Yes, big acro! That's where it's at.
Aloft Forums
Welcome to Aloft Forums. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Aeroic stuff
- Thread starter Doc J
- Start date
Yes, big acro! That's where it's at.
apriliamille
User
wish i had the brain power to understand and design stuff like this. Its totally "aeronautical" to me
Hawaii Sloper
Very Strong User
Man this is looking fantastic! I love Angelwing Designs planes. I have a few of them. All super easy to build and fly great. This will be on my to buy list for sure!
Doc J
Very Strong User
Me too! I only did the outlines and the aero calculations - Andy Whitehead (Angelwing Designs) is the structure genius.
I love this.
Doc.
Doc J
Very Strong User
Hey Kelly - I'm considering how to get them readily available in the USA.
There are three more new designs to come, including a fully-fledged Balsa VTPR model, and a PSS.
Doc.
thenated0g
Very Strong User
Must have missed this in the past, didnt realize you were working with angelwingdesigns. Love their models. How did that relationship come about?
Doc J
Very Strong User
Hey Nate, it's a bit of a triangle.
Neil Stainton of Hypelight introduced us because he thought seeing smaller balsa versions of my designs would be cool. Much to my surprise, there is still a lot of balsa activity on the planet. For example, Andy's Builder's group on Facebook has almost 7,000 Members.
I'd say that shows interest.
Back to the fray: Red had also previously worked with Andy Whitehead to develop the Prandtl wing model.
Andy and I dovetail well. He uses his excellent skills and experience in the balsa innards of the CAD design and the design of the printed parts while I do the outline designs, the calculations, and the airfoils. We get along well, and Andy is really fast and really competent at doing his part, as I hope I am too.
Hopefully, the first design, Cadenza 1.2M, will be a really good flyer. It should be; its father is the Toccata 2M!
To come:
"Aria": a 1.2M VTPR design.
"Foo Fighter": a "Spitfire-like" PSS design.
"Unnamed": a Jet PSS
Maybe a 1.5M version of the Cadenza depicted above.
I might be a "glass criminal", but my roots are firmly in balsa, so I am enjoying this more than I could possibly tell you.
Watch this space!
Cheers,
Doc.
Last edited:
Doc J
Very Strong User
Please let us take this opportunity to wish you all a very merry Christmas and our best wishes for a healthy and profitable New Year 2025!
Thanks for all your support, guys.
Doc James & Diva Julia.
BTW, this picture was taken by Wayne at Tick Point in 2017 - he's a better photographer than I am.
Thanks for all your support, guys.
Doc James & Diva Julia.
BTW, this picture was taken by Wayne at Tick Point in 2017 - he's a better photographer than I am.
Last edited:
thenated0g
Very Strong User
Looking forward to see how you get that fuse shape with balsa
Landru
Strong User
Hey Doc and all,
I remember there being some very enticing details and 3D renderings posted somewhere in these forums about the forthcoming Cadenza model from Aeroic and Angelwingdesigns. Gosh darn it, I can't find them now.
What I wanted to look up is whether the Cadenza incorporates a BSLD approach in its wing design. And that question crossed my mind because I just recently learned that the Cadenza's inspiration, the Toccata, does incorporate BSLD (which makes me all the more intrigued).
I remember there being some very enticing details and 3D renderings posted somewhere in these forums about the forthcoming Cadenza model from Aeroic and Angelwingdesigns. Gosh darn it, I can't find them now.
What I wanted to look up is whether the Cadenza incorporates a BSLD approach in its wing design. And that question crossed my mind because I just recently learned that the Cadenza's inspiration, the Toccata, does incorporate BSLD (which makes me all the more intrigued).
Doc J
Very Strong User
Hi Andrew.
The balsa stuff I am involved in was taken down because it was deemed to conflict with Aloft's balsa efforts. The only thing they had in common was the type of wood, as I had been very careful not to design anything conflicting, but there you go.
Yes, the Cadenza fast slope Allrounder incorporates BSLD and has a special jig included with the kit to make construction really easy. As you have observed, it is a smaller balsa version of the Toccata.
If you watch the website or the Builders Group on Facebook, you'll see progress as and when it happens.
Cheers,
Doc.
Doc J
Very Strong User
So far, all 7 models I have designed for AWD have provisions for motors, Andrew—it's part of the brief.Many thanks, Doc.
I'll keep my eye on the Website for progress. The project sure looked interesting.
We're totally slope-deprived in my neck of the woods, but I have visions of finagling a motor into the Cadenza's nose. Does that verge on blasphemy? Hope not!
Best,
Andrew
Cheers,
Doc.
Landru
Strong User
The newsletter arrived in my inbox the other day. (Thank you, Doc!) I was very happy to read the first part of what appears to be an ongoing series on choosing an airfoil. Perhaps the series can be become the motivation and means for someone like to bootstrap himself beyond a very basic knowledge of airfoil and wing design. I hope so! That the series includes some self-declared unconventional thinking makes it all the more appealing. Is unconventional the right description? Perhaps it would be better to say personal opinion. Whatever it is, I say keep it coming.
To add my own personal note, I'm looking forward to designing my own models again one of these days. It's an activity I left as a teenager, when working for a living was no more than a distant and somewhat hypothetical contingency. Anything RC was beyond my means then; free flight HLG and rubber were the thing. I should say that 'designing' is too highfalutin a word for my efforts. There was more emulation and 'that looks about right' than data-based analysis. Still, it was a heck of a lot of fun, and some of the results turned out very well.
To return to the subject of airfoils and wings, as I write this, on a shelf behind me, sits the lone survivor of my HLG days. Even with it's 15-inch wingspan and carved solid balsa wing with 'no-name' airoil, that little glider consistently achieved more than one minute flights in still evening air. I've always been curious how that performance would stack up against the fancy molded CF 1m RC DLG I've flown much more recently (assuming equal launch height).
To add my own personal note, I'm looking forward to designing my own models again one of these days. It's an activity I left as a teenager, when working for a living was no more than a distant and somewhat hypothetical contingency. Anything RC was beyond my means then; free flight HLG and rubber were the thing. I should say that 'designing' is too highfalutin a word for my efforts. There was more emulation and 'that looks about right' than data-based analysis. Still, it was a heck of a lot of fun, and some of the results turned out very well.
To return to the subject of airfoils and wings, as I write this, on a shelf behind me, sits the lone survivor of my HLG days. Even with it's 15-inch wingspan and carved solid balsa wing with 'no-name' airoil, that little glider consistently achieved more than one minute flights in still evening air. I've always been curious how that performance would stack up against the fancy molded CF 1m RC DLG I've flown much more recently (assuming equal launch height).
Doc J
Very Strong User
Hi Andrew, I'm glad you are enjoying the newsletter.
My part:
For the longest time, my "design thinking " pretty much followed "convention." It was not until I spent long hours poring over and testing mid-sized fixed-wing drone designs that I began to think...whoa...hold on second. That prompted a far more careful examination of what was actually happening before my very eyes, as compared to what I saw on my computer screen and that really opened my real-life "Design Thinking"
You say, "There was more emulation and 'that looks about right' than data-based analysis." I can confidently tell that there is much more to this than might appear. I promise you that if an airframe looks "right", pleasant to the eye, well proportioned, and nicely designed, then it's likely to BE right.
In recent years, Designers have concentrated on what they can mess about with, change or alter in some way to give professional-looking results on a computer—i.e., the aerofoils, or maybe a lift profile here and there. The only problem is that we don't live to operate in a linear, computerized environment.
The problem is: Those damn planes have a nasty habit of doing what they want to do, driven by air currents that sure as hell want to do what they want to do. It's far better to concentrate on making your design the best it can be to let you deal with the changing airflows and model attitudes encountered in real life, not some facsimile generated in the depths of a computer. Try throwing the computer off a cliff and see how it flies.
Designers use computers to test and compare aerofoils we know- but is it the right section? What are the test parameters?
Designers also use lift profile programmes to test the profile of something they have designed. But is the lift profile correct as designed? Again, what are the parameters?
Very few Designers think about the varying conditions that the wing will have to work in, or perhaps they don't think it will have an influence.
What about Spanwise flow? As I keep saying, air is like water, effectively a fluid, and worse, it's thinner than water. Of course it will take the paths (Note the use of S here) of least resisitance. Spanwise flow and how it is dealt with is probably the biggest influence on the way in which a model flies. Follow those isobars!
If you want to design, first decide what you want to achieve and then direct all your thinking and choices in that direction. Forget the rest.
Then, choose an aerofoil that is known for being OK at what it is supposed to do and forget about it, too, from that point on.
After that, try to figure out where the lift should be. It's no use having scads of lift out by the tips when it's unnecessary; that only reduces agility and is detrimental drag-wise. Ask yourself, "Is the elliptical lift pattern used for so long, correct?
OK, then, how about the actual ellipse aspect ratio? How much lift are we looking for, and where should it be?
Follow those isobars!
Of course then along comes BSLD and buggers up the entire equation. But that's another story.
With these simple things, you are more than halfway to a nice, flying, agile, and responsive model.
Oh and please remember to Follow those isobars!
It looks like you might soon start sketching. Let me know if you need any tips.
Cheers,
Doc.
My part:
For the longest time, my "design thinking " pretty much followed "convention." It was not until I spent long hours poring over and testing mid-sized fixed-wing drone designs that I began to think...whoa...hold on second. That prompted a far more careful examination of what was actually happening before my very eyes, as compared to what I saw on my computer screen and that really opened my real-life "Design Thinking"
You say, "There was more emulation and 'that looks about right' than data-based analysis." I can confidently tell that there is much more to this than might appear. I promise you that if an airframe looks "right", pleasant to the eye, well proportioned, and nicely designed, then it's likely to BE right.
In recent years, Designers have concentrated on what they can mess about with, change or alter in some way to give professional-looking results on a computer—i.e., the aerofoils, or maybe a lift profile here and there. The only problem is that we don't live to operate in a linear, computerized environment.
The problem is: Those damn planes have a nasty habit of doing what they want to do, driven by air currents that sure as hell want to do what they want to do. It's far better to concentrate on making your design the best it can be to let you deal with the changing airflows and model attitudes encountered in real life, not some facsimile generated in the depths of a computer. Try throwing the computer off a cliff and see how it flies.
Designers use computers to test and compare aerofoils we know- but is it the right section? What are the test parameters?
Designers also use lift profile programmes to test the profile of something they have designed. But is the lift profile correct as designed? Again, what are the parameters?
Very few Designers think about the varying conditions that the wing will have to work in, or perhaps they don't think it will have an influence.
What about Spanwise flow? As I keep saying, air is like water, effectively a fluid, and worse, it's thinner than water. Of course it will take the paths (Note the use of S here) of least resisitance. Spanwise flow and how it is dealt with is probably the biggest influence on the way in which a model flies. Follow those isobars!
If you want to design, first decide what you want to achieve and then direct all your thinking and choices in that direction. Forget the rest.
Then, choose an aerofoil that is known for being OK at what it is supposed to do and forget about it, too, from that point on.
After that, try to figure out where the lift should be. It's no use having scads of lift out by the tips when it's unnecessary; that only reduces agility and is detrimental drag-wise. Ask yourself, "Is the elliptical lift pattern used for so long, correct?
OK, then, how about the actual ellipse aspect ratio? How much lift are we looking for, and where should it be?
Follow those isobars!
Of course then along comes BSLD and buggers up the entire equation. But that's another story.
With these simple things, you are more than halfway to a nice, flying, agile, and responsive model.
Oh and please remember to Follow those isobars!
It looks like you might soon start sketching. Let me know if you need any tips.
Cheers,
Doc.
Landru
Strong User
Thanks for all that great info and advice, Doc.
Interesting to hear that there may be more merit to TLAR ("that looks about right") than meets the eye. Was that a pun? Oh dear.
You mentioned BSLD. That's been a topic of interest for me, too, ever since I came across the work by Al Bower et al on the NASA Prandtl-D wing. Now I know your Toccata incorporates BSLD in its wing design.
It's been a while since I perused publications and discussion of the Prandtl-D. Do I recall correctly there being a fair amount of heavy duty math required to compute the wing twist? Yikes. Hopefully, I can find workaround for the math in my own tinkering. If you have any tips, I'm all ears. Keep in mind that although I'm not technically incompetent, I am definitely unschooled in aeronautics.
Best,
Andrew
Interesting to hear that there may be more merit to TLAR ("that looks about right") than meets the eye. Was that a pun? Oh dear.
You mentioned BSLD. That's been a topic of interest for me, too, ever since I came across the work by Al Bower et al on the NASA Prandtl-D wing. Now I know your Toccata incorporates BSLD in its wing design.
It's been a while since I perused publications and discussion of the Prandtl-D. Do I recall correctly there being a fair amount of heavy duty math required to compute the wing twist? Yikes. Hopefully, I can find workaround for the math in my own tinkering. If you have any tips, I'm all ears. Keep in mind that although I'm not technically incompetent, I am definitely unschooled in aeronautics.
Best,
Andrew
