Here is a list of all the postings Max Z has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: MAK 15 MP|
That looks fantastic! Just the kind of offbeat model I like!
Good luck with the flight testing.
|Thread: Baby Flea|
You know Steve, I did design this one earlier on a smaller scale, THIS one, with the same airfoils, angles and distances. In fact, I just scaled everything up, only modifying some construction details. I looked at the original drawing and noted the CofG was at 55% of the chord from the L/E of the front wing. I balanced the large one at the same %, and since the little one flew great I expected no less from it. Today, my friend Rob (RBCkits) assisted me and when I showed him how it was balanced in the usual way, balancing it on my fingertips and judging the hang angle (which is quite difficult when you are alone) he pointed out that it was still leaning backwards, and probably needs more ballasting up front. Which is what I will try next, and if that is succesful I will tackle the side/down thrust.
Thanks for the comments, cheers,
(btw, love your little Sipa jets )
Edited By Max Z on 13/09/2018 20:26:09
Well.....the first flight is history, and let me first say the baby and me are fine . But it needs "finetuning". For one thing I needed not worrying about rolling, it was what it did best. Keeping a straight line on takeoff is something else, it only wanted to turn left. Side thrust may be a solution here. And as soon as I had taken off it wanted to climb sharply, indicating a tail heavy plane on a normal configured plane, but a lot of down would bring it into a sort of level flight, and that "normal" plane would have gone into a steep dive by then. So is it the CofG? I don't know, but I am going to move it forward to test that, probably by moving the motor forward (The battery is already in its most forward position). Maybe a bit of down thrust too.
I managed to make two flights, each one ending with a decent landing. The thing seems to float reasonably well, but I kept a bit of throttle until just before touchdown. The thing I don't quite understand is how it flew reasonably level with the front wing pivoted all the way forward, resulting in a negative incidence angle relative to the rear wing, but it seemed stable enough, at least at low throttle settings.
Edited By Max Z on 13/09/2018 16:43:45
Thanks guys. I am still waiting for some decent flying weather, in particular for the wind to lessen. It is not so much the wind persé, but more the turbulence close to the ground. A nature park is growing up around our field, and the shrubs that have been planted close by are causing such turbulence. I am afraid that the Flea will not have much roll control to counter sideways gusts, no ailerons and little dihedral (albeit on both wings). And the rudder is short coupled to the wings, so that is not helping either.
|Thread: Gone Boating (just occasionally)|
On the subject of what to do with a boat other than just moving it around, what about a Springer Tug like THIS one? (guess who designed it for RBCkits..). Now you can move other things around, like barges, other boats and even bathtub ducks. I had big fun trying to round up a few of those, it is not as easy as you think .
How about the Moonglow, a Vic Smeed design reworked for Cad/Cam production by RBCkits?
|Thread: Multiplex Cockpit Sx 9|
If the Cockpit SX follows the same programming philosophy as my Royal Pro, the following may apply:
Butterfly or Crow braking is initiated by the "Spoiler"-function which is operated by the throttle stick on a typical glider configuration. The mixers assigned to the Ailerons and Flaps will contain mixing parts (sorry, I don't know the correct term, I am used to the German version) "Flap" and "Spoiler", "Flap" being controlled by roller. If you don't want the roller to be active, you should reduce the mix percentage for "Flap" to zero in both mixers (presumably named Aileron+ and Flap+ in analogy to my Royal Pro). There should be a possibility to change your setup such that you can feed fixed amounts of "Flap" dependant on the active Flight Phase, but I don't know how to do that on the Cockpit.
P.S. I checked the manual, there is a "Hint" in chapter 10 about fixing Flap values, but without a picture or the real thing I still don't know how it is done exactly.
Edited By Max Z on 10/09/2018 08:23:37
|Thread: Baby Flea|
I am also using rods, but I deliberately made them from mild steel rather than piano wire, I'd rather see them bend on "funny arrivals" than pushing through the wing or destroy the servo gears........
I re-read the chapter on the fatal flaw of the HM 14, and it was not so much the stick force as the travel on the pivot of the front wing, which in even a shallow dive was not enough to recover from it. Experienced pilots would realise they had lost control, and increased the dive angle to recover, only to increase the problem.
I shall not dive......
The Flying Flea that had the unrecoverable dive problem was the HM 14, on which the Carden-Baynes was based without any changes to the basic layout according to my reference (the book by Ken Ellis / Geoff Jones). The HM 16 was of later date, but never flown by anyone else but Henri Mignet himself. No plans were published, and only one example was ever built. The HM 14's wings are indeed further apart, but that did not prevent the (fatal) incidents from happening. The problem apparently occurred when more experienced pilots put the plane into a dive deliberately, which caused the stick force required to recover to increase by such an extent that the pilot could no longer regain normal flying attitude. If you just tottered around, the flaw never exposed itself.
I designed and built the HM 16 model earlier at a smaller scale, and it flew great, so fingers crossed...
All done and ready for the inaugural flight:
Edited By Max Z on 08/09/2018 14:03:08
Edited By Max Z on 08/09/2018 14:05:35
The cameo has its own crosscutter on the rear. At first I did not understand how it was supposed to work, when I chose "move to cutter" all it did was move the top end of the sheet to the cutter, and there was nothing to cut off. Now I understand it is a setting, instead of automatically moving the knife back to the origin and roll back the sheet at the end of the session, you should set it to a margin to move forward, then hit "move to cutter".
I use rolls, I do not miss a holder. When the vinyl has been stored rolled it has a tendency to stay that way anyway so I just rest it on the table in front of the machine.
Edited By Max Z on 07/09/2018 13:53:49
I cannot find the specs of either right now, but the obvious differences are the cutting width of 8" for the Portrait versus 12" for the Cameo, and the possibility to carry and use of two different tools in the same job for the Cameo. If I am honest, I have not found a realistic use for that yet, but the larger cutting width comes in handy at times.
Alan, yes I need to do a bit more experimentation with that. I used airbrush masking tape with little succes, it does not stick well enough to lift the bits of vinyl off the backing without some help. I managed to work with it by prying the various parts of the decal loose with a scalpel. I also tried narrow strips of 3M Scotchtape, but these stick too strong and although it works you have to be very careful with removing the tape to prevent pulling parts away again, or worse, tearing them. Both methods do not go well with very small parts like the wheels and struts in my example.
I get the impression that the downforce of the cutting knife sort of works the edge of the vinyl into the backing material, once you pry a corner of the decal loose the rest comes off more easily. Again, maybe I should experiment more with the settings.
To give you some idea: this was done with the Cameo. The main rectangle is 60 mm high and 48 mm wide, the little planes are just 19 mm span! I cheated a bit, I drew the wheels and struts with a fineliner. Not that they were not cut properly but because it proved impossible to lift them together with the main body of the plane keeping their correct positioning.
Edited By Max Z on 06/09/2018 15:36:28
Silhouette Cameo, its accuracy amazes me everytime. The standard software will accept .dxf files besides a number of pixel file formats, I am using cad software to create the artwork, then export to .dxf and import into Silhouette Studio. I have not used the included drawing software much, but I feel it is a bit sluggish.
The Cameo is also capable of printing any picture on a regular printer, together with orientation marks, then cut out along the picture outline using these marks.
Edited By Max Z on 06/09/2018 15:08:25
|Thread: What would be a good first Balsa build|
For some simple fun, try the "Jimmy" from RBCkits. Download the manual from the site and see if you like it.
(Promoting my own stuff? Guilty, though I am not commercially involved in RBCkits)
Edited By Max Z on 31/08/2018 08:04:44
|Thread: See if you can help me with this|
Not being helped by the fact that both generator and battery were in the rear of the car....... I could tell you more about it (I had one), but that would be seriously OT
|Thread: Baby Flea|
Thank you Piers. It may come to a pullout plan, but I'll wait and see how it flies. It is deceptively difficult to build in places, I am not sure how I would cover that in a drawing. Examples are the wing leading edge, with its swoop cum kink at the dihedral break, and the strut angles to get the wing tilt bearings squared. Another thing are the struts holding up the rudder, with z-bends at the bottom and eyelets at the top, all with angles in different planes, and the length has to be exactly the same to have the rudder sitting up straight.
About the 30 four stroke: i really would not know, I'll have to see what prop at what revs is required to fly the beastie properly, maybe then you can decide yourself what IC equivalent it would need.
Ready to cover&paint:
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!