This is a first look at a new prototype from FlyingWings aimed at making a flying wing that can cruise long distances very efficiently, not so much carrying a vast amount of battery, more using what battery it does carry very efficiently and giving good performance on long distance runs. Pretty much my dream wing!
Rob completed the prototype in the middle of this week and maidened her on Thursday where we carried out analysis on flutter and flight characteristics which went well, the prototype has now been delivered to the iPeel Technical Centre of Excellence to be fitted out for long range capabilities.
Here she is fully built:
(http://www.peely.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ER_Top_Solo.jpg)
Nothing too serious, until you realise that antenna is a 1.3Ghz and the prop's a 12 incher! Her wingspan is 1800mm and she only just passed the "will it fit in the back of a VW Golf" test. Note this wing does not come apart, this is to avoid complexity and reduce the weight to a bare minimum.
The centre section is designed to be far more aerodynamic with a softer nose and more streamlined midsection compared to the Venturi Evo. The design accomodated an 11-12" prop intended for low RPM motors for maximum efficiency. Here we're using a 600kv pancake multirotor motor on 4S and in the maiden there was plenty of power, I did the chuck for the maiden flights and all she needed was the normal baseball type throw, made easy by the centre section being grab-able which made throwing around the CG quite easy.
The front still has ample room for a Mobius and separate board cam:
(http://www.peely.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ER_Front_Solo.jpg)
Inside, I've fitted an MFD AP and extended the battery bay to take a couple of 4S 5200's:
(http://www.peely.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ER_Inside_Bay.jpg)
Things are a little snug in the rear equipment bay but there is a section under the rear bulkhead where I've stashed the current sensor and BEC, the AP cabling is a tight fit but not unmanageable, free space is wasted space.
It's going to be a week or so before I get to fly her FPV as I'm away next week, but as soon as I'm back and there's any kind of calm weather I'll be conducting efficiency tests to see what she's capable of at cruise with the stock batteries.
Here's the essential stats after installing all the GPV gear:
Wingspan: 1800mm
Dry weight: 1356g
All-up weight with 10.4Ah 4s Multistars: 2218g
I do have some video of the maiden with ground footage and overwing camera footage which I'll look to edit up and get on YT.
NOTE: This is not yet a thing for sale, it doesn't even have a name yet. We're really just figuring out what advantages something like this could have to see if it warrants a bigger wing. I'm looking forward to finding out though! :)
For those wanting some size comparisons, here's the new wing alongside the Venturi Evo and Falcon Evo:
(http://www.peely.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FlyingWings_Family.jpg)
Cheers,
Neil.
Looks ace!
That was a quick turn around !
What does that make the total antenna separation out to be then ?
WANT WANT WANT
Quote from: Doctor3 on July 11, 2015, 08:21:16 PM
That was a quick turn around !
What does that make the total antenna separation out to be then ?
I spent half a day standing over it planning everything out Ed, then about a day kitting her out.
Separation from RX to TX is 1540mm, there's more space from the VTX antenna to the winglet but I opted instead to use the VTX position to balance left to right weight distribution.
Quote from: BlueFlyer on July 11, 2015, 08:41:16 PM
WANT WANT WANT
LOL, planning on leapfrogging the Venturi then Chris? Just ask yourself where you'd store the thing, it defies every one of my wing storage systems.
I've got a garage, and I can fit my skyhunter part built in the back of my civic with the seats down... wings on fuselage, tail off. That's a ws of 1.8m too so could fit this in no problem.
It will be interesting to see the flight envelope of this. The Venturi is such a great all rounder it will be hard to beat.
I'm sure this will be a great endro plane, but 30 mins of cruising is enough for me.
But I'm sure I'll eat my words and have one!
Quote from: Brucey on July 11, 2015, 09:37:38 PM
It will be interesting to see the flight envelope of this. The Venturi is such a great all rounder it will be hard to beat.
I'm sure this will be a great endro plane, but 30 mins of cruising is enough for me.
But I'm sure I'll eat my words and have one!
Too right Bruno, I'd never give up for Venturi for anything! I also promise I'll be doing
the mission with my Venturi.
Nice looking Wing...
EDIT: I would have thought it would be worth looking at a 2 piece wing option though. It would be a nice relaxing plane to take on holiday then.
regards
Andy
Quote from: skyscraper on July 12, 2015, 10:07:49 AM
Nice looking Wing...
EDIT: I would have thought it would be worth looking at a 2 piece wing option though. It would be a nice relaxing plane to take on holiday then.
regards
Andy
Thanks Andy. Whenever I've had separable wings all I do is worry about them in-flight. I think there's better wings to pack for a holiday too!
So here's the video of the maiden flight, not an awful lot to see but there's the over-wing camera on picture-in-picture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTinLsmqNeo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTinLsmqNeo)
Looks great. That's extremely light for a 1.8m wing.
I suppose this main competitor is the x8 and the fx79. Would be interesting to see the flight times and cruising current.
2.2kg and 1.8m span- It should be a pleasure to launch, land and even stall :)
Im in two minds about whether having it collapsable is worth it. The z3 was- but it build super heavy! It may be worth building a collapsable version in the same spec, see what the weight and stiffness penalty would be, fly them very hard and see how the two compare.
Quote from: iPeel on July 12, 2015, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: skyscraper on July 12, 2015, 10:07:49 AM
Nice looking Wing...
EDIT: I would have thought it would be worth looking at a 2 piece wing option though. It would be a nice relaxing plane to take on holiday then.
regards
Andy
Thanks Andy. Whenever I've had separable wings all I do is worry about them in-flight. I think there's better wings to pack for a holiday too!
I see ... I guess designing a wing that can be taken apart for transport and reassembled simply and reliably is outside the flight envelope of Flyingwings/ ITCE's design capabilities then!
;) :laugh:
regards
Andy
Making tough decisions to avoid un-necessary compromise is sometimes the hardest part of the design process Andy. ;)
Well. It wont easily fit in my car (Saxo) but then maybe I'm not the target market...
regards
Andy
I don't see why compromises would have to be made in a 2 piece design, or even easier 3 piece.
a CF tube sunk in the wing near the trailing edge and one near the leading edge and then have a box fuselage that have corresponding CF rods sticking out of,then some way of connecting them with maybe a dowel sticking vertically up each side of the join, the only load the joining sytem is taking that it wouldn't normally is a couple of PSI holding the wings together all G forces would be on the spars...
it is very difficult to do it in a way different to what is already out there, but there don't seem to be many patents/ intellectual property rights observed in modelling anyway.
The Ritewing method is really neat but there are only so many ways you can join two wings together temporarily.
/Steve
I understand why people would want a 2 or 3 piece wing, but for me a 1 piece would be fine.... it would keep the costs down a lot, keep the build simple, keep the wing much stronger and I would feel much better about my aircraft if I knew it was permanently stuck together whilst in the air.
any fixtures/fittings used to temporarily keep the wings on would introduce areas for possible failure which simply won't be there if it was a one piece wing.
dont like a 1 piece 1.8m wing because it won't fit in your car? then don't buy one, no-one is forcing you.
Honestly, this would fit no problem in my 5 door civic with the seats down, I've had 2 part built skyhunters in the back of mine many a time, another 1.8m wing laid on top is no bother for me.
agreed but if there was an option to make it a 3 piece then it may make it feasible for more people, don't want a three piece wing ? don't buy the kit to make it a 3 piece... and just build it the old fashioned way.
If I could I'd make a 2 piece venturi. just simply because I would like to take it in my motorhome with me when we go away, and although I could get a 17 foot long wing into it, I don't think I'd get permission from the Mrs! however if it packs down into a pelicase size box then I can hide that under a seat in the motorhome!!;)
if the option was there then it would open up the market in a very limited sector of the hobby and make these things more cost effective to design and produce.
/Steve
A 3 piece would work best IMO. All the gear Vtx RcRx etc goes in the centre section, so no issues with connectors. You could put elevon servos in center scetion too so you only have a mechanical linkage to make or put elevon servos in outer sections, which means one servo connector to attach each side..
That is how I was planning to do my conventional 6 footer "one day" anyway..
I'm suspecting its just too difficult for the MK dream team to do it though.. :D It would add weight though but 6ft is too big to be practical for me.. I'm having to think how to make a two piece fuz for my Aether for that reason...
regards
Andy
Quote from: iPeel on July 13, 2015, 11:25:58 AM
Making tough decisions to avoid un-necessary compromise is sometimes the hardest part of the design process Andy. ;)
Wrong - years of experience proves to me that:
It is far tougher for a designer to decide to include design compromises, so as to maximise sales/ profit potentials.
although a bit big, i like the 1 piece method. i hate messing about setting up. my 330 quad goes in a case, with the props on, i just take it out, and fly it. my Y6 has to have the front arms set to their flight position and screws done up, to much faf. i'm going to re build with captive nuts to reduce set up. the only wing i've seen that i could put up with setting up and knocking down is the xeno. just pull a pin out and fold in half.
Quote from: wgt40w on July 13, 2015, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: iPeel on July 13, 2015, 11:25:58 AM
Making tough decisions to avoid un-necessary compromise is sometimes the hardest part of the design process Andy. ;)
Wrong - years of experience proves to me that:
It is far tougher for a designer to decide to include design compromises, so as to maximise sales/ profit potentials.
I agree.
The designers and creators always resist compromise. But the marketing guys have the final word because they know what sells. Steve Jobs is perhaps the exception to this rule.
This isn't going to be a crazy high G force wing anyway is it? The strength advantages will be very low IMO.
Those who want a permenant wing and wish to reap the (relatively small) benefits of additional strength and reliability can glue a detachable wing together easily and forget about it. The only penalty they would pay would be a little more gorilla glue and the carbon sheath- 100g tops i reckon.
Those who want the detachable option can keep it detachable and everyones happy.
I like the idea of keeping the servos in the centre section to reduce wiring- but as this is an efficient wing the motor is likely to be a low kv and the prop v large- so the control rods would need to be at a fair angle outwards to touch the (far apart) elevons. The mechanical disadvantage would be high.
Did no one read the bit where Neil said it fits in the back of a golf? That's fairly portable in my book. Not like you need a yank tank to move this thing around!
I see having the servos in the centre section completely pointless... all for what? to avoid connecting 2 x servo plugs?
what would be the alternative? connecting 2 x mechanical linkages?
Either way there would be some "connection" of some sort, just keep it simple and leave the servos on the wings.
Quote from: Brucey on July 13, 2015, 09:35:25 PM
Did no one read the bit where Neil said it fits in the back of a golf? That's fairly portable in my book. Not like you need a yank tank to move this thing around!
Golf's aren't small cars. And his would be a hatchback. With the rear seats folded down. That means
anyone with a saloon- no chance
smaller hatchbacks- no chance
more than two people in the car- no chance
Any other luggage (unless travelling alone and you put it on the passenger seat- no chance
My 60" wing is pretty unwieldy but just about fits across the back seats of my 3 series estate. Another 10" would need the seats down which is very awkward.
IME bigger wings are flown far less frequently because they are just a pita. Making it collapsible (but easy to be glued permanently) would increase its market vastly imo and won't put off the purists.
Quote from: BlueFlyer on July 13, 2015, 10:00:48 PM
I see having the servos in the centre section completely pointless... all for what? to avoid connecting 2 x servo plugs?
what would be the alternative? connecting 2 x mechanical linkages?
Either way there would be some "connection" of some sort, just keep it simple and leave the servos on the wings.
I prefer repeatedely connecting and disconnecting mechanical linkages ( servo clevises) than repeatedly connecting and disconnectig electrical ones, since you can feel if they are knackered nd they will better handle rain ( or you have to think about waterproof connectors) But to get the linkages you might have to make some design compromises.. either lengthen the elevons, make them torsionally stiff , fit torque rods etc.
Anyway If its a one piece wing, it will be lighter but less practical. Mind you for a 6 footer I prob wouldnt have a wing anyway.. A conventional layout is proven to always be more efficient.
regards
Andy
Quote from: skyscraper on July 13, 2015, 10:29:22 PM
Quote from: BlueFlyer on July 13, 2015, 10:00:48 PM
I see having the servos in the centre section completely pointless... all for what? to avoid connecting 2 x servo plugs?
what would be the alternative? connecting 2 x mechanical linkages?
Either way there would be some "connection" of some sort, just keep it simple and leave the servos on the wings.
Anyway If its a one piece wing, it will be lighter but less practical. Mind you for a 6 footer I prob wouldnt have a wing anyway.. A conventional layout is proven to always be more efficient.
That's an interesting point and one I have read elsewhere before.
Also given perhaps one of the bigger advantages of a wing- it's broad speed envelope- will also be less useful on an endurance plane- just what advantages does a large wing have over a large plane?
More robust
Better able to cope with wind- either greater stability in a crosswind or improved headwind penetration
Anything else?
I would love to see a comparison between this wing and a skyhunter with identical motors. Slowest speed, optimum cruising speed and handling characteristics with say 40k of battery onboard.
The other advantage is quicker to assemble because there is no assembly! ;D
Ha that's certainly true! There would be nothing more annoying than forgetting a carbon spar either
oh dear, this looks like another addition to my wing hangar whenever rob decides to release it! can't wait though :D
what motor/prop combo have you tried with it so far?
a collapsible option would be good addition i think, lots of folks would appreciate it. i have an x8 wing and i wouldn't have bought one if it didn't come to bits so well and easily. even if only 1 wing detatched maybe?
out of interest, as it is clearly designed for flying long range, have any of you that like to do this in blighty ever had any problems with anyone questioning frequency choices or going beyond LOS etc.?
keep up the good work though!
I dunno what all the fuss is about!!!
If you want to have it two piece or three piece, Just build it like that... it's not difficult. Nobody said you HAVE TO have it one piece.
Personally I'd build it one piece. Keeps things simple, less failure points, gives you way more options for mounting your gear, lighter and quicker to set up at the field. Verses... None of the above, but... You can fit it in your car easier.
Quote from: Spookfish on July 14, 2015, 01:22:47 PM
I dunno what all the fuss is about!!!
If you want to have it two piece or three piece, Just build it like that... it's not difficult. Nobody said you HAVE TO have it one piece.
True.. But then why bother with a kit at all? Why not Just get yourself a hot wire cutter and some foam.. :laugh:
regards
Andy
If you wanted to do like a 3 piece build you could just cut some ply end plates for each wing section, tad more carbon, wack them on with some bolts, sorted ! Personally i am fed up of setting stuff up when you get to the field.
Your right Lads ... 1 piece wing all the way. 3 piece wing ? Who could have come up with such a F*cking stupid idea ? :laugh:
regards
Andy
Quote from: skyscraper on July 14, 2015, 03:53:58 PM
Quote from: Spookfish on July 14, 2015, 01:22:47 PM
I dunno what all the fuss is about!!!
If you want to have it two piece or three piece, Just build it like that... it's not difficult. Nobody said you HAVE TO have it one piece.
True.. But then why bother with a kit at all? Why not Just get yourself a hot wire cutter and some foam.. :laugh:
regards
Andy
Simple really... People want a tried and tested design. A slight modification so it splits down for ease of transportation isn't beyond the capability of most people on this forum.
So...... when is the naming competition?
Valkerie EVO? ??
Quote from: Spookfish on July 15, 2015, 02:33:40 PM
Quote from: skyscraper on July 14, 2015, 03:53:58 PM
Quote from: Spookfish on July 14, 2015, 01:22:47 PM
I dunno what all the fuss is about!!!
If you want to have it two piece or three piece, Just build it like that... it's not difficult. Nobody said you HAVE TO have it one piece.
True.. But then why bother with a kit at all? Why not Just get yourself a hot wire cutter and some foam.. :laugh:
regards
Andy
Simple really... People want a tried and tested design. A slight modification so it splits down for ease of transportation isn't beyond the capability of most people on this forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic))
regards
Andy
Quote from: Gundummy on July 15, 2015, 05:36:11 PM
So...... when is the naming competition?
Valkerie EVO? ??
Cant be EVO (lution) till its Mk2 at least surely ?
How about ...
Triptych (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triptych) :laugh:
regards
Andy
EVO. . As in evolved..or
Valkerie Enduro....
Flying Wings Wedge?
Boot Space Bomber?
Venturi Plus....
You've already got the Falcon... I say stick with the bird's of prey theme and call it
The FlyingWings Osprey Ascendance
:)
BlueFlyer
Osprey is indeed the working title at the moment, may change.
Its not had its maiden yet, weather related, so early days, will keep you up to date
Had some of my designs put through a friends CFD system, you can do it too, if you have 128 processors and 2 terrabytes of RAM :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O32dVNEiSY8&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O32dVNEiSY8&feature=youtu.be)
Some interesting info gained on wingtip design and yes wing fences !!
Cheers Rob
Flyingwings
Finally wing fences!
interested to see the outcome of your tests on wing tips
phoawr that cfd looks good! Who did that ? ;)
........... Heres a close up of the wingtip showing a high pressure blob stopping spilling
So looking at that you want the winglets set slightly forward then, not in line with the leading edge?
Interested to see your results with the fences, thinking of adding some to my Falcon Evo build!
yeah, so ideally you have your winglets stick out a bit from the wing (this only applies in this scenario as its swept back and small scale). about an inch protrusion stops alot of vortex losses
Hmm, I wonder how well I glued mine on. ...
As an update, I've had a few flights on this now and the handling is great, she'll happily cruise at 50-60Kph on 60% throttle and flies like a nice compliant Skywalker. Take-off is absolutely effortless, even in manual I can launch it myself with one hand.
I've printed a 40mm mount to extend the motor out from the rear bulkhead to help with the CG and make airflow to the prop better. On the next flight I managed to find the point where she became a little tail heavy so am happy now I have the CG right.
(http://www.peely.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IMG_0187-e1438962445681.jpg)
I managed to get out in reasonably calm weather this morning and perform a real test and managed a total distance of 64.3Km using 5880Ma claimed by the AP and 6300 put in by the charger. This puts her pretty much on target for a 100Km total range with the 2x 4S 5200's I have in.
I've ordered a T-Motor MN3510-15 630Kv as I think this will give a bit more efficiency, by the stats it seems to deliver peak efficiency between 2a and 8a which is bang in my intended consumption.
I've had to beef up my groundstation setup a bit to cope with this performance...
(http://www.peely.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IMG_0185-e1438962401879.jpg)
Neil.
Hurry up and release it then, i want one!!
I shall be keeping a close eye on this methinks..
Shame about you "having" to upgrade the ground station :D
Cool stuff. So now you need to employ a Chris to track with your yagi!
Lol, do you think you could spare him from your entourage Brucey?
There's still quite a way to go Xtrema, I think the centre section will change quite a bit to accommodate some ideas we've had for the camera mounting and a 50Km radius not isn't ambitious for me anymore! :D
A lovely shaped wing. Cant wait to see it in the store. Neil, will you be bringing it to the next MDs (whenever that is).
Quote from: krikey on August 07, 2015, 06:55:11 PM
A lovely shaped wing. Cant wait to see it in the store. Neil, will you be bringing it to the next MDs (whenever that is).
It's the 26th & 27th of September Neil, and yes it'll be there, I think I'm sleeping in it. :)
Quote from: iPeel on August 07, 2015, 06:40:07 PM
Lol, do you think you could spare him from your entourage Brucey?
There's still quite a way to go Xtrema, I think the centre section will change quite a bit to accommodate some ideas we've had for the camera mounting and a 50Km radius not isn't ambitious for me anymore! :D
Only if he still still carries my bags and mops my brow!
Stepping it up a level there with the co-ordinated wing and luggage!
Awesome man looks promising.
Looks even more impressive in the flesh. Looks like a stealth Bomber at altitude 88)
Just gutted we didn't get the aerial footage from the Bixler chasing it - Mobius did not record, although I reckon Jim didn't start it properly ;)
Those are fantastic flight stats. What kind of flying were you doing to get <100mah per KM?
Quote from: dogzilla on August 08, 2015, 03:14:39 PM
Those are fantastic flight stats. What kind of flying were you doing to get <100mah per KM?
Hello mate! Glad to hear from you.
I was in Altitude hold mode on the MFD but the PIDS weren't dialled in. I was doing around 50Km/h in very light headwind out and upped it to 60Kmh on the way back. I didn't have an airspeed sensor yesterday but all the MFD kit has come in now so one's fitted.
I'm hoping to get another run out to 40Km next week so will do some more testing with the PIDs dialled in a bit better and with the T-Motor fitted so hopefully will get a bit better efficiency.
I'll PM you the flight on YT.
Neil.
Well props to Electricflite, the motor I ordered yesterday afternoon arrived this morning! I do like T-Motor stuff, top quality motors:
(http://www.peely.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IMG_0189-e1439066516626.jpg)
It has standard 25mm mounts which don't match the mounting holes on the Emax that was on the wing so a new 40mm motor mount was needed:
(http://www.peely.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IMG_0194-e1439066643204.jpg)
All fitted with a bit of heat shrink to tidy up the cabling and I'm ready to go:
(http://www.peely.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IMG_0195-e1439066732735.jpg)
Airflow to the prop is a bit better, and this motor is around 3 grammes per watt more efficient than the Emax motor.
Neil.
looking good Neil :)
Tidy!
That really is promising efficiency results. Its looking definitely on :)
Ancient thread resurrection warning.
I've been out of the loop for a while so does anyone know what the latest is on this beasty??
It got put on the naughty step for a couple of months after it tried to kill me, so no more longer flights were done for a while. I think the last flight was a 22km out and back at Mad Dogs last year.
Currently it's got the flight controller and bulkhead stripped out awaiting a re-fit and I hope to get a few more flights in this year to stretch the range a bit more than the last PB. The weather's not predictable enough at the moment though given the amount of planning and setup required for longer flights.
Neil.
If you mean a production version though, I'm not sure what Rob's plans are, he was talking about advertising them pending a couple of modifications on the design but that was a while back. I'm flying with him this afternoon so will ask and post back.
So speaking to Rob he's quite busy on other top secret products and concepts at the moment, but is looking to move forward with the Cloud Horizon in the Summer.
The smart money would be on aiming to bring out products around spring time, just as the weather starts to turn and people get the yearning to go out and fly again.