Author Topic: Dads new Stunt Model (test flight results) (Read 10632 times)

dave shirley jr · « **on:** May 09, 2009, 10:52:22 PM »

Here is a picture of dads new stunt model
616 Square inches
PA 65 on a pipe
it is basicaly a modern piped stunt model ,Except.....
it has two wings.
it is a really interesting model, it was dificult to get the pipe and controls stuffed inside the fuselage.
but dad managed to stuff it all in ther quite nicely.
I get to test fly it next weekend And it should be fun!
stay tuned for test flight results
Dave jr.

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2009, 10:53:45 PM »

another shot

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2009, 10:54:21 PM »

another angle

Randy Powell · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2009, 12:20:55 AM »

Dave,

Ah, WOW! That should be interesting. Who says there's no creativity in stunt anymore?

Matt Colan · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2009, 05:43:58 AM »

That is so cool. I really like it

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2009, 06:24:39 AM »

Fantastic!

john e. holliday · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2009, 07:07:42 AM »

That is one gorgeous Bi-Plane. DOC Holliday

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2009, 08:02:17 AM »

Double Wow! Both you and your dad are fantastic builders, and this one is no exception. Can't wait for the flight report.

Joe Gilbert · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2009, 01:11:29 PM »

Outstanding I like it

Doug Moon · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2009, 01:20:48 PM »

That is RAD!!

proparc · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2009, 02:24:53 PM »

You've got to be kidding me! Who is this guy? This plane is rocking

Phil Coopy · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2009, 03:16:24 PM »

Really nice!!

Phil

Garf · « **Reply #12 on:** May 10, 2009, 04:37:09 PM »

I never could get the top wing to stay on a Bipe. Looks good.

Will Hinton · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2009, 04:55:27 PM »

It just don't get any better than this!!!! WONDERFUL plane!

Gene O'Keefe · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2009, 05:35:36 PM »

PA 65 - wow - hold on tight !

Peter Ferguson · « **Reply #15 on:** May 10, 2009, 07:20:22 PM »

I love Ultimate Bipes and the colors are great. I am anxious to know how it flies.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #16 on:** May 11, 2009, 02:44:43 PM »

NEAT!

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2009, 06:09:47 PM »

Hey Dave:

You Shirleys are too much!

I see plans on the table where the model is resting; is this a modification of an RC ship or is it purpose designed for CL Stunt?

And for the rest of the country, we in Northern California will get to see this in person, while you can only see photos! Lastly, you can be sure Dave Jr has something in the works to top this, if I don't miss my guess.

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:52:26 PM »

Hi Mike
It definitelly isn't an adapted RC model.It was purpose designed to be a stunt model.the plans under it are the autocad plans that i drew last year. if you look carfully you can see some red markings, that is dads revisions he made while building. and that i have to now make to the plans.
this was a real colaboration between he and I. it was a lot of fun to do together. we were on the phone discusuing changes all thru the build.
i figured out a theoretical C/G both vertical and fore and aft and Dad managed to built it and it balances right on the design .so
now we get to see if i was correct or not.
He fortunately (for me) did all the building i just had to draw up the design.
I think it will even fit into my wagon!
Dave jr.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #19 on:** May 12, 2009, 05:56:18 AM »

Quote from: Garf on May 10, 2009, 04:37:09 PM

I never could get the top wing to stay on a Bipe. Looks good.

Those inverted landings are a little hard on them, all right...

I once built a triplane that unfortunately had the habit of quitting while inverted. I knocked the top wing off nearly every time I flew it. Finally gave it the old "repair-and-retire" routine.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #20 on:** May 12, 2009, 06:13:00 PM »

WELL, HOW DOES IT FLY?? (I'm shouting!)

If the weather was too bad to fly, nobody's gonna believe you!

Steve

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #21 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:24:25 PM »

well since last weekend was mothers day we didn't get together to go flying.
the plan was to go this weekend. as long as the weather is fine we should be testing on sunday at woodland

mothers day is never a good day to go flying!
there's no since in two generations of shirleys getting in trouble at once.
Dave jr.

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #22 on:** May 13, 2009, 10:01:34 AM »

Thats for sure Dave; As the old saying goes, if MAMA aint happy, aint nobody happy.

Dave Shirley Sr · « **Reply #23 on:** May 13, 2009, 11:46:24 AM »

Dave did not mention one thing It is OUR!! plane and project, you will notice his ama # is on the fuselage and mine is on the wing He! designed it we spent hours on the phone figuring out how to put some of it together He came up with the idea of how to get the pipe and flap controls all in side it I put it together and he painted it. All I did was last year ask what he thought of us building a biplane.

ptg · « **Reply #24 on:** May 13, 2009, 12:22:09 PM »

Dear Dave(s)

VIVA LA DIFFERENCE!!!!

Really looking forward to seeing this on go. Too bad you're going to do it in Woodland on Sunday. We will be at Mission and my new dog just might bark for the first time. Brett has a new camera and we need to give him something interesting to do so he won't be so annoying!

Two Daves Two Wings Cool Things!

Good luck Sunday and take lots of pictures!

Kim Mortimore · « **Reply #25 on:** May 13, 2009, 03:46:19 PM »

Dave,

I would have given my left arm for this kind of collaboration with my dad when I was a kid (cuz I'm left-handed). What a wonderful relationship you guys have.

Kim

John Hammonds · « **Reply #26 on:** May 13, 2009, 03:55:00 PM »

Wow, If that flies half as good as it looks you in for a treat.

TTFN
John.

Allan Perret · « **Reply #27 on:** May 13, 2009, 05:05:50 PM »

Looks great, hope it flies well.
Would love to have a short kit or plan for this one..

Dave Shirley Sr · « **Reply #28 on:** May 13, 2009, 05:22:26 PM »

Hi Phil Dave has a state licensing thing to go to Saturday so we will be out there Sunday. Look forward to seeing you an Brett

ptg · « **Reply #29 on:** May 13, 2009, 09:05:30 PM »

Quote from: Dave Shirley Sr on May 13, 2009, 05:22:26 PM

Hi Phil Dave has a state licensing thing to go to Saturday so we will be out there Sunday. Look forward to seeing you an Brett

It's a deal! See you there. Bring lots of liquids, might get as high as 100 on the asphalt

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #30 on:** May 14, 2009, 12:29:41 AM »

well it looks like i might come down to see you guys at the college sunday.
I might bring two airplanes and three wings.
maybe we can all try to figure out how to trim out a biplane!
Dave jr.

M Spencer · « **Reply #31 on:** May 14, 2009, 03:37:27 AM »

Nice to see somebody being a bit creative .

Ive got a few aeroplanes that could do with finishing like that i could send you too ...

Nice paintwork !

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #32 on:** May 14, 2009, 09:48:46 AM »

Dave 2 (squared),

SPECTACULAR!!!

I might just have to jump in the car and drive down to mission on Sunday just to see this thing go. I should probably fly, too since the Regionals are coming up and I can't remember the last time I flipped or flew.

I would reiterate an earlier comment with which I have some personal experience. Mentally review the design and construction of the top wing attachment. It's easy to forget how much tension will exist on the joints between the wing under high g's with the mass suspended beneath it.

Ted Fancher

Dave Shirley Sr · « **Reply #33 on:** May 14, 2009, 01:05:00 PM »

Hi Ted the only thing we are concerned with at all is the inboard interplane as it has a adj. leadout in the middle of it, although it is built up of carbon fibre and plywood the center and outboard are ply and balsa with tongues epoxyed into side by side ribs, we are going to be keeping an eye on that inboard one though

Brett Buck · « **Reply #34 on:** May 17, 2009, 03:29:02 PM »

Quote from: Ted Fancher on May 14, 2009, 09:48:46 AM

I would reiterate an earlier comment with which I have some personal experience. Mentally review the design and construction of the top wing attachment. It's easy to forget how much tension will exist on the joints between the wing under high g's with the mass suspended beneath it.

Or, as it turns out, on top of it...

Brett

Larry Wong · « **Reply #35 on:** May 17, 2009, 03:53:56 PM »

More to follow from Dave..

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #36 on:** May 17, 2009, 08:35:15 PM »

well the good news is it flew!
after about 5 flights and a few trim adjustments it was flying pretty well.
the wings were still not quite level upright and inverted, the flap tweaking was very touchy i overtweaked them twice both ways.
but it was getting closer.
the last flight started with a little launching mishap. Dad hit the rudder while releasing the model and it unded up tipping up and buzzing the prop slightly.
I didn't notice the rudder getting hit and thought i just screwed up and whacked the prop so once in the air i flew a few level laps
and checked it out ,no vibrations and the engine was running fine and the prop was pulling fine so i thought oh well probably ruined the prop but no big deal.
a few more laps and i started some manuevers, reverse wing over,rounds,inverted,still not quite level wings but getting better, squares, triangles, horizontal eights, overhead eights,exellent line tension,vertical eights, and the only real issue was some slight stalling on the last corner of the squares and triangles, but it was better than the flight before so the trim changes were working.then i decided to do a clover...
first inside fine
first outside fine
at the inverted exit of the second outside the plane suddenly made a sharp left turn.not a rolling turn but a sharp flat rudder type turn. it looked like you just kicked in full left rudder.
there was no way to save it.
the plane hit the ground inside the circle and was a total loss. fortunately it hit pretty flat inverted and the engine appears fine.
after the crash and inspecting the parts it appears the vertical fin was shredded before the impact, and was probably a result of the launch mishap partially cracking it and subsequentely breaking up in flight.
Dad remains undaunted by the crash and is allready pressing for the plans to be redrawn with a few changes that we feel might improve the second version.
and yes the top wing mounts were fine and some even survived the crash.
the nose appears to have been grossly over built.

oh well not exactly the best way to finish a test flying session but not the worst either.
thanks to larry wong for the crash photos
we will forward them to the NTSB for further investigation.
Dave jr.
(former biplane test pilot)

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #37 on:** May 17, 2009, 08:38:41 PM »

second photo

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #38 on:** May 17, 2009, 08:50:28 PM »

Sure hate to see this Dave.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #39 on:** May 17, 2009, 08:57:31 PM »

Oh man that stinks. So sorry to hear about this as I was looking forwrad to the flight tests as much as anyone else. Sounds like you were sneaking up on the right trim too.

Hope your Dad gtes another built quickly, so you can get airborne yet this summer...

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #40 on:** May 17, 2009, 09:05:18 PM »

It'll probably be later than this summer. we both have severall other good airplanes to fly and Dad is in the middle of a trivial pursuit that is about framed up.
and i just refinished and removed 16 ounces from my modified pursuit recently and it flys great.
so it might be a while but we havent given up.
its pretty hard to get to upset about a broken airplane given some of the other stuff weve had going on the last few years.
my mom put it best after the crash and everone is standing there consuling us,"well it will fit in the car easier"
she's been here with us both before and knows the right thing to say at the right time.

we both laughed by the way.
Dave jr.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #41 on:** May 18, 2009, 07:29:20 PM »

The picture of it flying looks great. Sorry about the crash, but, as the race car crew says, "If we don't have a crash how do we know if we are doing the right things". Or something to that effect. I know the next one will be better. DOC Holliday

Doug Moon · « **Reply #42 on:** May 18, 2009, 07:49:02 PM »

Maybe if you get the top wing lower/closer to the top of the fuse it will be easier to get it level upright inverted.

proparc · « **Reply #43 on:** May 18, 2009, 09:18:34 PM »

For some reason, that one really hurt!! I feel like I 've been puched in the stomach. As experienced modelers, we all know that planes want to "re-kit" themselves, but this one was a real ouch!!

M Spencer · « **Reply #44 on:** May 19, 2009, 02:41:05 AM »

BOTHER . pity to put in all that work and not get to the fully sorted stage airborne .

Comendable effort anyway.

looking at old Bi planes and Reno ditto , the Brisfit ( F2B ! ) Has the lower wing strutted,
And some of those formular Bi planes have inverted Gull lowers , Which gets the thrust line about centre of the vertical drag center .

The Gloster and Curtiss Schnieder jobs get the fancy gull center sections on upper and lower qwings .

Looks like that inner struts O.K. anyway .

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #45 on:** May 19, 2009, 10:48:08 AM »

DING DANG, fricken fracken, dog gone, crap, sputter, cuss, scream, cry, temper tantrum, punch the wall!! $*&$@(&^!#)!#(*&%))(^*#Q)(Q#@_)&^%*&$*(W*&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HATE that!

Will Hinton · « **Reply #46 on:** May 19, 2009, 03:52:57 PM »

what Randy Ryan said.

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #47 on:** May 19, 2009, 05:46:47 PM »

Doug Moon.
Please explain your reasoning on the wing placement i dont really folow you.
the vertical c/g was dead on at the leadout position and the bell crank was only 1/8 inch above the vertical c/g
if thats what you were thinking.
the only real problem with the wing level was with all four flaps it seemed to take a lot less tweaking than i figured it would. the last flight i put them back to what appeared to be level and it was close.It might have been a little light on tip weight too but we didn't get that far.
Had there been another flight i was going to use the adjustable rods between the wings and move one flap at a time and i think that probably would have done it.
Mathew
the thrust line is pretty much down the middle, and i believe the reason most of the F1 type biplanes (HOT CANARY, et. al.) have gull wings is to reduce the landing gear length/drag and to get more separation between the wings with out any cabane struts which also was to reduce drag. probably doesn' really aply to this application.and ditto for the schneider cup type planes. also drag reducing ideas for race planes.
still good ideas and i will consider , thanks.
luckily we got enough flight time to find out it was capable of a decent pattern. and enough time to realize some improvments that could be made.so on with the next one.
Dave jr.

Doug Moon · « **Reply #48 on:** May 20, 2009, 07:41:25 PM »

About the wings closer together I was just thinking out loud. I have been designing a Bi plane for quite some time. It will be a cross between the Euphoria and the Miss Wind.

They are located here at this website.

Misswind is second from the top and Euphoria is second from the bottom.

Euphoria is a recent FAI Champ in Aeorbatics. The flier/designer says biplanes handle the wind better and certain situations while performing just as good in other situations. He feels they have an edge, so he took Euphoria and went and won the worlds. Pretty cool I think.

He really didnt go into to why they take the wind better, BUT check out those super thin wings. My design uses super thin wings 15% at the root and 12% at the tip with a blunted LE. Less drag and a little larger flap. Should be interesting if I ever get to build it. Three tiny and VERY cute munchkins cut into those plans....

First attachment is my autocad design. I am not much with cad but this is what I have so far. I have all the formers drawn aw well but showing them is not really needed.
True wing area in cad picked end point to end point = 433 per wing.
Span is 58"
Length with Spinner is 52"

next is a pic of Euphoria the FAI Plane I referenced earlier.

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #49 on:** May 20, 2009, 10:30:42 PM »

wow that looks cool
866 squares ! we are going a bit bigger next time but not that big probably less that 700
we mounted the bell crank to the engine beares by running them back a bit farther due to the fuselage being cut out for the leadouts at that point.
i was afraid of pulling out the sides on a pull test.
piped?
Dave jr.