Honestly i think you should do some glide testing before flight attempts to reduce the amount of crashing/repairs.. i see flite test do this all the time with new designs.. they'll throw it back and forth to get the CG right.
Yea ur definitely right, I didn’t focus on doing that enough. I thought just throwing it a short distance (like 10ft ish) onto my couch was good enough. I should really prepare a lot beforehand.
@@_BL4CKB1RD_ in the end you got a great result and that is all that matters! The video premise, content, editing and execution was great! so dont beat yourself up
he is doing it and throwing it the wrong way. A propeller pulls air from behind and a plane flies by moving forward. because he is doing it backwards and inverting the plane position, it won't fly, since the direction of flight is opposite of where it should it be (forward).
Maybe you know, but forward swept wings will deflect in an unstable way. Thia means increased angle of attack will structurally twist the wing to make more angle of attack making it diverge from level flight more. As the flights went on you had a more floppy wing and maybe more divergent characteristics.
Your biggest problem is the size of your control surfaces: they are far too small and must extend over at least 2/3 of the length of the trailing edge of your wings. In addition, your canard carrier plane must have an angle of +2/3° relative to the horizontal plane of the plane. more over if I were you I would increase the chord of your root by a few centimeters to increase the allar surface. We must not forget that wings with an inverted arrow present increased torsions, so they must be reinforced in torsion so that they maintain a stable profile. Your radio must be set to a mix of type: elevon and you should reduce the sensitivity. Here's just some advice from an "old flying enthusiast"
I just followed what the “AI” said when building it. It in fact was elevon control, yet ur right how my control surfaces were too small. The more I learn, thx for the tips.
@@_BL4CKB1RD_ but you're welcome, it's so encouraging to see young people coming into the hobby. What's funny is that the design proposed by the AI is from a strictly theoretical point of view the best but it is also from a practical point of view the most difficult to implement. This is the reason why no aircraft manufacturer offers this type of design. To give you an idea take a look at an aircraft called the Grumman X-29.or at the Soukhoï Su-47 Berkout its Russian equivalent It took three computers to make it fly because it was so unstable!!!! But on the other hand it had incredible flight characteristics, particularly at large angles of attack if you are interested FLYTEST has made a DIY version which flies very well and whose plans are free (which has become very rare for them) look in their playlist. Good flights to you and hello from France
I just subscribed. In the 90’s I made a near similar design RC glider canard with a negative swiped wing. It worked, but it’s still on the shelf to be finished. Nice to see AI is coming to similar conclusions nowadays (although I think my design had more chance of a longer life)
@@_BL4CKB1RD_ Yes of course it is. Unfortunately 5 years ago Iost all my old stuff, due to a divorce. Fortunately, the only thing they cannot steal away is what you have between your two ears…
1739 an aircraft (any object) has a Center of Mass (c-m). like cg is, location of c-m is a result of the distribution of mass (dom). the correct location of c-m requires compliance with two statements. 1) c-m should be located On the thrust line at a point that vertically aligns with twenty-five percent of chord/mac. 2)) and, the thrust line should intersect the c-m. it appears that little/no down-thrust should have been added at the motor mount. you may realize that there is an 'issue' with the use of a fixed canard. it is this: any time the nose is elevated, the canard makes More unscheduled nose-up moment.!
oh my god, this is so underrated, im telling you right now the only difference between you and a million sub youtuber, is well, the algorithm doesnt like you for some reason lol (rip), mad props to you (edited)
@@_BL4CKB1RD_ lmao my speakers were tripping at first when i wrote the comment, lol my bad... btw i wanted to ask, what was that material you used for the plane? i kinda wanted to try to make my own
@@Physicsless8 No problem at all. It's just foamboard from my local Dollar Tree. It's a superb material. Very lightweight, and cheap to repair! I learned how to work with the material through watching (old) FliteTest vids and tutorials. I hope you build some wonderful airplanes :D
This video is a mish mash. I originally thought it would be a short project, just an under 10-min video. Yet life happens, and I tried out a lot of new stuff! Lemme know if ya have any questions. I would absolutely love to answer them!
@@hugofpv1 Nuh uh, I’ve definitely stepped up the difficulty in locating the duck by a large margin compared to my last video. Have a fun challenge finding him!
FYi: I think your passively stable yaw vanes were angled the wrong way. Instead of negative feedback, you would have had positive feedback. Did you ever try flying it backwards (with the control surfaces swapped around, of course)? I kind of zoned out at the end...
Problem is that they are in the front of the center, they shoud be on the back half of the aircraft. In front they crate instability and over reaction to inputs.
@@ljubomirculibrk4097 That's a good point, too, but I think a slightly different problem. The angle of the vertical stabs is an issue no matter where they are. Go back to the thought experiment in the video and imagine the stabs angled the other way. I think you'll see what I mean. (This is all predicated on my impression that the leading edge of the stabilizer was outboard of the trailing edge. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.)
I was really impressed with this project, well done. Learning what doesnt work and why is is an intrigal part of iterative design, just look at Space X. Lots of test failures for years before finding repeatable sucess.
Joking aside the vertical surfaces are in front of th CG which is why you have no yaw stability. You can only have the vertical surfaces on the wingtips with rear swept Wings. Like A Long easy. I do understand you got chat DBT to design this and LLM s have no understanding of the world or even language only what is statistically most likely to come next. And this looks like A Aircraft well one designed by blom and Voss
@@skyslycer Here’s a lil secret: It’s not actually backwards. 😏 Most airplanes ya know have the propeller at the front right? That’s what’s called a “tractor” configuration, where it “pulls” air in front of it. Very few airplanes, like the J7W Shinden or Piaggio P.180 Avanti, have a “pusher” configuration, where they “push” air behind it. They are known for having the propeller at the back. So let’s talk about these funky ahh wings. This plane has “forward-swept” wings, a configuration that has the wings angled forwards. This is opposite from regular swept wings found on like the F86 Sabre or P6M Seamaster. In reality, they only offer advantages at very high airspeeds (favorable stall characteristics) and notable examples of planes that use it are the Grumman X29 and the Sukhoi Su-47. TLDR: There’s no single way to design an airplane.
@@malakibluntDon’t judge it. It’s doing its own thing. Just cause it looks a lil different doesn’t mean it doesn’t have feelings too. I’m just playing. This sort of configuration may appear to be flying backwards, but that’s just how it rolls. Most planes you see everywhere have what’s called a “tractor” configuration where the propeller is in the front, as if the prop pulls the plane forwards. Some more unique planes (like the one you mention) have a “pusher” configuration, where the propeller is at the back. The wings are like the opposite of many jet fighters you see. Instead of being angled or “swept” backwards towards the rear, they are “forward-swept”. A highly unconventional design, yet it has been experimented on pretty scarcely. An example being NASA’s X-29 plane. tldr: there’s a lot of ways to design a plane.
@@_BL4CKB1RD_ sorry English humour. I have made a two meter model of the Rutan Model 77 Solitaire. And was obsessed with the X 29 as a kid. And have made several swept wing tailless F5b and F5D models.
Why wearing a mask in your own home and while outdoors? Are you in woke Canada? Anyway cool concept for a video but it makes for a horrible airplane design. It’s surprising you got it to fly even a little. Good job on that. Now design one yourself that’s actually good 👍🏼
To be honest, it’s not even a true AI, it’s just a language model, trained to predict the best response to a prompt. Like a parrot with infinite vocabulary, it doesn’t understand what it’s saying. It just mimics. Still, it was interesting to see what amalgamation it came up with.
