Drag reduction alone will not get increased range, if the wing can produce less lift. Because the ability to carry a large battery is also a factor in the range. Distance optimization is the goal. commercial airliners and bombers tend to go on the speed side of the distance optimization for a variety of reasons, including because they may be shot at, the customers are impatient, the aircraft may be needed elsewhere, or there may be headwinds to penetrate. The only exception is if runway requirements cannot be met, then a slower aircraft is used. think dehaviland twin otter or DHC-2. Personally as a design choice, I would move to a slightly thicker wing, and you would be surprised how much more weight in battery it can carry. most RC planes only can carry half or less of the battery that they can after a wing mod. you may be able to extend the wings too. that gets more wing area, but also a better aspect ratio. any weight that you increase in spar size will be more than made up for, in increased efficiency. keep using a single carbon tube spar. find a way to glue a rib to it every now and then, so that you can take advantage of the ability of the carbon tube to resist torsion, and then you can make the structure lighter on the skin, because that no longer has to resist torsion. then you get the weight Back that way, that you spent on the longer wing. the aerodynamic noise that you refer to in gliding flight, is not a good thing. One method of reducing drag of a design in a wind tunnel is to move a microphone around the plane while the wind tunnel is moving air at speed over the surfaces, and locate elevated acoustic areas. That can identify inefficiencies, and verify that they have been improved. the increased distance between the prop and any surfaces in front of it is very good. again, the acoustics prove it like you say. in theory, the increased motor stator diameter will result in increased efficiency. So since you have a pusher, might as well use a motor with a diameter as large as the fuselage. the closer you can get to that, the better. try going up in pitch, to a 12 x 8 prop, or so. or even 12 x 10. you should notice a difference in efficiency. even in slow flight, the reduction in motor RPM is very advantageous for achieving same thrust with less blade tip drag penalty. So, when you switch to LI ION, please check and make sure your ESC's can continue to operate normally down to a very low voltage. I'm using Castle ESC's and using the Castle Link USB/ adaptor and their software, it's very easy to set low voltage cut off to 5V. You can go down to 2.5V per cell on the Li Ion, but beware of the power you lose when gong below 3V per cell, as the airplane may be able to say aloft, but probably cannot safely perform a go-around at those low voltages, so make sure you have a good landing site ready. most ESC's can only be brought down to 2.85V or so, if they are programable for low Volt cut off. and make sure you don't experience a soft cutoff it ground testing and think the battery is just getting low, or not notice at all. a soft cutoff will bring down the plane just the same as a hard cutoff. well, those are my two bits of advice. your planes look great! Nice flying!
Thanks very much. I’m learning a lot! The aluminum (1m) spar is the only option I currently have to support the XPS wing. But once a 10x750mm or 10x1000mm carbon tube is in stock, It’ll replace the aluminum spar. I’ve flown Li-Ions before but have to get used to their way of dropping down in voltage because their nature is to drop under ‘relatively’ low current. iNAV has a parameter that calculates the sag-compensated voltage, which I’ll use, along with actual battery voltage.
Sticking to a single design and improving it, its much better than hopping between designs and hoping to find a better platform. Honestly I'm getting similar range and flight time on a wing based design, but nothing inline with the price point of your foam build design. So with lots more $$ invested getting further and longer flights isn't always a reality. Well done, and thank you for sharing your experience, building technics, and performance of the models
I built your Silver Guardian, and it flies like a dream, with a SpeedyBee F405 Wing FC and Arduplane! If anyone doubts how well these planes fly, I can testify how good they are. I have not done a distance test yet, but flying with a basic 3300 mA Lipo, I easily get 45 min of flight! I am so impressed, I am motivated to build one of your pusher seen here in this video.
When I was growing up there was an RC plane race between two towns about 260km apart. Using a 60-nitro engine with 2 fuel tanks gave an average speed of about 160km/h and a range of about 100km some of the planes had a max speed of well over 200km/h but there was no FPV in those days it was goggles on the back of a pickup. The planes were made of balsa wood and film with fiberglass reinforcement in places.
Hi, very nice project, if I can advice you something, please close gap between flaps and fuselage on both wing sides. Such gap create "induced drag" because it vent air from below wing section (higher air pressure) to upper wing section (lower air pressure) so reduce wing efficiency. I also suggest to improve surface quality of the wings and fuselage, this will also reduce drag which should increase aerodynamic efficiency and help you with new record.
I still haven't made a proper video on my plane, which is a twin boom A-tail pusher, but it gives me 80-90 mah/km with 4s1p 21700 battery. Wingspan is 1.55m and weight is a bit over a kilo. The main difference from your builds, I'd say, is that I've bent depron into an airfoil with an S-shaped bottom surface (a-la e216). Don't judge its stability on my video too much, it was very windy during that flight :)
Great build! It's well tested now that wingtip vertical stabilizers are much more efficient if you can round them from the wing and have them at lesser angles than 90 degrees. I know it'd be significantly harder to make though.
Can you please do a full build video? building it and installing the electronics? i watched your other videos but they're not complete and seem to jump around a lot
Nice design I wonder whether instead of using duct tape, maybe try encapsulation film? It's used for identity cards etc. It's very light, a lot cheaper than covering film, and can be easily ironed on, adds a lot of strength too.
Pusher props tend to be noisier than a tractor prop is due to the "dirty air" off the tail. Like the engineering and construction detail. Flying out so far while being able to maintain the link is pretty challenging. Nice work all around.
Next step - better integration of the antennae to the plane. i.e. having an antenna INSIDE the tip of a v-tail and INSIDE the tip of a wng for a cleaner, more aerodynamic exterior. The foam is NOT to provide any RF interference. Sde note - You are not transmitting into space. Point the video TX antenna downwards towards you, the receiver instead of having the RF go through the battery, electronics etc inside the fuselage. Only point the GPS antenna to space.
Love your aircraft and efforts on this channel. If you wanted to increase rough air stability (without increasing mass or power), how would you aerodynamically modify a v-tail design?
Either make it "inverted V", which is very impractical with a traditional fuselage but works very well with a twin boom design. Or use a traditional tail, which doesn't have the inherent adverse yaw of the V-tail. The inverted V is the best of the three.
Can you clarify the v-tail chord lengths for the silver eagle? This video says the tip is 4" and the root is 6.5", but in the original build video it says 4.5" and 6" respectively. I think the original build video is wrong but just wanted to check
Excellent video and explanation. You probably already thought of this but in the pursuit for maximum efficiency I would start doing surface work (aka improving aerodynamics) mainly in the fuselage. The rectangular section combined with the triangular nose creates fluid separation which results in significant turbulence. That both creates drag and feeds the prop turbulent air resulting in loss of prop efficiency. Also, testing winglets vs elliptical wings would prove an interesting concept if you have the time for it. The challenge here would be to figure out a good way to make a clean cut on the wing material.
Thanks very much! I've thought about methods with making the fuselage more aerodynamic (round) without sacrificing it's current durability & strength. I still haven't found a proper way but I'm on it for sure. The wing shapes are being thought on as well, probably implementing a taper-ratio (smaller tip-chord than root-chord) but with wing-sweep to get the leading edge's straight.
@@AeroStuffFPV Good to hear man. I would love to try it myself but getting these materials has become hard and expensive in my country due to restricted imports so I’m eager to hear out what the outcome was. Keep me posted!
Oh, almost forgot. Structurally speaking, an O section is as structurally sound as a rectangular section as long as the section area is the same in these low force applications. The challenge being manufacturing/conforming said section with these brittle materials.
Canards will be less drag at lower speeds if sized just right. They're a lifting surface where a stabilizer / v-tail is a counter-lift to counteract the lift of the wing. Or... Just vacuum bag a hotliner/F3/F5 style wing. They're fast, low drag & effecient, but the high aspect ratios leave them very prone to tip/snap stalls.
video popped up in my recommended feed sparked a few ideas and now i'm wondering whatever happened with the FCC regulating drones and such and how much a pain it would be to build one of these while keeping it legal so I could actually enjoy flying it
Even though there is little to no moment-arm for YAW stability (which was the actual reason for the huge winglets - I never did proper testing if they'd actually make my planes more efficient) I eventually disgarded the idea and went for flat/curved wingtips for efficiency instead. Now, the V-Tails aren't any less stable (as expected) - and are probably more efficient than before.
Greetings. @3:56 curious of that model. Was making a tractor setup instead of a pusher as I have several pushers, wanted to go back to a smaller noise footprint and less broken engine mounts. Was there any adverse effects of the wingtip mounting camera ? obviously not centerline with FPV however what about adverse yaw ? or disorientation when flying ? Thanks again for the uploads
That's my 1st ever V-Tail-Tractor design with Auto Pilot (check my 1st (oldest) video on the channel) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XNzZ4MulVCU.html The disadvantage is not being able to pan or tilt the camera (the 3rd version of the tractor design had a tilt-servo built in as well for looking up/down: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4cj3yPmpl4A.html (go towards the end to observe) However, it depends how you use the aircraft for FPV. I used it to have a look over the neighborhood and fly out a little further (1.5-2.5km) So I didn't worry as much about the offset of my view of the aircraft. The latest design (Silver Guardian) which is a conventional tail has the FPV camera beneath the tail and looks a vew degrees down which was my ultimate sollution for a single-engine tractor platform
Would definitely use the new Samsung 50S over the outdated Samsung 48G or 48X, its much higher discharge rate and much lower internal resistance will provide for a much bigger difference in capacity than what you would assume from the 200mah difference in capacity. Something like a Vapcell F60 21700 with 6000mah or Vapcell F56 with 5600mah would also be better options for a pure energy cell but you would have to discharge them at 1C or less to get any real benefit out of them (these cells also should be discharged fairly low to get much benefit out of them, as they unlike most cells still have a lot of capacity between 3 and 2.5 volts).
Do you have any 3d models of this that you would consider sharing? It would be fun to do some MFD and also maybe make a 3d printed version. Not because it's better but because I'm lazy and have a good printer.
A lot of similarities between your peace hawk and the MQ9 block 5. The reaper gets ridiculous flight times of greater than 24 hours. At the end of the day, all these UAV platforms are striving to build a glider with an engine. Would look into gliders and at similar platforms for ways to get even better performance. As an Aero Eng, my de facto answer is extend the wings a bit more and also look into the concept of elliptical wings to increase efficiency. Gets better lift and less drag, both will greatly enhance your range.
Samsung 50S 21700 is the best cell combining endurance with performance In one package. Because you are making a small battery pack, the price difference is very small but the increase on durability and performance is much, much better.
Hi, I'm from remote part of Sri Lanka . I have done similar 1m ( completed ) and 2m ( still in building phase ) wingspan RC planes . I have only 1m Fuselage and every other part done as above specs you. I have 22kV motor 4800mAh 3S batteries . Do you think 1m Wing (100g ) will work with these ? 2m wing will be around 900grams . Whats your recommendations ? Can i talk to you via web ? Due to bad weather test flights not done for a week and cant seems to be good for next few days either .
@@dominiq4343 I think it could be stream lined better then and project downward to the FPV and have a small bit of alloy sheet go act as a barrier leaving the GPS to receive signals from above . Maybe ?
A Ducted Fan / Turbine that pulls Air thru the front of the plane and sends it out of the back would protect the propellers from hitting the ground while giving a cool design but i'm a noob and that might be a lame idea... Just saying hehehe
the main difference between what you do and what ukrainian drone-builders do is that you are not trying to carry explosives. and that changes a lot in terms of range and payload and plain structure.
