1919 AVRO 539B Biplane
UPDATE 16/01/2015 - Here's the plans for this build; 1919AVRO539b
Though the plane appears here as a tail dragger it was originally designed and built as a seaplane to compete in the 1919 Schneider Trophy event held in the UK at Bournemouth. Given my present flying skills, building it with floats would be a disaster waiting to happen - so I stuck with the wheels.
It all starts with a plan…. courtesy of the interweb.
Next – how big to build it? So that I could make the wings in a single piece I re-scaled and printed the drawing to make use of the longest edge of my A1 foam board sheet (841mm). Using the Baby Blender for comparison - the wing chord of the AVRO 539 is less, but the wing span is greater. Doing the sums it turns out the wing area is almost identical - so the wing load will be very similar to the Baby Blender.
This wingspan decision dictated all the other sizes. I cut out the pieces from the scaled print-outs and transferred the outlines and hinge detail etc. to the foam board.
I used the plan and elevation to help lay out a typical FT style fuselage – top and two sides. To create the gradual curve on the rear of the fuselage I took the top panel all the way to the tail.
Here it is with all the basic components added – tail, servos, power pod, turtle deck formers and top wing support. I added a double-layer cross piece at the front to rest the undercarriage against. Note – the servos are mounted well forward to help with balance.
The top wing support is screwed into 4 tongue depressors – 2 glued on the top and 2 trimmed ones on the inside.
The wing support frame is made-up of two identical pieces of bent wire that are bound together with thread and CA glue.
I hoped the frame would be stable enough to support the wing but it was a bit too springy, so I added thin bracing wires to create stiff triangles. The top ‘skid shaped’ wires are for attaching the wing elastics.
Knowing the chord and wingspan, I was able to lay out a typical BB2/Cruiser type wing. The only addition to the basic design are anchor points for the struts. I described them as ‘brace’ points in this drawing. This is the bottom wing, which isn’t as wide as the top wing – that wing goes right to the edge of the foamboard.
After I cut this first wingtip, I used the offcut as a template to draw the other three.
I use spare servo arms as the attachment points for the struts. These poke through holes I cut in the foam, and are glued on the inside of the wing with a short length of skewer through the end to spread the load. The bit that sticks out has useful holes for fitting wire to. I didn’t intend these to be too structural, just help maintain the spacing between the wings - and they’ll definitely add character.
The upper wing is flat and the lower wing has dihedral. To make-up the lower wing I bent a piece of 2mm wire to the correct dihedral angle and embedded this in my wing spar. This made assembly much simpler as the spar helped to produce the correct dihedral as the wing was assembled. The wire will add some strength, but was mostly just an aid to assembly.
The aileron servos were sunk into the wing during assembly.
The bottom wing centres using a pad glued to the top of the wing, which fits between the fuselage sides. The back rests up against a stiffener running across the fuselage.
The top wing centres using this rectangular pad, which fits inside the wire frame.
I used thin wire to make-up the struts that space the wings. I left the ends at the top a bit longer to make it easier to get them in and out just now.
Here’s the tail detail. I added a strengthener inside the fuselage, and included a little cut-out to help stiffen the rudder keel. I also added a steering tail skid.
Here’s a test fit of the paper templates for the turtle deck. I later included a hole above the servos to avoid the need for a removable section.
The undercarriage is held on by elastics. At the back I use an extra loop in the wing elastics and at the front a dedicated elastic/skewer. The wheel axle is sprung by passing it through two twisted prop saver rings. The landing gear frame is made-up from two mirror-image parts bound together using thread and CA.
I like the overall look of the plane - here it is in comparison to the original.
Almost there - the whole plane has been sprayed with clear matt varnish and is ready to maiden. In this picture you can see the servo access opening hidden under the top wing. I blanked out the wheel spokes with foamboard and card for a better look.
Foam radiator and headrest fitted - just the windscreen to add to the cockpit, and a final paint job.
I'm very pleased with how this plane has turned out; compact, classy and stylish.
Here she is with a headrest, windshield, paintjob and a pilot. Those are bigger wheels on the front, which have mostly allowed 'proper' landings. I filled-in the spokes with foamboard using the method from my "Olde-style wheels for olde-style planes." article. You might notice the nose is slightly remodelled. I had a prop-saver fitted, and the prop got knocked off-centre without me noticing - next time I powered-up I 'shaved' the front end down. A little outline plate cut from pizza base foam has neatend it up a bit.
You can see the little beast fly if you follow the Flite Test links below.
Cheers to all in the Flite Test community, all those shared ideas and enthusiasm have helped make this build possible. alibopo.
UPDATE; the plane had a 1700KV 28A motor to start with, but current draw was quite high with the 9x3.8 prop I was using. Time in the air wasn't really that good. I tried a smaller prop, 8x4, to allow the motor to use its revs to produce the thrust - hoping for more efficient use of the motor - but I think too much thrust was lost pushing air against the blunt nose. A bigger prop pushes more air out beyond the blunt nose, so not so much thrust is lost. With all that in mind I decided to try a slower revving motor, better suited to turning a bigger prop. I went for an EMAX GF2215/20 1200KV which theoretically draws about 20A with a 10 x 4.7 slow flyer prop. I only had 9 x 4.7 prop around, so tried the plane with that. It flew fine, with plenty of get-up-and-go for the take-off. I'm guesstimating my max current draw from this 'under-propped' setup is somewhere around 15-16A. This should give me much better flight times, though I've still to get a chance to confirm this. Last outing, with the new motor and prop, shortly after I got the plane in the air the wind picked up and I was happy (relieved) just to get it down without mishap!
http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/3vues.html
keep up your great work and great articles :)
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Ali.; In the start of your build you mentioned water floats and your fear of them.I've found articles of the guys waterproofing the electronics, and to the point of the motor really able to run under water. They claim the only drawback is "saltwater".
they dunkum, dryum out and fly some more.I guess I'm saying ,fear them not!Try um, I did and it's really cool. Makes this old man grin.
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Not having access to Adams foam board, I am also having power-to-weight issues with heavier foam boards and am looking for alternate motors. Have you found a "beefier" set up that works well?
Log In to reply
with more battery weight. I decided to standardise on that 1000mah size as I can use them on every plane I have, and with the 35C rating there's enough current for my larger draw motors. Also when I worked out a cost per mah for various batteries around
this size, the 1000mah came up much cheaper for some reason. I was able to buy more time in the air for my money - though I don't get super-long flight times. I'd actually have preferred a lower KV motor, 1200-1500 is a good range for these size of models due to the size of props they can swing, but it was an Ebay bargain that was too good to miss :)
Referring to this reccomendation chart, I'll go through my 'heavy foam board' planes;
50-70 watts/pound: 11-15 watts/100g Minimum level of power for decent performance
70-90 watts/pound; 15-20 watts/100g Trainer and slow flying scale models
90-110 watts/pound: 20-24 watts/100g sport aerobatic and fast flying scale models
110-130 watts/pound: 24-29 watts/100g Advanced aerobatic and high-speed models
130-150 watts/pound: 29-33 watts/100g Lightly loaded 3D models and ducted fans
150-200+ watts/pound: 33-44 watts/100g Unlimited performance 3D models
My now deceased BB (726g) came in at 29.6watts/100g - putting it at the top of the Advanced aerobatic range (in theory).
My GeeBee has an AUW of 825g with a GT2210/13-1270KV 17A motor recommended for 600-800g planes - from the chart that's 22.7 watts/100g which is sport aerobatic and fast flying scale. Which sounds about right for how it performs.
The Tribewt has an AUW of 680g and flies on the Emax CF2822 1200kv 15A - rated at 160w - that's 23.5 watts/100g - sport aerobatic and fast flying.
The Morphocoupe Bush Plane weighs in at 938g and the motor is rated at 210 watts - that's 22.4 watts/100g - sport aerobatic and fast flying. It probably would do that if I hadn't accidentaly built-in a permanent flap/undercamber on the wing. The plus side of that mistake is it can coast around quite slowly if I want it to.
The Avro has an AUW of 925g with the 215w motor - 23.3 watts/100g - sport aerobatic and fast flying. But that includes 40g of ballast. I might lose some of that once I work out a final CG - just now it's on the 25% point, but it could shift back. I'm expecting a fairly wide flight envelope, but no extreme top end speed.
I think the difference between these heavier planes and some that you see is that these ones need to actually fly and be flown - you can't just hang them off the prop like a 3D plane. They stall, they lose speed in a fast turn, they don't leap into the air - a bit like the full size versions.
If you trawl through my articles you'll see all these planes flying. In particular look at my article "Heavy foam board blues?" Heavy foam board is not an obstacle to flying - you just don't get the same performance or flight times, though a lot of the time it's probably not that noticeable.
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Thank you,
808areosquadron
Log In to reply
Max power 210W - suggested prop 8x4 to 10x7
I probably erred on slightly too slow a motor speed here, but it pulls the plane along quite happily.
The AVRO has a MYSTERY A2212-10 1700KV Specifications:
- Max. efficiency current:14 - 22 A (>72%)
- Max Current capacity :28 A/ 60 s
Enough power 22A (at the top of the max efficiency band) x 10v (allows for efficiency losses etc) gives 220Watts - for this plane that's roughly 23 watts/100gram (Sport aerobatic and fast flying from the table above.) I don't regard this as an ideal motor for this plane - I bought it in confusion early on in my RC career thinking the KV value related to power. No big deal - it's still one of my more powerful motors, but I do prefer slower spinning motors.
I've just bought this motor;
EMAX GF Series 1200KV Outrunner Brushless Motors Type GF2215/20
1200 KV - recommended prop 10x4.7 - max current 20.2A - thrust 1125g 2.48lb
I might swop this in to the Avro as it appears to be a more efficient motor and could give me longer flight times.
I know the problem though - manufacturers/sellers use so many different ways to describe motors. I decided to go with slower spinning motors partly to swing bigger props that fit the scale of the models better, and mostly because I hate those high-pitched screamer motors. I think a lot of people start off using 'screamer' motors thinking they are more powerful. I know they work well on pushers with limited prop clearance, or on smaller scaled models, but I can't see the point of using them on larger models.
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/EMAX-GF-Series-1200KV-Outrunner-Brushless-Motors-Type-for-Rc-Airplane-GF2215-20-/300949220874?pt=Radio_Control_Parts_Accessories&hash=item4611f8ae0a
Log In to reply
Like you, I am probably looking at the lower kv rating than the higher, screaming motors. I am also looking at a lower pitch on the propeller, for thrust and scale, instead of a higher pitch for speed. I will be sure and check out these motors.
Once again, this is very helpful.
Sincerely,
808aerosquadron
Log In to reply
Following our discussions on motors for our more portly planes, I have had good success with the Turnigy D2836 from Hobbyking: both the 1100kv and 950kv motors. They are not that expensive and received very good remarks from Experimental Airlines in his YouTube review.
I thought I would pass along the information since you were so helpful during our earlier discussions.
As they use to say in the old USAAC: "Keep'em flying',"
808aerosquadron
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
I would also like to build a Sopwith Pup or Bristol Scout, but getting the CG correct without gluing a brick to the nose will be problematic.
If you do build your SE5A, or similar, please post photos.
To quote the old RFC, "Per Ardua ad Astra,"
808aerosquadron
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply