Ian's Cox Flight Contest progress

Put up a strategic umbrella and you can stay dry launching in the rain. However, I have it on good grounds that with a forward facing intake it doesn't take much water aspiration to shut down a motor.

Phil

What's "RTP?"

I took my Cox powered contest plane out to play yesterday, but got run off by a thunderstorm before she could log any time. I'm still at about 9 minutes total.

RknRusty wrote:What's "RTP?"

I took my Cox powered contest plane out to play yesterday, but got run off by a thunderstorm before she could log any time. I'm still at about 9 minutes total.

"Round The Pole"
See the videos earlier in this thread.

duke.johnson wrote:

RknRusty wrote:What's "RTP?"

"Round The Pole"
See the videos earlier in this thread.

I saw them. Sorry, I just woke up. 

 

duke.johnson wrote:I was a little put off about the RTP in the control line contest, but the boss says it's ok.  And everyone can do it if they want, so fairs-fair.  Please don't take it the wrong way, I'm good with RTP.  I just hope I can get one going before you get a million hours racked up. 

Heya Duke,

The way I saw it was if he put a bellcrank and control handle on it then it would be the same as throttle assisted CL. The runtime is engine and tank size and nothing is stopping anyone from building the same plane with the same tank. Heck, If you want to put a 2oz tank on a 1/2A then by all means do so.

The real quandry is he is the only one doing it and he has to go somewhere, If the players feel it's more like RC it can go there. I certainly don't want to upset anyone. I usually ask for feedback and get very little.....

Ron

Ron-Like I said, I'm good with the RTP.  I just wish I would have thought of it first.  Now I'm going to have to build yet another airplane  , like I have time for that. 

Ian- I hope you get it dialed in the way you want it. Look there goes Ian's RTP again .   Minute after minute after minute. Jolly go show chap.  Or something like that.

Where are those drawings for the RTP plane.    

I am not that competitive!

I like the idea of the competition to promote "Cox awareness" and to get more people involved in the hobby.

I look at this, though, from a different perspective.

I have mentioned before that it is difficult to fly ANY I.C. powered model locally. I.C. engines are banned in all local parks and open spaces.

The distant clubs have strict rules on noise and although we may be talking sub 20 miles away - crossing London may take 2 hours. Not many Cox engines can meet the criteria.

2 minutes walk and I can fly electric "Park Flyers", 10 minutes walk and I can fly electric "Beasts!".

A lot of people may be in a similar situation.

This combined with age, eyesight and other commitments puts on a few more limitations. Time is another factor!

The idea of RTP for me allows Cox engine flying (well sub 049!) in a limited space (you have seen how limited!) and relatively safely. (debatable! I have been whacked, thwacked, bruised and cut!).

Anyone can do this! The model is the BlackHawk's Night Hawk - control line. I chose a built up fuselage to hold the receiver and battery but any control line plane can be adapted.

I started building this on the 23rd June, it was ready to fly on 13th July (I also work full time!) and I have clocked up quite a few hours after two weekends.

It is a "test bed" - lots more ideas - diesel head, in flight refuelling (dream on!), flaps ..................................

I do not mind if it cannot be classified as CL or RC and is excluded from the competition results (or put to one side awaiting more RTP entries and preferrably longer lines!)

It is the spirit of the contest I am interested in and a way to get more people of any age or experience involved in what appears to me to be a more controlled environment than pure CL or RC.

This entry of mine must not put off other competition entrants.

Get out there and log the time! If I start to lead I will stop logging - I only want to give members and viewers an idea of what is possible!

Like I said, I'm good with the RTP idea. I didn't mean to start something. I like the idea and now have a reason to try RTP. I never win contests, so I'm hear for the fun and to be apart of something cool.

duke.johnson wrote:Like I said, I'm good with the RTP idea.  I didn't mean to start something.  I like the idea and now have a reason to try RTP.  I never win contests, so I'm hear for the fun and to be apart of something cool.

I don't think you have started anything but I am conscious of the fact that if someone streaks into the lead at the beginning of a contest, other contestants might give in or lose interest particularly if they feel disadvantaged. I will not let that happen.

I have also checked my "lecky" RTP and the C of G is about 1/16" ahead of the attachment point. That flies flat and true but not for much longer! The scalpel is out ready to prepare it for a Cox engine!

No flying this weekend - Garden maintenance took priority. The borders around the "lawn" / flying area collapsed.

I had 14 railway sleepers delivered, each 2.4 metres long and very heavy. Only just inside my lifting limit - although I ache after carrying them from the road in front of the house, down the side and to the bottom of the garden!



Now to tidy up the grass! I hate gardening - I could quite easily compromise and settle for green concrete!

I know how you feel about gardening, I don't like it much either. Luckily it's my wife's hobby, as she's got agricultural blood... eeewww, that sounds kind of weird. But it's a a nice little area you have, very pleasing to the senses. Especially with a 1/2A engine screaming around in it.

The NightHawk is one tough little plane! It is getting heavier - the fin has been glued back on many times (my landings are somersaults and it uses the fin as an anchor), I have dings in it all over the place, the bellcrank has torn a chunk out of the side (I have reverted to two lines now!) and butyrate dope is not fuel proof! There were three coats in the area behind the engine!

Apart from that it is still a little beauty!

The engine needs a service - not developing full power now so that will be next on my list!

I also had a bit of a disaster trying to hover it with an onboard camera!



Mind you, the NightHawk isn't the only thing getting damaged!

Now for my little catastrophe.

I fitted the camera that Kim recommended - it is all his fault! - again, I considered the position, effect on C of G very carefully giving it a great deal of thought as to how I would construct a mounting.

2 seconds later, I came up with this



Magnificent workmanship methinks!

Then ............................the plane was all over the place but OK until I slowed it down to attempt a hover! Another somersault!.

Don't watch this if you are prone to dizzyness!

That's hilarious! Good stuff Ian now standby while I go throw up  

Seriously though that was pretty cool. Thanks for the video.

Ron

Yeah, saw Ian zoom by every 2 seconds. Pretty cool.

Nice job Ian. Every thing looks like it going very well, except the landing. 

You must have very mice neighbours.

JanPar wrote:You must have very mice neighbours.

Mice tend to not argue about noise or much of anything else. They are also usually quiet. Some days I wish some of my neighbors were mice too.

Phil

Great vid Ian.
On board, RTP video. That's got to be a first.
In our little corner of the world, this is historic.
 
Thanks, I'm eying my side yard differently now.
Bob

My progress has now come to a halt.

I have had several issues and not really posted anything about one of them as I couldn't resolve it. I mentioned previously that the engine was a little down on power and I would take it out and strip it down.

I removed it, bench mounted it, ran it and it was perfect - despite around 4 hours on the clock! I checked the tank and fuel line - nothing to be found. Remounted the engine and then got intermittent performance. Head scratcher!

I ignored this and continued. The NightHawk is ONE VERY TOUGH LITTLE PLANE! It has survived many a crash landing, collision with me, clipping bushes and a vertical "tail drop" from four feet. I was trying to hover it and the engine cut!

However, the little aeroplane has now increased in weight by an ounce. Nothing broken but I have lost count of the amount of times I have glued the fin back on and the tailplane has been reattached three times. That with the weight added to the front to balance out (and a wing reattachment) has brought the weight up.

I also have had problems with take offs. I only managed three or four from the ground - I have had numerous attempts resulting in no flight log as it never left the gound before tipping over!

Landings!!!!!!!! Mostly tip overs but some somersaults and one triple somersault. Should enter this for the Olympics!

My last flight was a disaster - totally out of control but I discovered what had been causing my engine issues!

Any way, time to retire the NightHawk! I will let it rest before giving it a Viking funeral!

As you will be aware - my flight area is limited but I spent a few hours yesterday top dressing the "lawn", levelling it and following this by reseeding.



You can see that a lot of the dips, now dressed with a sand/soil/peat mixture are in the flight circle. I wonder if my landings did that!

Back to my engine issues - they weren't anything to do with the engine! It was my radio gear!

I have been using a Spektrum AR400 receiver and a couple of tiny analogue servos but I made a big mistake in the setup which only came to light following my hammering the servos trying to do wing overs (best result 70 degrees and a near miss with the ground!). Also, I made things worse hovering it while flapping the tailplane. (Looked good though but alas no video!).

Can you spot my mistake? Clue - this photo has replacement digital servos. Also, it shows how small the equiment is - you can install it almost anywhere!



I will let you peruse the photo a while befor answering this for you!

I will digress now.

I had planned to replace the NightHawk with a Sig Hummer. I realised I could program "flaperons" so slow it down (perfect my take offs and landings?) and have the elevator and aerolons linked. However, I posted this in the Models section and Ron hinted that it would be too big.

Too big? What is he talking about? Too big??? A liitle large! It is a 1/2 A aeroplane! Anyway, I ignored this until I opened the box to plan building it.

A little large! It is bloody enormous!

So I have opted for the Keil Kraft Radian and am back to converting control line to radio control and not the other way round.



The Hummer is twice the size of the Radian!

Back to the engine issue.

Did you guess? Top marks if you did!

I selected the battery based on weight and size. I checked the receiver could handle this and that told me 3.5 to 9.6 volts. The battery indicates 7.4v. So I thought - no problem. I realised during the course of charging the battery that, fully charged, it hit 8.4v - still no problem, methinks!

But oh dear! My last flight was on a fuly charged battery and ..............the servos. They are limited to 6.0 volts and they haven't been taking well to my increased stick waggling. On the last flight they did their own thing - the throttle servo had obviously been backing off for some time.

Hey ho! You live and learn. I now have a stepper down to reduce the voltage and will be using digital servos.

The build has started!

Although I said that the build had started - it didn't get very far.

The KK Radian beam mounts were designed to accommodate British diesels. These are wider than the Medallion (broader in the beam) and so I had to do a bit of fiddling to make the necessary adjustments while keeping the engine in line.

The main event though was because I had narrowed the gap between the engine bearers - the standard tank wouldn't fit. The tank has also got to be built into the fuselage between the bearers - it cannot be dropped in.



The build started for real today.

After stalling with the tank, I hit another stalling point. With the fuselage carcass completed - I realised there wasn't going to be much room for the radio equipment. Three servos, receiver, e.t.c.....

So after much careful thought (at least three seconds) - I decided that I would need to butcher the wing during construction.





Then I started to cover it. I decided to use ""Lightex" and bought one of those little irons with a stick for a handle. I spent and hour wondering why I couldn't get the stuff to stick, messed around with the temperature, collected a few burns and then decided to read the destructions.

Oh I see, you have to remove the backing! The backing on this stuff is clear - no wonder I couldn't see it!

Anyway, after several hours of fiddling, stretching, attempts at wrinkle removal ............ it started to come together.









The radio gear - well part of it is carved into the wing.



It is still far from finished. I still have to squeeze the following into the plane but I am now in a position to adjust the balance with it.



I have also been able to test the RC as installed. It now has throttle, flaps and elevator and independent control of flaps (for slow flying?!!)



Another control line/RC plane is on the way for the contest engine!

Your linked rate might be off. The flaps usually move much less than the elevator. Otherwise pretty darn cool!

RTP/RC is crazy isn't it?

Could you sacrifice the weight and do separate servos for the flaps, and later go full on RC? Make the rudder adjustable and no servo if you like offset. If you like rudder, then you need 2 more servos...

Phil