New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by Winston, Oct 26, 2019.
Never thought indoor flying models would reach this size.
That’s nuts. I can’t imagine how light the materials are to fly that slow. And the pilot must have steely nerves to fly that close to the wall.
Call me a weenie, but I don't want to be sitting in the front row watching that one.
You'll have plenty of time to move. This isn't a scenario from Austin Powers.
In the early days of indoor RC the airplanes were rather large just to get the wing loading down enough - large light structures were needed when the power was a ferrite magnet motor and NiCds cells. I'm talking about mid 1980s.
It's easier to do now, though retracts, flaps AND wing fold under RC control is pretty durn impressive. The info on the YouTube page says the model weighs ~4Kg.
I'd hate to try to judge the distance to the walls flying in that crazy lighting, though. That it was done successfully is also impressive.
The ones I've seen weren't any bigger than a Guillows kit, even their bigger B-17, B-24, B-29, Catalina etc. Most models back then were also covered with cellophane and rubber powered.
Guillows models are far too heavy to work indoors, at least if you use the kit parts....
They are tough to make work as RC models even outdoors....though it’s easier now than it was 20 years ago thanks to smaller, lighter RC gear as well as lithium battery-based power systems.
The sheets can be easily sanded down.
That’s a start. Four ounces per square foot is a good target for wing loading for flying indoors (unless you have a REALLY big site).
So - let’s take that Catalina as an example. It’s advertised as 1/28th scale, so it has about 1/784 of the wing area of the full scale airplane, or about 1.8 square feet. That means to get to 4 ounces per square foot, the all-up flying weight would need to be a bit over 7 ounces. In that budget you’d need two motors, two ESCs (if brushless), the drive battery, at least two servos (rudder, elevator), a receiver, as well as the airframe and covering, linkages, and so forth.
Quite a bit of sanding at least.
The Catalina would also be complicated by the nacelle position, which only leaves room for 4.7 inch diameter props at that scale. Finding a motor/prop combination that would work at the right air speeds would be “interesting”.
The numbers are similar for the Guillows B-17.
I’ve seen the Guillows P-38 done as an RC model powered by a pair of G-Mark .03 glow engines. It was a fast handful to fly outdoors. No way it would work indoors in a site smaller than an indoor football or baseball stadium.
Remove landing gear as well. Using single escapement assuming you're flying RC and not rubber is all you need.
That looks a little dicey in the space and it's certainly not rudder only ("a single escapement") but it does seem to work. I wonder how much of the material included in that Typhoon kit is in the model in the video. It looks like he's using a Parkzone receiver/servo/ESC unit for the radio (so three channels) as well as one of the little motor/gearboxes from one of those UMX ready-to-fly planes.
A modeling friend of mine, Bob Benjamin, has done a number of Guillows kits as RC conversions (the larger WWII fighters, mostly) and has written about them in Model Aviation but I am pretty certain he has no intention of flying those airplanes indoors unless he can get into the Tacoma Dome (nearest big enough indoor space to both him and me) to do so.
When was the last time you flew an RC model indoors? It's been a few years for me, but I have at least half a dozen indoor-capable RC airplanes on hand (by which I mean with a low enough wing loading, adequate control authority and adequate power to be practical to fly in a double gym or larger indoor space) at the moment. They make nice calm evening cul-de-sac flyers as well.
I gotta get off the computer and go launch some rockets. The sun is out and it's close to calm, though it's chilly.
It wasn't meant as a single escapement example but they do fly indoors nevertheless.
By the way the closest I ever got to flying escapements was rudder-only pulse proportional back in the 1970s before college and two pulse rudder airplanes early in my post-college RC career (early 1980s before I went exclusively electric). I can't imagine flying full-center-full-center rudder only (which is what one gets with escapements) indoors unless in a domed stadium, or perhaps a very light slow model in a facility like a domed sports field. But someone with better skills than mine might be able to do it. Rudder only is such a balance between power and turn rate with no throttle and no pitch control. The no throttle aspects would really make indoor flying and not crashing into the ceiling "interesting".
Free flight rubber has been flown indoors for some time all across the world.
Separate names with a comma.