EclipseFlight7 From Somalia, joined Apr 2004, 518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6367 times:
The biggest problem is the cost, as these are as frail as an old lady. My 500 dollar trainer is screwed because I hit the tail when putting it in the car and the balsa snapped. I'd say fly a few before you should even try to build one, as flying them is hard enough as it is.
Frankly, I thought it would be an entertaining hobby, but at the end of the day it just turned out to be a nerve-wrenching experience, where I was constantly worrying about my investment hitting the ground in a puff of dirt, or perhaps the worry of seeing my plane fly out of range and gently watch it float off towards the horizon, or maybe even someone crossing frequencies and then I suddenly find that my plane has taken a 90 degree turn towards me.
I don't see the allure of it, but if you do, then go ahead.
And for the record, you can pick up plans for almost any plane easily, (I've seen some for an L-1011) but then you would have to gather the materials and assemble it on your own.
Manzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6269 times:
I started building RC aircraft after I graduated with an Engineering degree so yes. Was it necessary? No, I don't think so but then I didn't build from scratch.
My recommendation would be to build an electric powered kit as a starter and then look at using your engineering skills to improve the design. Electric becuase of the ease, cleanliness, quietness.
Again, once you've got the hang of that then move on to IC and maybe even gas turbines.
If cost and worry about damage is an issue then I would go for one of the foam models like the Multiplex Twinjet. It looks the business, flies like a dream and is very resilient to crashes though not totally impervious. Alternatively there are the small profile park fliers... Li Po powered electric models that do amazing 3D aero at very slow speeds and at low heights so crashes are slow speed affairs and the aircraft bounces!
Hope that helps!
Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
777WT From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 879 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 6249 times:
I thought of making a 777-300ER in which the cross section of the fuselage would be 3/4 of a foot diameter. Using ducted fans with cowlings to make it look like the actual 777-300ER, flat thick aluminum for engine to wing support, robart retracting landing gear, It was estimated to be a 4-5 ft long.
But after talking with my friend in engineering at a upstate college, he said according to the CAD plans, the actual wings size of the 777-300ER if scaled down, will require greater speed to stay flying than the real one., which would've been almost double.
The slats will require some heavy duty system since even the powerful servos can't withstand it due to binding. The flaps wouldn't be a problem.
Since I'm out of college already and in the testing stages of A&P certification, I've shelved the plans.
I used to have a hobbico flightstar trainer which had a aluminum spar for connecting the two wings together. After a year of flying it, I put in a almost double bigger cc engine in it. A year later after dogging it around by pulling high G's turns, the wing snapped and folded, it looked like a shark fin when it went down.
The other plane I built after the flightstar spar broke, was a Ultra Sport 40, I put in a .50 cc engine in it, reinforced the spar with carbon fiber strips.
That's still flying today and it can pull itself up vertically, hell I could launch it like that.
But I haven't been flying much with it due to lack of time, however I do fly my X-Cell .60 graphite once in a while.