Foam hand kids glider converted to 0.049 CL

Too funny. I think I actually have that hand glider out in the garage. If not, mine is very similar anyways.....

Looks like a great adaptation. There are flying shots but no video I can find. Note the guy has reinforced under the wings and horizontal stab with balsa or ply, plus added a tail skid. My only real concern is that when the landing gear gets hung up in the grass, (and it will), it will pivot rearwards, snapping the nose off right at the gear mount, launching the engine up and back over the plane. But for $3.50 and a small amount of effort it'd still be fun to try. Maybe do away with the landing gear.

Here's my local "dollar store's" offering. Bought it a few days ago for $1.25 USD.



It has a 22" wingspan.. but needs a LOT of help (a 40-grit block maybe)... with creating somewhat of a symmetrical airfoil. You can see that the leading-edge is "squared-off". I can't understand how this design would glide through the air with this wing-profile..

The 2-piece wing halves are mold-marked on their bottom-sides; "R" and "L" which is correct when viewing the bottom of the model while holding its' nose upright. The horizontal-stab. is in no-way aerodynamic; with square-edges around its' perimeter.. same as the wing-profile. The tail seems a bit more robust.. having only the single-slot for the stab. which has zero-degrees incidence from datum. The fuse has the most going for it.. regarding aerodynamics.

The imagination runs wild with either of these models.  $1.25 - fuel, who cares at that price, let it eat, or electric.  Bring five or six to the field.  Velcro engine mounts, Pee Wee crash it hitch up another.  Free flight, whatever.  I visualize Ken and his son having fun like they did with the gyro's.

I'm heading to the Dollar Store.  

rsv1cox wrote:The imagination runs wild with either of these models.  $1.25 - fuel, who cares at that price, let it eat, or electric.  Bring five or six to the field.  Velcro engine mounts, Pee Wee crash it hitch up another.  Free flight, whatever.  I visualize Ken and his son having fun like they did with the gyro's.

I'm heading to the Dollar Store.  

As mentioned, the glider in question came from Kmart here in Oz.  It has very slender wings and tail hence the reinforcing strips of woodthe creator has used.
Because of the chunky control surfaces of Roddie's glider, I'd suggest it would be wothwhile spending the extra on the Kmart ones.  Kmart USA have them as a two pack at $14.65.  
https://www.kmart.com/huture-2-packs-15inch-glider-airplane-throwing-foam/p-A092681715
A little rich I think as the Aussie equivalent sells for around $3.50 each.

Dimensions shown make it IMO, suitable for .020 Pee Wee and .010 & .020 Tee Dee, or maybe an early WenMac or OK Cub .049 with glow plug head.

From Oldenginerod's Kmart product link.

It is rather smallish on wing area, less than 50 sq. in. On Cox .049 reed power, it would be a fast flyer, perhaps an overkill.

I've been in contact with the club in Brisbane whose facebook page the converted glider was posted on. The guy who did the conversion is going to get back to me with details of the build, which I will post here.

Rod.

The glider that I bought is of Styrofoam (beaded foam) construction.. whereas the smaller one featured looks to be of the newer and more resilient Depron (link) type foam.

The models that are promoted having "bouncy" foam are made of so called "epo" or also called "elapor" foam.
This foam can be glued with ca besides epoxy or "low temp hot glue"
Advantage is that they are more durable, disadvantage is that the foam is more flexable and heavier.
Depron (roofmate and that pink foam) are also made from polystyrene just like the cheap white glider just with a smaller "grain"
This is easier to shape (cut/ hot wire and sand) is stiffer but much more brittle then epo.

If a light stiff so good flying model is your design goal then depron is your best choice.
And if more durable is more important to you then the epo models are the better choice.

cmulder wrote:The models that are promoted having "bouncy" foam are made of so called "epo" or also called "elapor" foam.
This foam can be glued with ca besides epoxy or "low temp hot glue"
Advantage is that they are more durable, disadvantage is that the foam is more flexable and heavier.
Depron (roofmate and that pink foam) are also made from polystyrene just like the cheap white glider just with a smaller "grain"
This is easier to shape (cut/ hot wire and sand) is stiffer but much more brittle then epo.

If a light stiff so good flying model is your design goal then depron is your best choice.
And if more durable is more important to you then the epo models are the better choice.  

So good to have the variations explained. Always good for prospective.

I'm game for giving "my" dollar-store foamy a place in history.. with the 1/2A control-line community looking-on. (awaiting an answer)

Doesn't the nitro disolve the styrofoam?
Ice

Iceberg wrote:Doesn't the nitro disolve the styrofoam?

I never had problems with nitro on my expanded polystyrene ARF foamies, but I usually painted them with a foam compatible paint that resisted glow fuel. Also, I brought spray cleaner and wiped down the aircraft before going home, so no fuel residue was left except where hard to get, like areas of the engine compartment.

However, two of mine, 46-in. Hobby Shack Cessna 150 (powered by Magnum .15 R/C plain bearing Schneurle - could loop in horizontal flight) and their 40-in. Cessna 180 (for .049 but I used .09 - .10 legacy cross scavenge R/C engines), didn't bother to paint, except the 180 used low heat generic plastic covering on the balsa tail surfaces. About the only thing is that without paint, they get dirty a lot easier. Also used Urethane varnish, tends to give a yellowing effect but still makes easier to keep clean.

However, in both cases, didn't have a problem with hot exhaust contacting the foam. Doesn't take much heat to damage the foam.

YMMY (your mileage may vary).

Ok, so I just got off the phone to Andrew, member of Brisbane Control Line club, who's Cox powered blue foam glider conversion prompted this thread.
He's a little surprised to get so much attention. He tells me that his two young boys were playing with their gliders in the back yard when he suddenly wondered if the conversion was possible, so he ducked into his workshop with his boys and proceeded to cut the nose off one. He tells me he just checked the position of the engine by eye to maintain the original overall length, as close as he could get to right angles to the wing. He said the first attempt was perfect with just a small piece of lead on the tail for balance. He shared his thoughts with others from his club and they were all sure it wouldn't work. They had to eat their words. He says that it does indeed fly very well, even with just strips of ply glued under the wings and tail for strength. He claims that after a number of disasterous crashes no damage has occured and the plane bounces exceptionally well. Engine cut at the top of a loop, is speared into the ground nose first, broke nothing, refilled it with fuel and was straight back in the air.
His next attempt will include carbon fibre rods instead of ply. He cut and reglued the rudder with offset. Joined the elevators with a piece of bent stainless wire and used standard Du-bro slot hinges. All assembly was done with 5 minute epoxy. He's sending me more information, dimensions and pictures.

Rod.

From the lidl glider group on facebook.

No mention on how much LSD was was involved during design.

No mention on how much LSD was was involved during design.



But what is going on with the black tri motor in the lower right hand corner with the satantic stars.  Very intreresting.

Note the 3 year (!) warranty and the Certification ID for savety.

rsv1cox wrote:But what is going on with the black tri motor in the lower right hand corner with the satantic stars.  Very intreresting.

crazy rc planes on youtube.

Andrew (the guy who devised the foam glider to CL conversion) sent me a heap of pictures and specs on his build today so once I get them off my phone and onto my desktop I'll post them here.
Interestingly, I asked Andrew how the foam stood up to fuel. He says he has no plroblems at all because he doesn't use nitro. Doesn't like it because "it's corrosive" so he uses it in none of his engines. Just Methanol & Castor oil in all his engines. Says his Cox starts and runs fine on 0%. Go figure!!

Oldenginerod wrote:Andrew (the guy who devised the foam glider to CL conversion) sent me a heap of pictures and specs on his build today so once I get them off my phone and onto my desktop I'll post them here.
Interestingly, I asked Andrew how the foam stood up to fuel.  He says he has no plroblems at all because he doesn't use nitro.  Doesn't like it because "it's corrosive" so he uses it in none of his engines.  Just Methanol & Castor oil in all his engines.  Says his Cox starts and runs fine on 0%.  Go figure!!

On my Cox Texaco engines, I too use no nitro in my fuel.
And I have shimmed the cylinder so that the top of the piston is even with the shoulder of the cylinder at the top.
And it seems that with no nitro the engine runs longer, though a little slower (RPM) than with the nitro.

Nitro generates oxygen when it "burns"
This oxygen allouws for more fuel to be burned in a single "engine stroke"
Compaired to no nitro fuel you just empty the content of your fuel tank faster. You still have about the same amount of energy out of the fuel just quicker. Don't know if burning nitro gives the same amount of energy as methanol; the total resulting energy from a tank might even be lower then with no nitro fuel.
So for a aplication where duration is of bigger importance then power like the texaco events, zero nitro makes perfect sence.
Also the bigger slower turning props are more efficient "moving air"  
There is a good chance the texaco engines are better converting the energy stored in fuel into kinetic energy then the higher rpm "TD" engines.
It takes them just a little more time.
Besides shorter run time on the same tank, some of the resulting products of burning nitro are acidic and will corrode you engine if not take care off.
This is the reason for "after run oil"

For these converted gliders power is not a big requirement; flight duration is and the lower cost of the fuel helps too.

The Texaco is the same as most of the other Bees except for the venturi hole being smaller, and the head with more fins AFAIK. The fins are on because it is expected to be overpropped with a 7" prop. I am not sure what nitro would do. We always used more pitch with high nitro, so maybe a higher pitch combined with nitro would wash out the oxygenation loss. Some of the guys would mix some Coleman gas to run a bit longer for endurance events many years ago. It would run a bit hotter, and slower as well.

Kind of surprised that no one from the CEF has put together one of these foamy control line planes yet. Looks like a one hour job. We need video!!!. I think the size is just right for the reedy. Our mouse race rules were a minimum of 30 sq. in. and the 1/2A proto rules were 45 or 50 sq. in. minimum, so if it is strong enough it should be a go. The 45 sq. in. planes flew much better than the smaller ones.