:06:44 PM »

"OK, canopy died and the base cockpit is complete (or as complete as it will get - not much of a cockpit guy). I even got the little Pete's Pilots pilot painted. He is definitely a lowrider. Hmm, maybe hydraulics for the gear..."

Howard's right. It makes me very sad to hear of this stragedy (sic).

Steve

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #89 on:** November 29, 2010, 08:18:04 PM »

That was my first thought too, especially since he dedicated having a pilot and cockpit especially for my sake,, then to hear it died,, what a travesty, I feel slighted,, slightly,,

Randy Powell · « **Reply #90 on:** November 29, 2010, 09:47:55 PM »

Geez, one typo and it brings Howard out of hibernation. OK, dyed not died. (darned auto correct spell checker anyway)

wwwarbird · « **Reply #91 on:** November 29, 2010, 11:06:08 PM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on November 29, 2010, 07:29:20 PM

I'm sorry to hear about your canopy.

Heh-heh.

Lookin' good Randy, definitely got that 60's Stunt era look.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #92 on:** November 30, 2010, 09:19:48 PM »

Ok, I think I have the bottom block worked out. And it will be a lot lighter than my original idea, though not as high on the cool scale. Hey, you have to draw a line somewhere.

I'm also in the process of finishing the cockpit. Silkspan is in and should be able to slop filler in tomorrow, sand it out and put the base paint down. Just need to figure out what color.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #93 on:** November 30, 2010, 09:36:41 PM »

Paint it the same color as the Slider. That way, you'll be able to fix the hole in the Slider wing at the same time, and have two good bullets.

Steve

john e. holliday · « **Reply #94 on:** December 01, 2010, 08:26:33 AM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 29, 2010, 09:47:55 PM

Geez, one typo and it brings Howard out of hibernation. OK, dyed not died. (darned auto correct spell checker anyway)

Sounds like Howard. I blame my mistakes on the keyboard.

Also no matter how many times I proof read a post, I still miss something.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #95 on:** December 01, 2010, 09:59:27 AM »

Steve,

Hey, it's a low rider. I need to come up with a low rider paint scheme. I have some ideas. Orange may be involved (which should make Howard happy).

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #96 on:** December 01, 2010, 11:49:21 AM »

dude, JEW NEED SUM GOLD LEAF MAN,,,, SOME LACE PANELS,, AND SOME NICE FAT PINSTRIPES

Randy Powell · « **Reply #97 on:** December 01, 2010, 02:38:26 PM »

Mark,

Well, I found a color I want to use. One of those; a car drives by and you go: oh, oh, I want that color. Unfortunately, the car was a 2010 and the car company hasn't release the color code yet. Now, if I had a car like that and had an accident and was going to fix it, I'm told that the body shop I went to could get the paint (though hey probably have to sign in blood or something for it), but my local paint shop says they can't mix the color yet. Maybe mid-January. Sigh...

So, I'll have to think of something else. Maybe something restrained. I've never much liked lace paint jobs (though I liked your fishnet job). I'll come up with something.

John Miller · « **Reply #98 on:** December 01, 2010, 03:35:40 PM »

I'm picturing something in my mind, reminiscent of Tom Wardens purple Minado. I was told that it had over 7 differnt shades of purple on it. It was so low rider.....

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #99 on:** December 01, 2010, 06:12:05 PM »

Randy,
if you can get the factory paint code, I can get the mixing formula,, I got people ya know