300 g plane design, 80 mins with 1600 mah battery

by Lines | December 5, 2015 | (7) Posted in Challenges

maiden takeoff

maiden landing

takeoff in 30mph winds

flight with downward facing camera

The camera for this last video was my phone, which weighs nearly as much as my actual plane, t around 250g. that is why for the first part of the video, my plane is incredibly unstable. it was near its limit for carrying capacity.

Hey!! I am 16 years old and have been designing and building planes now for three years. This design in particular is ridiculously amazing. This is my latest design of five, with another one coming under way. I declare a challenge to Flite Test to try to make a more efficient aircraft than the one I have, with a longer flight time and more compatability with rough weather. The less power used the better.

Of course, for all you hobbyists out there, you understand that bling and looks are not everything. That's why I have these stats, which seem impossible, but yet here they are.

Wingspan: 2.14m

Body length: 1.2m

Throttle: 1100kv, 11.1v brushless motor, 9" prop

Power source: 30C 11.1v 1600mah li-po battery

Weight: 304 grams, 10.7233 oz

Average flight time: 80 mins

Windspeed: loses stable control at 55 km/h, stable flight till then

Materials: balsa, bass wood, carbon fiber, foamboard, plastic

The shape of the plane is similar to a powered glider, but it is designed to be a slow flyer. Of course, you can shut off all power and it glides like a charm, too. It does not have too great of a payload, yet considering its own weight, it is incredible this thing lifts anything. It is capable enough for FPV, but interestingly enough landing gear will actually render the plane rather unstable. I've had multiple crashes with this little...errr, not so little plane, yet because it's so light it hasn't taken any damage whatsoever.

The wings are the main point of efficiency for this craft. Their shape, and the fact that it is a perfect airfoil type wing, reduces distortion of the air currents and so provides a neat and stable aircraft. the ends of the wings have the little bend, which for every aircraft, is extremely important for efficiency. The ends of every wing creates a huge disruption in the air current, dragging the wing like a rock in a river. the little air vortexes consume an immense amount of power, actually. adding some little lift to the end of the craft allows to neutlaize those vortexes and make a more efficient wing.

I built this aircraft in Lithuania over the summer and shipped it over to Las Vegas, where I live. Its wings fold up to it's sides, just like this:

It's wings are hollow and folded, like this:

The entire thing was made by hand, no machines. Every single piece of foam was outlined with balsa, and I even made the carbon fiber rod. The build time for this craft was 1.5 weeks, and I am making a slightly edited 1.5 size model of it in a few weeks.

Overall, I would like to challenge Flite Test to create a more efficient design than I have, and for anyone who is reading this article, to try to create a new type of plane: something that is not just recreational, or for fun, but something that can be used as a reliable view from above, something that is dependable, and efficient. Check. Flite Test, make your move.

 __________________________________________________________________________________________

 

for all those who have read the comments, you will see that the plane here has... been compromised. to no worries, I am building a new and improved plane, of which after the maiden flight i will give the measurements to. so far the build is going well, and last night i finished both wings. here they are.

this plane design is an inverted gull wing design, with a 100 inch wingspan. that thing in the center is the body frame, and im usuing really hard foam for rigidity. hopefully the wing shape will provide really good stablility, so the ailerons will be rather small. I haven't planned out the entire thing, though. the rudder is still not planned at all, while the cg will have to be adjusted as the project continues. Here are the blueprints so far: 

COMMENTS

Crash and Burn RC on December 27, 2015
Hey man, I love this article! The plane is awesome, I would like to see a video! This makes me really want to try something like this. I have one question, did you cover the foam in tape? If so, did you remove the paper on the foam?
Again, amazing article,
Colin
Log In to reply
Lines on December 27, 2015
Hey! if you look closely it is covered in tape, and there was no paper on my foam. it was a really neat foam, extremely thin and light, but fragile so i had to cover it. And no i do not know where i got it. Its been in that workshop for decades.
Log In to reply
AeroErgo on December 28, 2015
Ohh challenge accepted! I flow for 60 minutes some planes with a 1300mAh batt so maybe i will be able to fly like this one, but just one thing_: I will not burn my batt to 0% ... cheers!
Log In to reply
Sky Pirate on December 25, 2015
Awesome design, and love the challenge at the end. I have been flying an FT BN Versa for a while now and am impressed by 15 minutes of flying, but 80 minutes! I might have to give this a whirl. Perhaps some plans/measurements? I might even try improving it. Might I ask though, why this tape covering? Surely on a light model such as this you would want to remove paper and leave off excess weight. How much does your 1600mAh battery weigh? I fly with 2200mAh 3S (approx. 200g) so I will have a heavier airframe but a potentially better flight time if I can get it right. Thanks!
Log In to reply
Lines on December 26, 2015
All my plans and measurements stayed in europe, but the new model i am making is nearly twice the efficiency and around 135% the size. That one for sure will have a 2200mAh battery, but also two motors for throttle due to its size. 80 minutes is no biggy at all, i usually land with another 17% battery. The entire airframe is made of extremely light foam, of which i cover in the tape to reduce drag and actually strengthen and insulate the foam underneath.

Log In to reply
Sky Pirate on December 26, 2015
Thanks! Perhaps you could share some preliminary measurements of the second one. I would like to scale it to fit one motor (that's all I've got at the moment). Did you use a depron style foam or DTFB foam? Thanks again!
Log In to reply
Lines on December 26, 2015
Sure! but i must warn you... one motor knocks off glide a lot. i decided to use two so that i could turn throttle off and have a nice glide right off the bat. I'll make some sketches now of the new plane and post them up. - See more at: http://flitetest.com/articles/300-g-plane-design-80-mins-with-1600-mah-battery#sthash.A860pe9h.dpuf
Log In to reply
Lines on December 27, 2015
Also, for the foam... neither. depron bends too much and dtfb foam is absolutely useless in a plane meant to last storms. i once tried flying with dtfb foam and had my wing ripped off by ice particles cutting into it too much. For the large scale one i am building now, I used a special type of foam, usually used by architects to create 3D models, its baasically depron foam thats a bit harder and has a thick layer of plastic and paper on it. for the little one, AKA the red one, I used an incredibly rigid depron that was only around 3mm thick.
Log In to reply
Lines on December 29, 2015
OK then, I'd like to see you beat me! I usually don't kill my battery, only if there's a pretty strong wind do I run it down
Log In to reply
HilldaFlyer on January 18, 2016
Great challenge!
If you haven't, you should probably put this challenge into the forum like the mad scratch builders section. Define the limits specifically so we come close, like flight weight, wingspan, limits to materials used or unlimited. With the responses, you'll get a group of builders submitting.
Log In to reply
Lines on January 18, 2016
Thanks! I've already started on one!
Log In to reply
HilldaFlyer on January 19, 2016
Great - Would you mind posting the link - I couldn't find it.

Log In to reply
Gblakem1999 on January 1, 2016
Hey! Im also 16! I love the sound of this challenge. Sadly I already have 2 planes in progress, a blaster 3 and a scratch build with a 13 foot wingspan. I'm interested in this though. I hope to see more cool things from you. By the way I made an account just to reply to this. I've Ben flying for 2 years and building for about 6 months. Maybe we can work on something in the future!
Log In to reply
Lines on January 2, 2016
Currently I am working on the other craft, the one you see in the bottom. There soon will be an article about it, since I've finished up 3D modeling on it. Its wingspan is roughly 9 ft, body is 6 ft 3. So far I've decided to name it the green giant, as it is larger than me(in wingspan) and is ridiculously heavy (by my standards, meaning it weighs probably 1.5 lbs) The article should come out soon. The blaster 3 is a really nice glider, with a really good tail design. I really look forward to hear from you and your 13 ft design (why?!) and collaborating on designs seems like a great idea!! reply to this for confirmation that you are still alive.
Log In to reply
Gblakem1999 on January 2, 2016
Yeah I'm still alive! And the 13 ft design is so I can carry as much as I really would want. If everything goes as planned I'm hoping to get around 4 or 5 pounds of cargo if I have one battery (6s 500mha) but for lone duration flights I'm wanting to put at least 4 of those so it would be a 20000mha batt. The whole purpose is 1. Carry a gimbal assembly for a live (turret) system like on a reaper drone and 2. Because it's awesome! And the airframe is going to be cheap because of dtfb. After these two projects I want to start working "small" (60" or so) again so I can make more.
Log In to reply
Lines on January 2, 2016
Weightwise, I believe that stuffing in 4 500mah batteries would add a lot more weight than just a single 6s 2200mah battery. Also to gain more lift power, you don't necessarily need to extend the wings that much. Changing the shape of the airfoil can make you gain a lot oflift, even with a small wing. My wings are long mainly to handle rough weather, and to create a more stable craft(they bend upwards, creating a dihedral). Extending the amount of space the air on top must go past will create a stronger lift, allowing you to haul the turret better. Large wings make it really hard to lift off the ground, trust me I've had lots of mistakes with that.
Log In to reply
Gblakem1999 on January 2, 2016
Haha sorry that was a typo. I'm using 6s 5000mha batteries. My phone autocorrected it because it knew that's crazy. Haha. But I'm not just carrying the gimbal I'm going to have it drop planes, cargo, and if it can haul enough maybe my brothers rc car. I did design the wing the way you were stating though, thick, so that I get a ton of lift and at slower speeds because I don't want to go fast. The motor will have to run continuously though. And I wish I could run it off of a 2200mah batt. But sadly a power 62 equivalent motor needs more than that :)
Log In to reply
Lines on January 2, 2016
That was a really bad typo! I was so confused! Try making gull wings for the 13ft plane. You will lose some lift, but you'll gain an easy liftoff.
Log In to reply
Gblakem1999 on January 2, 2016
I actually thought of that but a lot of the time it's going to be in a constant bank so I can keep the camera in the right spot + I already have the spar and "airfoil" cutouts made so it would be too much work now. It does have a little bit of polyhedra though.
Log In to reply
Lines on January 2, 2016
OK then. Liftoff still might be hard, so try to drop it from high up, it will be a lot easier to get the plane into the sky. I have a new article coming out soon with an inverted gull wing design and a challenge to the community, as soon as it gets approved
Log In to reply
Gblakem1999 on January 2, 2016
Awesome! I'll look out for it!
Log In to reply
Gblakem1999 on January 5, 2016
Can I just ask why you are doing an inverted gull wing? What advantage does it give you unless you're putting landing gear on it. If you want the stabilizing effect I would think it would be better to just add dihedral. I'm not arguing just asking if I'm missing something.
Log In to reply
Lines on January 5, 2016
Actually theres a really good reason. 1. the support for thmotor needs a strong standspace, which can be achieved at the bottom of the turn in the wing. 2. the landing gear need to be closer to the ground to make them short and lightweight. 3. the bend downward in the wing, starting from the very top, allows the placement of the motor thrust to be in such a postition as to be equal to the center height of the body, allowing the most weight(battery) to be carried the most efficiently. also the motor placement in this way allows the tail to not be disrupted by the air vortexes the motors form and so making it better and more efficient. finally, 4. it allows the first spot to hit the ground ( without landing gear) to be the wings, which are way more rigid than the thin and weak body.

Log In to reply
Gblakem1999 on January 5, 2016
I read it wrong and just read it again sorry about that
Log In to reply
crow57 on January 4, 2016
And I have a challenge for you - next time you achieve extraordinary performance from an aircraft you've built, document it well so that you have proof that we all can see. As it is, unfortunately all you have are unsubstantiated claims, in an article with inconsistent and contradicting statements. It's hard to take these claims seriously. Teenage boys, believe it or not, are prone to exaggeration. Not that grown men are any less prone, they just learn to make their exaggerations more beleivable. Good luck!
Log In to reply
Lines on January 4, 2016
No problem I'll try just that! I have a slight problem with that because I don't actually have a camera, so I have to use my phone. I'll be glad to try to record the entire flight next time of course trying to load it onto YouTube will take an extremely long time. My plane that I was using has crashed so as soon as I finish up my new one I will try attaching a mini camera onto the front and recording everything.
Log In to reply
TimmyGT on December 25, 2015
Very nice design! The challenge is to get it under 250g auw so you can give the faa the finger while you are flying it!
Log In to reply
musstang on December 26, 2015
That's a great idea. Is there any way to make this an official challenge for everyone in the Flite Test community? I would love to see what the community and the guys at Flite Test would come up with.
Log In to reply
Mostly Harmless on January 5, 2016
Wow, that's a tough challenge. I'm trying my hand at building such a plane from scratch. It has a 60" tapered wing and will use a carbon fiber arrow for a tail boom. Even trying to make it light, the wing is already at 5 ounces and the basic fuselage is at 3 ounces. So, already I'm near the limit without the tail assembly, electronics, motor, and battery.

Clearly, I need to learn how to build lighter....

But I'm liking the way it's turning out -- if it works, I'll post some pix in the forums.

Log In to reply
Lines on December 26, 2015
that sounds perfect. Sadly, i cant make any further improvements to the design as it crashed after the main support broke too far away to find. I am working on a larger, more efficient aircraft now, which is quite similar to this one.

Log In to reply
RotateB4TheEnd on December 26, 2015
I'm curious, do you know what your battery pack voltage is when you land?

This is an impressive airplane, similar in size to a Radian. I bet you've caught a few thermals already.
Log In to reply
Lines on December 26, 2015
Thermals actually cause a lot of damage to the plane. the wings are so thin that the strong upward thrust start to bend them, if i stay in one too long it pulls them right off. i usually land with 17%, but for the whole 80 mins i kill my battery to the end, 0%
Log In to reply
The-One-Who-Never-Crashes on December 26, 2015
Ouch! You shouldn't do that :).

Never discharge a battery below 20% of its capacity.
Log In to reply
Lines on December 26, 2015
Wow. I'm impressed that so many of you responded so quickly. I will try to answer all questions as soon as possible. look out for the new update.

Log In to reply
Fearless FPV on December 26, 2015
Wow! Amazing! I've been looking for a replacement for my Bixler 2 for a very long time; this looks like the perfect solution!
Log In to reply
Lines on December 26, 2015
this will fly great, longer then you could possibly achieve with a bixler2.

Log In to reply
The-One-Who-Never-Crashes on December 27, 2015
Which is what I want! I'll use it for some longer-range FPV.
Log In to reply
rcrcnitesh on December 26, 2015
That's very good. Can you post more details like chord, flight video, measurement of different parts and all. I am very interested in this one.
Log In to reply
Lines on December 26, 2015
Sadly, all i have now is just a few videos of takeoff and landing, and my plane got blown to bits a week ago as the main support broke during a wind storm. As soon as i get my videos onto youtube, will do though.
Log In to reply
musstang on December 26, 2015
BTW, challenge accepted. You should see if you can get some decent thermals with it. Also, you should throw in a couple of videos of you flying - both pilot's-perspective and FPV. Keep it up.
Log In to reply
HilldaFlyer on February 29, 2016
Hi Lines,
Still don't see the forum post. Do you go by a different name on the forums?
I wanted to look through the specifics of the challenge to see if I can even come close.
Log In to reply

You need to log-in to comment on articles.


300 g plane design, 80 mins with 1600 mah battery