How about an Airliner?

[AirHead]

Airliners are a "special" category for sure. The "Connie" is definitely the gal to be emulated. Just for notation, I wanted to add yet another "diabolically declined" jet aircraft that came from "The Great White North". It was the Avro C-102 Jetliner. Debuting in 1949, two weeks after the deHavilland Comet. The Jetliner was North America's first commercial jet. Howard Hughes declared a purchase order to buy 30 for his TWA operation. Then, horribly, like the Avro Arrow; The Canadian Feds chopped the funding and ordered the C102 scrapped in favour of the CF100 Canuck Fighter Interceptor. Obviously a highlighted lesson that Governments shouldn't be involved in airplanes! Totally nuts!!!

[lmramos44]

Hey that is pretty cool, looks like the stock eflite setup. How did it fly any videos?

It was a handful, I will try and find it’s maiden video

[tengarang]

It was a handful, I will try and find it’s maiden video

10-4 ................Roger that

[tengarang]

Good evening Gents, another update for today's efforts.

aircraft#52 "Tengarang Airlines Flight 911"

The plastic film half cone shape cut out was put to good use, as it was meant to cover the inboard nacelles top section where there use to be a Step, now there is a smooth half cone ramp which will help with the aerodynamics.

I chose red because it was the first color that came to my mind and was within reach, also the stock version of the bushmule had the red cowling.

-The wet paint is setting
-The Lemon RX Diversity 7 channel is setup with the Satellite DSMX, along with the gyro gains all configured, with toggle on off ability.

Since I will not be flying tomorrow morning, i will do some power studies on the THREE 3s 2200mah 20C packs which i will compare the three packs to see how each pack behaves under load. IF they behave similar underload, i will deem these packs ready to go. A similar study will be done with the THREE 3s 2200mah 40C packs.

Having both 3s 2200mah 20/40C (one for the inboard, and the other for the outboards) will serve two advantages. The total current down one path will be split which will allow a cooler path by using the TWO pack method. The second advantage is the low C rating with both packs together will offer more capacity (4400mah) and at the same time the weight seems to be lighter.

The most balanced and powerful setup still remains to be the single pack 4000mah 3s 55C G+ series, but will be slightly heavier, and run hotter since now all FOUR ESC's are tied to one node and the power BUS will get all its electrons from one pack, which can run hot.

After tomorrows experiment is concluded, i will plan on scheduling the maiden flight and get her trimmed out.

The maiden flight i will likely use the 3s 4000mah 55C G+ pack. After doing all these "Tests" 4s wont be a necessity.

Why the 4000mah 3s 55C G+? the reason is, because its a maiden flight, and i will need all the balanced power from single pack as much as possible whilst getting the plane trimmed out, and also experiment with the heavier loading characteristic while its being trimmed. Which will guarantee a pleasant flight experience with the dual 2200mah 20C/40C packs.

I have concluded using DUAL 4000mah 3s 55C G+ series packs will cause the aircraft to be very nose heavy at the CG i correlated with my stock bushmule. So this idea will go out the window for good.

More reports will follow in time....

[tengarang]

Airliners are a "special" category for sure. The "Connie" is definitely the gal to be emulated. Just for notation, I wanted to add yet another "diabolically declined" jet aircraft that came from "The Great White North". It was the Avro C-102 Jetliner. Debuting in 1949, two weeks after the deHavilland Comet. The Jetliner was North America's first commercial jet. Howard Hughes declared a purchase order to buy 30 for his TWA operation. Then, horribly, like the Avro Arrow; The Canadian Feds chopped the funding and ordered the C102 scrapped in favour of the CF100 Canuck Fighter Interceptor. Obviously a highlighted lesson that Governments shouldn't be involved in airplanes! Totally nuts!!!

Yes this is a very nice looking bird, sure do think so.

[tengarang]

Taxi Test of Tengarang Airlines Flight 911 complete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhX3_tBu0eQ&list=PLHC4mLOZgE3dbUPrmAxQtwWkFAOrcgxx7

[Aros]

While I love the Connie and old school airliners for sure, what I would love to see to start things off is a 737 or 787 or 747...I just love the clean look of the contemporaries....

[tengarang]

While I love the Connie and old school airliners for sure, what I would love to see to start things off is a 737 or 787 or 747...I just love the clean look of the contemporaries....

Yes, any of the three mentioned will do very well for me. to keep things interesting the twins first and then hot dog that 747 jumbo down the pipeline.

[apmech1]

CRJ-900 would be nice. I work for PSA Airlines and I love this livery!

[apmech1]

I have access to any technical documents you could possibly need for the CRJ-100, 200, 440, CRJ-700,705 AND CRJ-900 as I am involved in the maintenance of these aircraft. Flt ops and maintenance technical data including serial number specific information.

[Alpha]

As a hobbyist, I could go for either the Classic or Modern airliners, personally. Both have different appeals to me. I have my personal preferences but I'm unsure if any of them would ever make mass production.

I'm curious how many of us flew or are still flying the Eflite Super Airliner, or one of Ming's Windrider birds, or Tian Sheng's A380? Tony and I were talking earlier today about how fun Eflite's offering was, even with the fixed gear and shrieking fans of the time.

They're not airliners, but there have been other similarly large four engine models, like the Tian Sheng C-17 and A400M. The A400M gave me issues internally in several unfortunate ways, but I thought the exterior overall looked great. I'm hoping HK's upcoming C-130 finds a large audience to continue underscoring to manufacturers the potential market size of large four engine models like the FlightLine B-24. Subject matter can vary, but as a Four Engine Class, there's a long way to go.

[lmramos44]

As a hobbyist, I could go for either the Classic or Modern airliners, personally. Both have different appeals to me. I have my personal preferences but I'm unsure if any of them would ever make mass production.

I'm curious how many of us flew or are still flying the Eflite Super Airliner, or one of Ming's Windrider birds, or Tian Sheng's A380? Tony and I were talking earlier today about how fun Eflite's offering was, even with the fixed gear and shrieking fans of the time.

They're not airliners, but there have been other similarly large four engine models, like the Tian Sheng C-17 and A400M. The A400M gave me issues internally in several unfortunate ways, but I thought the exterior overall looked great. I'm hoping HK's upcoming C-130 finds a large audience to continue underscoring to manufacturers the potential market size of large four engine models like the FlightLine B-24. Subject matter can vary, but as a Four Engine Class, there's a long way to go.

I have had two TS globe masters, and even though the power setup had its issues, I really loved the plane. I have the Supreme Hobbies A340 configured as the 600 model. Every time I take it to the field it gathers a crowd. It looks amazing, but again the power setup is not completely thought out. It flys on a 3s 5000 for about two minutes...but they are a cool two minutes. I have also had the 1875mm wingspan B-17. Not really sure who makes it but it is an amazing flying version that uses two 3 cells. Flys like a trainer and looks great. I love four engine planes.....I really think that a B-36 or B-52 will eventually be modeled by someone. I probably won’t be able to resist. Hopefully the C-130 has all the bugs worked out because it really is a beautiful plane.

[Twowingtj]

A TWA B-17, Quantis B-29, South West C-141 would be great 2m, four engine choices. (just trying to stay with the "airliner" theme;):):)).

[tengarang]

CRJ-900 would be nice. I work for PSA Airlines and I love this livery!

Lovely plane i wouldnt mind this one haha as wel

[tengarang]

As a hobbyist, I could go for either the Classic or Modern airliners, personally. Both have different appeals to me. I have my personal preferences but I'm unsure if any of them would ever make mass production.

I'm curious how many of us flew or are still flying the Eflite Super Airliner, or one of Ming's Windrider birds, or Tian Sheng's A380? Tony and I were talking earlier today about how fun Eflite's offering was, even with the fixed gear and shrieking fans of the time.

They're not airliners, but there have been other similarly large four engine models, like the Tian Sheng C-17 and A400M. The A400M gave me issues internally in several unfortunate ways, but I thought the exterior overall looked great. I'm hoping HK's upcoming C-130 finds a large audience to continue underscoring to manufacturers the potential market size of large four engine models like the FlightLine B-24. Subject matter can vary, but as a Four Engine Class, there's a long way to go.

agreed Alpha,

im still flying the Tian Sheng's A380

sorry about the gum chewing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lpIx8eIXwI

[tengarang]

I did an exercise to calculate the Wing Cub Loading Index AKA WCLI.

So what is the WCLI?

WCLI for the wing loading calculation, I find it quite accurate for predicting flying characteristics.

Its a formula that I keep in mind when doing scratch builds.

Today I ran the numbers for the Aircraft#52 Tengarang Airlines flight 911 and compared with with Aircraft#22 Modified Avious Bushmule.

The calculation results are some what contradictory to my projected experience and what i have seen with flying Aircraft#22.

I have some ideas/hypothesis as to what the root cause of the contradictions

So i will start:

The WCLI = Flying weight(oz).divided by wing volume(cu.ft)

The length of the wing is 58.5"
and width of the wing is 8"

To put some guard-band and be more conservative with my calculations i primarily focus on actual wing area rather than the actual wingspan itself because the mid section of the wing really does not count as a lifting body which i refer to the "Center Void" especially in this case the air-frame is a high wing.

So instead of using a wing Area is 468 Square inch
I subtract the center void from the total area resulting in 420 Square Inch.

Actual Wing area = 468 sq. in - 48 sq. in = 420 sq. in

Now that we have the actual Area in Sq. in we need to extrapolate this to cubic feet to get the volume

So....

Volume(Cubic inch) = Square Root of Actual Wing area multiplied by Actual Wing area

Volume(Cubic inch) = Sqrt(420 sq. in) * (420 sq. in) = 8607.438643 cu in

Next we need to get the Volume in cubic feet to match Dimensions...to do this we take the Volume in cubic inch and divide by 1728

Volume(Cubic feet) = 8607.438643 cu in / 1728
Volume(Cubic feet) = 4.981156622 cu ft

Aircraft#22's All Up Weight (AUW) = 92.8 ounces
Aircraft#52's All Up Weight (AUW) = 115.2 ounces

Therefore

WCLI Airraft#52 = AUW/Volume(Cubic feet) = 23.12715876
WCLI Airraft#22 = AUW/Volume(Cubic feet) = 18.63021122

NOW here is contradiction driving me a bit crazy and as i have mentioned before i have a hypothesis which I will get to soon to surmise as to why those contradictions may be a artificial scare.....

In General the rule of thumb is to keep the WCLI at 10 or lower. Essentially the lower the WCLI, the better the flying characteristic, which means either a large wing area relative to the aircraft's mass or in other words a lighter aircraft....

So for instance:

a WCLI of 6 more or less resembles a glider
a WCLI of 12 would be in the realm of a warbird

Therefore i like to keep my target WCLI at 10 or lower

Target WCLI Less than integer of 10
WCLI Glider 6
WCLI War bird 12

But the contradiction is both Aircraft#52 and Aircraft#22 are both well beyond a WCLI of 10.

BUT the saving grace here is i know first hand Aircraft#22 flies very well at the mentioned AUW and that it is rather floaty which contradicts the calculated WCLI of 18.63021122

My hypothesis is therefore I surmise in the non swept high wing configuration, the a high WCLI may not be an accurate representation of how well the airplane would perform.
The WCLI would apply to low wing or a swept low wing configuration.

What does make me feel secure is the fact that I know Aircraft#22 with a WCLI of 18.63021122 flies very well with light wing loading characteristics.

And looking at Aircraft#52 with an WCLI of 23.12715876 which will have a higher wing loading simply due to the extra weight due to extra motors , esc's and bigger and more batteries....by a factor difference of ~4.5 should still more or less give a good and acceptable flying characteristic and taking the differential factor of ~4.5 with the hypothesized notion of high wing non swept configuration, i can take the WCLI effects with a grain of salt and not let it bother me too much but still be on guard and mindful on her maiden flight, turns and landings.

also if you take a look at the wing loading, you can see the wing loading by definition is 50% of the WCLI.

Im not taking anything for granted here, going to assume Aircraft#52 will be a handful during her maiden flight....going to use all the run way and utilize as much of the kinetic energy as possible to get a good feel to see what i will be up against.

Landings will be facilitated with power for aircraft#52 which is contrary to how Aircraft#22 is handled at only a WCLI of ~4.5 less......

Add on 11/15/2018 @ 7:59PM Pacific standard time:

It turns out that my hypothesis is not exactly correct, but the intent of the hypothesis is in the right direction.

What is correct after consulting Fai at Airborne models, he mentioned if the Busmule has thick flat bottom wings (which it does) it will have more lift so it can still fly good with high WCLI figure.
Which explains why Aircraft#22 flies well with a WCLI of 18.

I have ordered a spring balance from amazon to check the thrust to weight ratio before the maiden flight to see if i will get 1:1.

I will be OK with (1):(0.75) but anything under 0.75 will be too risky, which means the 4s packs will be utilized to overcome the thrust to weight ratio gap at a very small weight gain expense at 4s


I have some news to report and update the group about Aicraft#52 power to weight ratio failure with 3s and have decided to go with 4s 3300mah 45C dual packs. The dual 4000mah 3s 55C packs at full charge was only delivering 4.98Lbs of static thrust on the ground which means at 7.86Lbs AUW that is only 63.36% of thrust to its total all up weight.

As mentioned before we set 75% to be the absolute minimum acceptance level for the thrust to weight ratio in order to avoid any sort of risk the plane will be under powered and become difficult to manage once in the air with its given weight. Simply said, 3s is just not enough power.

I went a head and tossed the two 3s 4000mah 55C packs aside and charged up the China Hobby Line 4s 3300mah 45C packs (dual packs). I weighed the AUW with this setup the aircraft is 0.1LBS heavier ending up with 7.96LBS.

The thrust to weight ratio using the 4s Dual 3300mah 4s 45C packs showed acceptable results, and although not 1:1 we have a thrust to weight ratio of 90.95% at maximum charge and maximum throttle which gives 7.24Lbs of thrust.

If i back the throttle off a hair, the thrust will go to 83.42% at 6.64Lbs of thrust which is still above the 0.75 mark, which is a good sign.

I have concluded the maiden flight will be followed forward with the two 4s 3300mah 45C China Hobbyline packs.

Her CG with these packs positioned at the bulkhead of the battery bay, and with the seperate 2s 2200mah 20C pack for the external BEC coupled with a 4000uF cap to share BEC loading with the 4ESC 4A bec's placed near the tail makes the CG balance very well.

I was thinking of acquiring more the the CHNL 3300mah 4s packs but in 30C discharge rating which is still fine.

https://chinahobbyline.com/index.php…

For further improvement in flight time i am looking at the venom batteries at more capacity with almost the same real estate.... 5000mah 30C requiring the same space as the 3300mah 4s 45C is definitely going to help out with the flight time....though these packs are relatively expensive. Also note worthy to mention these Venom packs will likely improve the thrust to weight ratio, since the real estate and therefore AUW change will be negligible and that these packs will definitely punch harder due to the extra capacity and the way these packs are built will definitely boost performance.

https://www.amazon.com/…/dp/B016ZM1…/ref=asc_df_B016ZM1S66/…



as expected the quality of these Venom 5000mah 4s 30C packs are immaculate, the cells all came balanced within 200mV within each other. I have weight the AUW and the whole thing came out to 8LBS which is 0.04 lbs more than the 3300mah 45C 4s CHNL packs, per pack.

The CG is still looking good, and for alot more capacity gain there is very little weight gain and zero Real estate gain with these expensive packs. What i especially like about these packs are the accessories that come with it. The default connectors are Xt60's but there are two extra universal adapters to Deans and EC3 configurations, a template every battery manufacturer should think about offering as well since there are many who i know that can not solder (which is a mistake IMHO) it is a good marketing method to offer batteries.

I have included several pictures showing the new packs and of course the data that has been taken.

Full throttle Thrust Test (LBS) Thrust(LBS)
Insertion #1 7.36
Insertion #2 7.56
Insertion #3 7.66
Average value 7.526666667

As shown with the data taken using the average value i am getting 94.08% thrust to weight ratio using the new Venom packs. at 0.04LB AUW gain in weight.

This means if i use the best case value of the data using the venom pack the thrust improved by 4.80% and if the average value is considered the performance has improved by 3.13%. For conservative reasons i am officially reporting the thrust value using the average between the three insertions.

The setup as far as I can see is now optimized for the maiden flight. I am now in the process of storage charging these lipos for 11/24/2018 maiden activity.

Lord-Emperor Teng

[Dirty Dee]

A lot of guys have used paper model planes and scaled them up to make depron airframes for airliners. These designs usually come out very light and fly pretty scale. Unfortunately, hobby depron sheets arent really available anymore.

Great example in this video. under 2kg AUW and 2200mm wingspan.

[tengarang]

A lot of guys have used paper model planes and scaled them up to make depron airframes for airliners. These designs usually come out very light and fly pretty scale. Unfortunately, hobby depron sheets arent really available anymore.

Great example in this video. under 2kg AUW and 2200mm wingspan.

Wow that is really cool.
Sure looks like a WCLI index of 10 or lower. If the Area of the wing is known, the AUW is there would be interesting to see what the index is.

looks like a project that can take a while to build.

Lord Emperor Teng

[tengarang]

The airliner detachment is now up to qty = 3 in the Tengarang fleet. And is up to 100% operational strength (everything in the spreadsheet is ready to go at moments notice).
aircraft#52 being the newest member of the Tengarang fleet.

Feels alot more manageable from 86 airplanes from the past....had to scavenge parts from one to another .... and was costly.
the new doctrine will help with the fleet heal manifest destiny.

At some point aircraft#52 will run qualifications using the Bushmule floats, and USS Pier Pressure Titanic II will be on standby for emergency retrieval rescue operations if needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht-szdZ310A

[tengarang]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0Aa...QtwWkFAOrcgxx7

Maiden Flight November 24th 2018
Livermore FLying Electrons
Aircraft#52: Tengarang Airlines Flight 911
Q-motor 3500KV 2822 size outrunners
12 blade 64mm Q-motor Fan
Dual 4s 5000mah 30C Discharge rated Venom Packs
Wing Cub Loading Index: 25.69684306
Wing Loading: 13.38950869
Projected flight time with empirical Data minimum 4 minutes

https://www.facebook.com/LordEmperor...type=3&theater

Second Flight of Aircraft#52 can also be viewed on youtube.
Dual 4s 3300mah 45C Discharge rated China Hobbyline Packs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K4z...QtwWkFAOrcgxx7




Last but not least the Dynam GeeBee Aircraft#1 in the tengarang fleet was also dispatched as Presiding Chairman overseeing the crew of Aircraft#52 Tengarang Airlines Flight 911

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJeFOfRzHKo&list=PLHC4mLOZgE3dbUPrmAxQtwWkFAOrcgxx7