News:


  • April 19, 2024, 12:09:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Endgame III First Flights  (Read 2191 times)

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Endgame III First Flights
« on: April 24, 2023, 12:30:33 PM »

 I put this here because no one seems to see the build and there are several out there waiting to hear a report of if and when this 2 year project takes to the skys.

The blow by blow is in the build thread:
https://stunthanger.com/smf/building-techniques/endgame-iii-build/new/#new

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2023, 01:47:11 PM »
Early 2 min trim flight.  We are blessed with very few days with winds under 10mph this time of year for trimming.  So, with the wings relatively level, still off a tad, I decided to move on with the testing.  Wind is 10mph coming over the RR tracks.  About as unstable as it gets.  First flights using Spectra 80#.  Pulled it at 50# for two minutes before coming out.  Amazing how much it stretches at first and how little after taking the "Gurr" out.  Lines are 68' (handle to spinner) with a lap time of 5.1.  I have nose up turned off on the timer.  Me thinks I should slow her down to say 5.2 or 5.3 and invite some nose up to the show.   I need about another 5-10 flights to get used to the Spectra lines.  I thought I made them 65' but "oops".  I may leave them as is.  Only issue with the longer, but lighter, lines was landing.  Plane wanted to float.  Acts nose heavy under power and tail heavy when the music stops. It is in fact tail heavy.  CG is at 28% but it doesn't fly that way.  I am going to try 25% next time out. 

This plane has enormous potential.  I intentionally flew the overhead 8 crosswind just to see how it would respond.  Never lost tension even when it was blown down way down.  The square 8 was fun. The turn and lock was fantastic.  Only surprise was the hourglass.  It was grossly overturned on the 1st leg and didn't want to make the 2nd turn.  This was my first hourglass with the up line in front (long story) in a very long time. Possibly the leadouts are too far back.  It felt like it had stalled but on watching the video, I simply did not turn it enough. However, we can't blame the pilot if there is a possibility that we can blame the plane, the weather, the sun or a passing bird.   

Here is proof of Canard. 



Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Matt Colan

  • N-756355
  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3452
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2023, 05:29:31 PM »
Flying that fast will mask any sort of trim problems you may potentially have with the airplane, especially on those long lines. Slowing it down a few tenths will bring out any trim issues you may have with the airplane. Slow it down and see what you got.

I want to fly it once you get it sorted out!!
Matt Colan

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2023, 06:00:41 PM »
Flying that fast will mask any sort of trim problems you may potentially have with the airplane, especially on those long lines. Slowing it down a few tenths will bring out any trim issues you may have with the airplane. Slow it down and see what you got.

I want to fly it once you get it sorted out!!
We all agreed on that.  It is flying 5.1, it needs to be 5.4 on those long lines.  They were supposed to be 5' shorter!  I was quite pleased how it performed up top and the corners.......

Have you flown on Spectra?  It is different.  Better and worse at the same time.  Jury is still out.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Matt Colan

  • N-756355
  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3452
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2023, 07:06:20 PM »
We all agreed on that.  It is flying 5.1, it needs to be 5.4 on those long lines.  They were supposed to be 5' shorter!  I was quite pleased how it performed up top and the corners.......

Have you flown on Spectra?  It is different.  Better and worse at the same time.  Jury is still out.

Ken

5.6!  S?P

No I haven’t. Don’t have any plans to try it anytime soon
Matt Colan

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2023, 09:42:35 PM »
This is a reply to a comment from Dennis on the Spectra thread.  It really belonged here.
 
The stabilator evolved from reading about all of the jet fighters sprouting nose canards and why they were there.  With a hinged forward stab, so to speak you have more of a lifting surface, I was after the control and stabilization attributes and most of them are smaller and stabilator in nature.  The appearance is a bit unsettling at first but it does grow on you and gives you one more place to decorate and another thing to catch on the door while you take it out of the car.  Mine is removable, but I never take it off.  Nothing is ever truly new in this sport.  I am sure someone has tried the "control/stability" canard vs the lifting surface version but I can't find any examples.  I do know this much, there will be another one in my future.  So much weight was added by all of the design changes during the build.  I am at 67oz (that is with an empty battery, just to be fair since we don't fuel IC for weighing).  It needs to be about 63 and the next one will be Nats bound.

Ken
« Last Edit: May 11, 2023, 09:59:36 PM by Ken Culbertson »
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Air Ministry .

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 4983
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2023, 11:07:40 PM »
"  I am sure someone has tried the "control/stability" canard vs the lifting surface version but I can't find any examples. "  ;D



Im sure its a fine flying machine , but it will never replace the aeroplane .  LL~

Dont mind me ! . A Bristol Boxkite . Take off speed 45 mph , cruising speed 45 mph , maximum speed 45 mph , landing speed 45 mph .
But theres more lift in the air , at dusk and dawn . And seldom those confounding breezes .  S?P

THIS ones an original . Royal flying corp. and R.N.A.S. Ab Initio Trainer .



your obviously an Intrepid airman .  H^^




Offline Air Ministry .

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 4983
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2023, 11:17:18 PM »


ENGLAND, C 1917. MAURICE FARMAN LONGHORN AIRCRAFT NO. 49 WITH A MF SHORTHORN IN THE BACKGROUND.

Itll be a ' short horn ' if you leave the front wing off . Or it falls off .



Maurice Farman Longhorn to fly at Old Warden .

Intresting aspect of this , is that these fly approxamately at OUR ' F2B ' flying speed . Theyre a bit bigger though .



Have You Got a Parachute ? . :(


Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2023, 07:11:49 AM »
923346.JPG[/img]

ENGLAND, C 1917. MAURICE FARMAN LONGHORN AIRCRAFT NO. 49 WITH A MF SHORTHORN IN THE BACKGROUND.
Have You Got a Parachute ? . :(


Worse than that, I don't even have a pilot!  He took one look at the controls and told me "I'm out, you fly it!"
Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Dennis Adamisin

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4340
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2023, 08:36:36 AM »
This is a reply to a comment from Dennis on the Spectra thread.  It really belonged here.
 
The stabilator evolved from reading about all of the jet fighters sprouting nose canards and why they were there.  With a hinged forward stab, so to speak you have more of a lifting surface, I was after the control and stabilization attributes and most of them are smaller and stabilator in nature.  The appearance is a bit unsettling at first but it does grow on you and gives you one more place to decorate and another thing to catch on the door while you take it out of the car.  Mine is removable, but I never take it off.  Nothing is ever truly new in this sport.  I am sure someone has tried the "control/stability" canard vs the lifting surface version but I can't find any examples.  I do know this much, there will be another one in my future.  So much weight was added by all of the design changes during the build.  I am at 67oz (that is with an empty battery, just to be fair since we don't fuel IC for weighing).  It needs to be about 63 and the next one will be Nats bound.

Ken
The stabilator also makes it easier to (as you described in the build thread) fly the EndGame 3 with and without the canard - but your flight reports make it sound like you have no intention of ever removing it!


Early Curtiss Pushers had elevators fore and aft.  I read about an early Curtiss air show flyer who ran his show plane into a fence damaging the canard.  With the air show time coming up his crew removed the canard and he flew it without it.  It was determined that the Curtiss "Headless Pusher" still flew well, and subsequent Curtiss designs no longer used the canard.  However, it was not recorded whether the Curtiss Flyers could still fly blinding corners without the canard!

The Piaggio P-180 uses the canard as a trim surface, presumably to accommodate CG position shifts caused by cabin loads.  The Piaggio also demonstrates that you can design a drop-dead gorgeous airframe around the tri-canard layout...

Denny Adamisin
Fort Wayne, IN

As I've grown older, I've learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake!

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2023, 10:20:54 AM »
The stabilator also makes it easier to (as you described in the build thread) fly the EndGame 3 with and without the canard - but your flight reports make it sound like you have no intention of ever removing it!
I don't plan on it.  It is the 3rd in the series and really a rebuild of II with some slight cosmetic changes and a switch from a std rib wing to a geo-bolt which was the same airfoil with a slightly thinner TE.  II had tighter corners than I wanted to fly so adding the canard did not tighten the corners, it just improved their appearance and made the plane fly like it is on rails.  Biggest improvement was in the rounds.  Almost zero corrections required to keep them round.  Really paid off in the round 8's, all of them.  It hit the intersections the very first time I tried them.   It is fun to finally have a plane that flies better than I can fly it.  That is how you improve. 

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2326
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2023, 11:45:03 AM »
I've not seen any pictures of the machine thus far.   Any available?

Do you find the "response" to inputs to be comparable  inside to outside...in particular for the same pitch response?

Is the mainplane sporting flaps!

Pretty much the picture versus words data!

Ted Fancher


Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2023, 01:32:41 PM »
I've not seen any pictures of the machine thus far.   Any available?

Do you find the "response" to inputs to be comparable  inside to outside...in particular for the same pitch response?

Is the mainplane sporting flaps!

Pretty much the picture versus words data!

Ted Fancher

Here are a couple.  I am embarrassed at the MonoKote job but this ship will most likely not go to the Nats.  Looks great from 5'!  I have a video of it's first flight on reply #2 of this thread.  Somebody forgot half of the tip weight.  If I find out who it was they are in trouble! However, the SQ8 really shows the potential.  An hourglass with no tip weight is really just a backwards "&".

As to your questions.  The control response is the same both directions.  Outside of the normal control envelope it will turn more down then up but not much and that is primarily because I have about 1/8" more down elevator due to a hard stop on the bellcrank. On the second trim flight I always check out the one-line turn radius with a series of high-speed lazy eights.  The "loop size was about 10'

The canard is stabilator, flaps and elevator normal but logarithmic.  One thing that I am going to have to study more is why it is tail heavy yet flies like it is nose heavy.  As you can see from the video after the motor quit it just plopped to the ground.  That is when I decided, and Mike Scott insisted, that I needed both tip weight and nose weight.

Apparently, the canard adds some drag.  Endgame II flew on a 5s 2800 Lipo and had plenty of battery.  III is sagging in the Cloverleaf on a 6s 2800 Li-Ion.  I am going to stop the aerodynamic trim till I get that fixed since it might involve shorter lines and a different prop.  Then I will fine tune.

Ken




« Last Edit: July 06, 2023, 01:19:30 PM by Ken Culbertson »
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13732
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2023, 11:06:38 PM »
  Nothing is ever truly new in this sport.  I am sure someone has tried the "control/stability" canard vs the lifting surface version but I can't find any examples.

  I assume you know about this thread:

https://stunthanger.com/smf/stunt-design/three-surface-stunter/


    Brett

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2023, 11:42:17 PM »
  I assume you know about this thread:

https://stunthanger.com/smf/stunt-design/three-surface-stunter/


    Brett
I do.  Both Archie's and Wolfgang's canards were of the lifting, eg. small forward "wing" with hinged surfaces.  Both were an inspiration, mostly Wolfgang's even though Archie's is closer in design.  Mine is of the control/stability variety.  It is a stabilator with very little movement.  1/2" either direction at the TE.  It may be a distinction without a difference, time will tell.  It does track better and turn smoother than Endgame II which was nearly the same plane without the canard.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2023, 02:37:26 PM »
Well the battery issues appear to be under control.  I charged to 4.2 (actually 4.18) instead of the 4.0 recommended to make li-ion live forever and that appeared to solve the problem.  So they will have to deal with not lasting forever now.  I also shortened lines from 65 e2e to 63 e2e and cut the base rpm from 250 to the recommended 230.  I know, one change at a time but when you can only get in a couple of flights a month you cheat.  The plane liked the speed it was flying on the short lines (5.2).  I am used to 5.4-5.5 so going back to 65' should not require a throttle change.  I had 10 good laps at the end with full power at cutoff so..."By Jove I think I've got it!"

The 63' lines were a bummer.  Hard to believe that only 2' can make so little difference in how the plane flies and such a large difference in how you fly it.  Probably too much tip weight for the shorter lines.  Worst squares I have flown this year. It is back to the 65's.

This was my 1st flight with the new timer.  In a fit of stupidity, I fried the arming circuit on my old one. Settings were the same but it did seem to have a smoother boost.  Winds were about 5mph and shifting as much as 30 degrees between maneuvers.  All kinds of up and down drafts low down but smooth as silk up top.



Have a good laugh as I struggle with the short lines (I was warned) but watch the plane, how it stays tangent to the arc in the rounds and corners.  That is the Canard, and no one is more surprised that I am.  The plane is now officially safe to fly so I am going to be soliciting feedback from the other experts in our group who are pretty curious about this beast - Ken
« Last Edit: May 22, 2023, 03:10:30 PM by Ken Culbertson »
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2023, 01:43:17 PM »
I need some opinions.  The main purpose of the canard project was to take pressure off of the controls in a tight corner and to provide stability in the rounds.  It does that but I have noticed that in wind (over 10mph) it begins to take more pressure than I would like to achieve the tight corners in squares.  It does not slow down as much as a standard ship in corners which results in some buildup in squares if there is wind.  No tracking or buildup in the rounds.  The shift forward of the CG seems to have cured that issue. Rounds are fine. I have gotten used to the change in corners from adding the canard and sometimes forget that it is there at all.

I am considering increasing it's size but not it's movement range (currently 18 degrees both directions).  I can increase it either by chord or by span. 

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6103
Re: Endgame III First Flights
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2023, 04:21:35 PM »

I am considering increasing it's size but not it's movement range (currently 18 degrees both directions).  I can increase it either by chord or by span. 

Ken

I did both adding about 3" to the span and 3/4" to the chord.  I think it looks better but that is not the point.  Glad I made them removable.

In doing this I got to thinking about wing loading and how we measure it.  We use Oz@ft2 with a commonly accepted range of 11-13 as being good.  We only count the wing in that computation - why?  With the huge stabs we fly today and in my case the canard, it seems to me that we should include all lifting surfaces.  Just a thought.

Ken
« Last Edit: July 12, 2023, 04:43:23 PM by Ken Culbertson »
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here