Aerotech Phoenix new build

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
James as an RC RG manufacturer I have my own thoughts.

Here are some of the things I think are issues:
1)RC guys are inherently cheap, they buy a $15 outrunner motor and fly it forever, they don't want to spend $5-$10 for a 1-5 minute flight....
2)Rocket guys don't mind spending the $$ but are afraid they will destroy an rc airplane....
3)You need to find that mix of RC and rocket enthusiast, as ttabbal said with more people getting into drones and with more available good performing stabilized arf planes more people are getting into rc and gear prices reduce and capability goes up.
4)Cost of entry: In reality this isn't that big of a deal but I think psychologically it is a hurdle. A good radio for $125, plus about $100-$125 or so for a kit and components to fly isn't that bad compared to a highpower rocket kit and altimeter, chute etc, but if it isn't something you think you will use a lot it seems like a lot of $$ up front. You can also go with very inexpensive components, servos can be had for $5 each, receiver for $7 and transmitters for $50.
5)availability of kits: As you say rc kits don't seem to last long in the market.
6)suitable power plants. For my take, a nice easy burn rocket motor is the best for rocket gliders, it gives you time to think and react and steer. New people/rocket people tend to think that you want it up in the air very quickly so they don't have time to screw something up...I think that is incorrect thinking unless you have a design that is a true hands off boost kit, something with sliding/folding wings etc that has a very forward CG and flies more like a rocket. There are only a few of those types of motors, and they usually take special expensive casings to use. The 32mm reloads are hazmat and use an expensive casing, only the long burn E-6 type motors are usps shippable. Since the market is small, most vendors dont' carry them, so the availability is limited.
7)Styling. Most of the kits that have been produced are competition styled kits that look a lot alike, ie a simple pod and boom airplane, to me that's boring, even if it is the most efficient.
8)In some cases you could use estes motors, but to keep them from ejecting you have to plug them which nar consideres a modification voiding nar/ama insurance, and people don't want to mess with that typically. Yes, you can design around that.
9)construction can be different, use different techniques and/or materials. Potentially some learning hurdle.
10)special launch pad...required in some cases to support the wings/launch at a less vertical angle....since an airfoiled model can zoom up as it increases speed.
11)Performance, a lot of the previous designs were heavy for the available motors, had a very fast boost, or had a very fast glide which were not tolerant of mistakes.
12)Boost gliders versus rocket gliders, Boost gliders can help with the hands off boost part by putting nose weight up front, but then you have two things to go chase after, if flying on your own trying to fly and watch your pod may not be easy.

Some of the other newer designs by northcoast and JH aerospace have addressed the hands off boost, no special pad, and motor issue using standard motors, but you still have the overhead of radio equipment cost, but for me they still look like a standard wood glider:) No offense intended...

For my part I've tried to address several of these issues: I'm doing kits that look more like rocket planes or actual airplanes, nothing leaves the model, I'm carrying the 24mm glider motors and try to always keep them in stock, they have a gradual burn rate and are perfect for the weight class, they are pretty easy to boost and very docile on glide, I'm selling the casings at almost cost to help reduce the overhead to get started, the construction and prefab allows them to go together very quickly, they launch vertically with neutral pitch for the speed, use a standard rail or rod available at any launch. Because I do these to order for the most part, I'm able to customize and do different models, so you have a variety to choose from but that still use the same basic components and parts so my overhead isn't high. For some of my kits you can use an adapter to fly them with an electric motor so you get more use out of them than just for rocket launches. In fact that's how I fly a lot of my rocket gliders most of the time, as electric pushers.


I've also tried doing some experimenting and talking with Aerotech to encourage them to do a slight modification to allow the rc reloads to be used in the standard casing or develop a plugged forward closure, to reduce casing cost/overhead, it looks like have listened and are working on that. I'm doing this just to give back to the hobby and because I think they are a lot of fun to fly and I'm trying to encourage people to try it. I'm getting paid for my time, but nothing more. I've sold about 170 kits in a little over a year and a half which is more than I thought I would but not anything you could quit your job and do full time.

Frank
 
Last edited:
I wonder if a learning kit might help.. Simple foam design, el cheapo electronics, comes complete with a motor, battery, etc... Enough to get 5 minute pusher flights. Just for learning basic RC skills with a vehicle that can be easily converted to rocket power and launched from a standard estes pad. On a slow 24mm motor. Just to avoid the 32mm RC case expense. Maybe just vent the motor tube so the ejection charge doesn't matter.

Or just suggest people build a nutball. Single sheet of dollar tree foam, and about $30 worth of electronics. A little hot glue and you're done.
 
I wonder if a learning kit might help.. Simple foam design, el cheapo electronics, comes complete with a motor, battery, etc... Enough to get 5 minute pusher flights. Just for learning basic RC skills with a vehicle that can be easily converted to rocket power and launched from a standard estes pad. On a slow 24mm motor. Just to avoid the 32mm RC case expense. Maybe just vent the motor tube so the ejection charge doesn't matter.

Or just suggest people build a nutball. Single sheet of dollar tree foam, and about $30 worth of electronics. A little hot glue and you're done.

That exists! Check here: www.dynasoarrocketry.com has some gliders that are docile in nature. Frank has made some great planes on there - the current crop are great as well! Flighttest.com has some great into plans and kits for people getting into the hobby who also enjoy building. I picked up the Mighty Mini Trainer for my son to learn how to build (with me) and fly: https://store.flitetest.com/mighty-mini-tiny-trainer-speed-build-kit/ Add in the power pack and a battery and one just needs to get a TX & RX and will be set to fly. Sadly, with RC, the kits can be cheap but the electronics are not so cheap. The beauty of the mini tiny trainer is that you won't cry should you crash it - $20 for laser cut foam and you can replace anything with dollar store foam from the plans on the site and you can rebuild pretty much everything on it.

Finally, if you just want to get a relatively inexpensive glider the Conscendo at Horizon Hobby is on sale - it comes with everything you need to get into the air: plane, battery, transmitter, receiver. https://www.horizonhobby.com/conscendo-s-rtf-hbz8600?clickpath=homepage_espot3_10102016

I still HIGHLY recommend hooking up with a RC club to learn the basics but if you insist on flying solo this has some fail safe technology to help you learn. The foam is pretty durable and gliders are a LOT more forgiving than propeller and rocket power planes.
 
Speaking of RC rocket glider kits /plans, the first higher power rocket glider I started building was John Kallend's "Ladyhawke" from RCM plans.
It was pretty cool, had two motors and one was an airstart which was ignited in flight - instructions for which were included in the plan and build article in RCM.
I set it aside when I got an Aerotech Phoenix kit.

lady2.jpg

Here is an original design R/C rocket plane, "Ladyhawk". It takes two rocket motors, one for launch and the other is ignited in the air by radio control. Its top speed is 220mph (going straight up) with an F39T motor (it would go faster with both motors fired simultaneously, about 330mph, but the covering would not stay attached to the wings). The acceleration is about 15G, so it's difficult to photograph. This shot was taken about 1/10 second after ignition of an E18W motor. The article on the design of this plane was published in R/C Modeler magazine, Oct. 1993 issue.
Never kitted but plans are still available online.

https://mypages.iit.edu/~kallend/rock.html

That said, - maybe it is just as well I did not finish the Ladyhawke, as I happened across this post somewhere online - so take it for what it's worth:
by Greg Smi » Wed, 14 Aug 1996 04:00:00 Quote:
John Kallend flies fairly frequently with our club and has warned us
that *no one* has ever been able to build a LadyHawke that flew
successfully when they followed the plans in _RCM_. *The editors
modified the design for unknown reasons, and it doesn't work as printed.
able to send you plans to the *real* LadyHawke that will work much
better.
-----
Greg Smith *N9LHI NAR 15881 * TRA 1974
-Director of Operations, Central Illinois Aerospace


Another delta rocket glider was John Borens's Delta Star......which was kitted for awhile by R&R, still some out there, I was able to get one.
db_Delta_Star_Profile1.jpgdb_Delta_Star_on_Pad1.jpg
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=441185
 
Last edited:
Speaking of RC rocket glider kits /plans, the first higher power rocket glider I started building was John Kallend's "Ladyhawke" from RCM plans........

That said, - maybe it is just as well I did not finish the Ladyhawke, as I happened across this post somewhere online - so take it for what it's worth:
by Greg Smi » Wed, 14 Aug 1996 04:00:00 Quote:
John Kallend flies fairly frequently with our club and has warned us
that *no one* has ever been able to build a LadyHawke that flew
successfully when they followed the plans in _RCM_. *The editors
modified the design for unknown reasons, and it doesn't work as printed.
able to send you plans to the *real* LadyHawke that will work much
better.
-----


An interesting story that I had not heard before. What exactly did RCM do to screw up the plans enough to make the Ladyhawke unflyable?
 
I flew the Lady Hawk once pretty much according to RCM plans. The balsa was laser cut from some company. I did not try the in-flight ignition. I can't remember if I used two or one D11P. I had a home-made pad to fire at about a 60 Deg. angle. The flight was very shallow and the model went into a fast roll right away and probably got only 100 feet high. The flight was about 20 years ago. If I stopped the roll towards the end of flight, the glide to landing was a very short distance. Fortunately, the grass at that time at the Pony Express Range (now the Frank Hunt Field) was very high and the model survived with no damage. I never flew the model again and I still have it. It is a good looking model. However, it is all made of balsa and is very fragile. The wings are booms and spars covered with monokote. It would never survive a crash landing.
 
Would be interesting to know. I looked up the plan on line and found a small .jpg of the RCM Lady Hawk plan. I remember being tempted to build one when the article was published in the early 1990s.

A cursory look at the attached plan does not show any obvious fatal flaw. Kind of hard to screw up a basic delta wing. Get the CG right, boost with the elevons trimmed to center, add some up trim for the glide. The CG on the plan looks reasonable.

Yes, it is fairly light balsa construction, but that is a must when flying 24mm BP motors, as many would want to do. Always better to build to fly and not build to crash, as the lighter product will always fly better and boost better.

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
After watching the amazing flight at the last URRF up in Potter, I had to get one. I recently bought one on ebay and am now looking at the build.

Currently, the bulk of the construction materials are balsa. With the new lighter weight materials available on the market, why wouldn't I replace the balsa air frame with carbon fiber angle iron and .005 G10? Also, is there any reason that I would not replace the balsa skin on the foam core wings with carbon fiber tissue and vacuum them? Seems that i would end up with a lighter bird that would take more abuse.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

All I can add is Bob Park himself told me to make the ailerons bigger. Which of course I forgot to do, but it needs bigger ailerons for sure.

And as someone else said, it will need something up front to balance it, our radios are very light now. I suppose you could try to lengthen the nose or put the wing further back, I would be worried about messing up the flying characteristics, it flies great.

And I concur, get an F-13 to start. I must have 200 flights on mine from 2010 to 2013. As someone noted, RC guys and rocket guys don't often cross pollinate. Bob Parks told me once (to this effect) that rocket guys have no problem with a high cost per flight but balk at the kit prices, RC guys are the opposite. I fly RC turbines ($) and we still complain about using $5 worth of kerosene per flight.
 
Define "bigger". Wider or longer? How much? I am getting ready to cut the wings and any guidance would be appreciated.
 
Define "bigger". Wider or longer? How much? I am getting ready to cut the wings and any guidance would be appreciated.

I can't answer with what has worked, I can only offer what I'll be doing with mine shortly (starting the build in the next month or so). I will keep the same width but will extend them a bit towards the wing tips. So, in order to increase roll rate: longer and farther out on the wing is my plan anyway.

-Eric-
 
Personally I've not found the aileron response to be lacking in any of the Phoenix models I have built but if you want more response Eric's idea to extend the length would be the ideal way to do so and possibly the easiest. Depending on how far you go with this you may want to cut down the recommended throw on your initial flights.
 
Joe or any of the other phoenix owners, do you have a scan of the plans you could post, or something showing CG location?

John Kallend, designer of the ladyhawk is refurbishing his phoenix and is going to move to 2s and bec and he doesn't have a CG location marked, and i pinged Bob Parks but Bob doesn't have a scan...I looked online and only found manuals, which indicate to use the CG location with empty casing, but no indication of CG location.

Frank


Bob Parks Wrote the below:

Argh.. I went looking for the CG info and could not find it either! The problem is all the CAD drawings are now 25 years old, and nothing will open those formats anymore. I did export them to some newer, standard formats, but lost all the lettering and symbols!

But the rough answer is " on or a bit ahead of the wing bolt" I think that was liftoff CG. It's been a while! As you mention, with the big tail, it is pretty tolerant. The whole thing was designed to be pretty tolerant and easy to fly so it would survive that first test flight with a less than skilled pilot.

I do still have a couple of archived original kits, but they are REALLY hard to get at. It would take a couple hours to get to them in the storage area.

As for batteries and radio. I tend to be cautious about running 1S LiPoly on anything that was not specifically designed for it. So, with old servos in a Phoenix, I would do 2s with a BEC (just a small ESC with BEC would do fine). Its not worth scrimping on battery anyway, since you will just replace it with ballast to get the CG right. If you have to add metal to the nose for weight, add some electrolyte too!

BTW, I have been flying mine with 29mm motors, both reloads and single use. They are a slip fit into the 32mm casing. So, I just add a bit of tape for a snug press fit into the 32 then the same to get the 32mm casing into the plane.
 
I marked the CG location on my Phoenix wing...just checked it...0.7 inches ahead of the wing bolt center point (loaded at lift off).
Flies great after motor burn out with this.

I'll go look for the plans......
 
A picture is worth a thousand words? I gave up trying to describe it.

Hope this helps!

IMG_0431.jpg
 
Hmmmm.

I pulled the plans and it appears the CG on the plan is not 0.7 " in frontof the center of the wing bolt.
Not sure why my CG was marked on the wing that way.
Maybe I've been flying with a CG a tad too far in front.

The manual doesn't appear to have any additional info.....

Phoenix CG.jpg
 
Cool, thanks very much...

Btw John said RCM changed the thrust line, wing section and nose when they published his ladyhawk plans, no idea why...
 
Sorry Frank. didn't see your request until now but glad you got the info. My current Phoenix is set up a little of this and is still pretty agile.

I've just started on a repair of mine and maybe will build another. Seems like everyone is right now :)
 
Just finished a phoenix I got from eBay, did not come with a 32mm reload case. Saw someone said they have used 29mm reloads and single use motors. What do you recommend instead of a 32mm reload?
 

Attachments

  • 20180923_123115.jpg
    20180923_123115.jpg
    135.8 KB · Views: 42
  • 20180923_123100.jpg
    20180923_123100.jpg
    199.9 KB · Views: 43
Back
Top