Jump to content

Woodpecker


Recommended Posts

They say 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', Woodpecker certainly has loads of character. Were I to build one (I'm not) I would be tempted to cover the rear fuselage, as it is undoubtedly responsible for a lot of drag. As for 'bags of power', in terms of power /weight ratio, yes it has, but thrust counters drag and it has drag in spades by the look of things. I would also draw in the fuselage sides at the nose a tad, this might help to reduce drag too. I would be tempted to use a different aerofoil section as well...

On the plus side it has got lots of positive comments, it is unusual and quirky and quite a few examples will get built I have no doubt; - which is a good thing. Well done Linds. yes


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? As a glider it detracts from from how well it flies (to me that is important). If you think it quaint and fun as it is then that is great too, it is a free country. If drag is an issue just fit a bigger motor. I just said that I would be tempted to cover the rear fuselage to reduce drag, if I were building one. I didn't say I didn't like the design, just that I would do things slightly differently (as I always do!) Vivre la difference!

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 07/11/2017 18:09:05

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I like this a lot and pulled the plan to build but then saw the size adn thought -hmmm - management might not be happy with another aircraft taking over the house. i have about 15 dotted around..lol so, wondered if it would work half size - get the plan reduced at a copy shop and then adjust powerhouse accordingly etc. any thoughts anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look through the build photos Mike, and you will see how incredibly lightly built the 68" Frog is made, and looks super strong too.

Half size, you would need to keep glue to a minimum and careful and accurate build with well considered material.

All this is obvious, but have a target weight

And map out the weights of the drive set up, prop and battery.

100grms is very hard to achieve, and 200grm just fly's too quickly for scale looks

Go for it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an extra set of plans printed for my build and am not sure that 260 Watts for a 3 1/2 ib plane with all that draggy open rear structure will be adequate. I will be aiming for 350 - 400 Watts. Also, the plans show a 10" prop, the specified 12" prop gets close to the landing skid.

The plane measures 47"Long x 9"High x 4"Wide, with a wingspan of 68" so I'm also wondering how easy it will be to hand launch. All my builds so far have wheels except for my Flugboot and I'm hoping to fly that one off the snow in another week or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI Guys to answer a few questions raised, re stretching the wing yes section does not change so just two additional ribs could be added or more if you wish of course. RE power set up 400watts would be best for flat field flying as a minimum, always easier to throttle back, if your flying slope then you could probably get away with 300watts as a get home safely sought of option.

Kevin, I would think that power set up should be fine, I tend to go for lower RPM and larger props these days as a bit more efficient with draggy models so 900-1000kv 500 watts would have been a preference on 3-4 cells.

I / we debated covering the fuselage with stringers and fabric but felt the extra weight would penalise and to be honest just liked the open structure as its a bit different.

Hand launching really not a problem, but if concerned just get a mate to give her a chuck.

The motor in the second prototype came straight out of a Parkzone Trojan just for insight

sorry for the delayed response, I'll not bore you with the details but hate computers! Linds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that extra info Lindsay.

Plan has been copied ESC and motor purchased.

I have other models to finish and I need to get the spruce and a decent quantity of 1/4" sheet. A visit to SLEC "40 minutes down the road" is in order.

Now I am well capable of cutting my own bits, but does any one know if a "short kit" is going to be availiable?

When I start I may even do a build blog as well.

Kev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Lindsay Todd on 17/12/2016 17:49:42:

Its been a while since I updated this blog, the model has now flown way back in August at the Greenacres Fly In and whilst under power she performed quite nicely I just felt the gliding performance was too compromised. This was backed up on the slopes and a further problem also became evident with masking of the V Tail occurring at certain angles of attack resulting in loss of elevator effectiveness. Whilst considering various options I settled on the decisions to revert to a more conventional tail as per our second prototype which has had a better performance and also extend the wing for a better gliding performance from 66 inch to 80 inches and split in two halves with aluminium tube spars for easy transport. The model now also has larger ailerons as a result of the wing span increase and also a set of clip on struts. The result has been a significant improvement in performance as a glider. The option or question now is do I keep both wings, the short as a power model and the larger as a glider.

photo of the larger wing final version on the slope today

final woodpecker dec16.jpg

Linds

Edited By Lindsay Todd on 17/12/2016 17:50:24

hi Lindsay, im new here I am going to build this in the new year. have you got any pics of the battery bay and where you have put the servos? it may help me out when I go to build it as this will be my 3rd plane built from plans. I found the plans easy enough to understand after I had read them 3 or 4 times. I must say there is something about this plane [glider] that really appeals to me cheers dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I just completed the Woodpecker but have to install the battery. I'm looking for a battery tray to facilitate positioning. The plans were excellent but could have used more advance battery positioning information. Gene Graber, USA. I purchase the magazine at Barnes and Noble every month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi a 2200 3 cell lipo sat directly on a ply tray positioned under the pilot and was sufficient for the model to balance at the plan shown CG for the powered version. For slope (no motor and just a simple hatch) we added some ballast along side the battery to achieve the same position.

hope that helps

Linds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...