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!
ALOFT: AH-100 Build (new title)
- Thread starter G-man
- Start date
G-man
Very Strong User
Another February thaw. Got out to fly today and photograph AH-100P against a blue sky for a change.
Dive test last time showed a tendency to tuck, so swapped a 136 gram motor for a 177 gram motor.
Balance in cruise is improved, but now it's overpowered. Will reduce the pitch of the 10-inch prop.
We're getting there.
Photos by Steve Wattenberg. Thanks, Steve.
.
Dive test last time showed a tendency to tuck, so swapped a 136 gram motor for a 177 gram motor.
Balance in cruise is improved, but now it's overpowered. Will reduce the pitch of the 10-inch prop.
We're getting there.
Photos by Steve Wattenberg. Thanks, Steve.
.
Attachments
Tmcfarland
Strong User
Just checking. 177 gram motor? Is that prop and spinner included because thats really heavy. My 3 meter Introduction uses the pictured x power motor thats 72 grams. Climbs like a rocket.
Attachments
G-man
Very Strong User
> Just checking. 177 gram motor?
I installed an MVVS 3.5/1400 Sport. Yes, 177 grams.
"https://gravesrc.com/mvvs2042-mvvs-...NM55kJjzHVo-RoYidPn9K8_GmV9z7FKfy1-0uJA4YAHM9"
This, instead of dead weight, to counteract tail heaviness.
I have fluttered a tip panel during a rocket climb with similar motor on another 100-incher. Sig Riser 100, I think.
I don't have an answer to why I tend to overpower these things. <vlg>
I installed an MVVS 3.5/1400 Sport. Yes, 177 grams.
"https://gravesrc.com/mvvs2042-mvvs-...NM55kJjzHVo-RoYidPn9K8_GmV9z7FKfy1-0uJA4YAHM9"
This, instead of dead weight, to counteract tail heaviness.
I have fluttered a tip panel during a rocket climb with similar motor on another 100-incher. Sig Riser 100, I think.
I don't have an answer to why I tend to overpower these things. <vlg>
Attachments
Last edited:
Tmcfarland
Strong User
Motor or battery weight is always better than dead lead. Hoping that with the new fuselage CG will come out close. I notice a lot of the new F5L gliders are coming with a specified list of suggested motor, esc and servos and battery. That if used get the CG very close.
The prototype of the AH-100 with the woody fuselage has flown!
Flew her with an Emax GT2215/10 motor, 36mm spinner and a 9x6 prop today, powered by a 3S 850 battery, no lead needed for CG. The wood fuselage saves a lot of AUW!
I failed to put her on the scale, but will soon.
We are flyingour original prototype wing, and we have changed the wing design in recent times, so we had to drill the wings for the new incidence pin location. We may have messed that up a bit, so we need to build a new wing to confirm things, but so far VERY happy. She needs a new tail, rudder authority was pretty poor, so we taped on an extension as she was much better. We will be doing some fine tuning, but wholly cow does this thing thermal, and she can fly very slow. The weight reduction really pays off in thermal climb.
The span looks really good to me too. Nicely balanced.
Will get the video up pretty soon.
Flew her with an Emax GT2215/10 motor, 36mm spinner and a 9x6 prop today, powered by a 3S 850 battery, no lead needed for CG. The wood fuselage saves a lot of AUW!
I failed to put her on the scale, but will soon.
We are flyingour original prototype wing, and we have changed the wing design in recent times, so we had to drill the wings for the new incidence pin location. We may have messed that up a bit, so we need to build a new wing to confirm things, but so far VERY happy. She needs a new tail, rudder authority was pretty poor, so we taped on an extension as she was much better. We will be doing some fine tuning, but wholly cow does this thing thermal, and she can fly very slow. The weight reduction really pays off in thermal climb.
The span looks really good to me too. Nicely balanced.
Will get the video up pretty soon.
u2builder
Strong User
It looks great and seems to fly great. Why would a larger prop help with landings? Do you land with just enough power to unfold the prop? That seems tricky with a folding prop with a brake on the esc. With all that wing area and low weight it would seem to land slowly. Anyway, it really looks very nice and seems to turn well.
Our flying field is actually rather small and the winds can be turbulent below the tree tops, so landing a floaty glider with only rudder control can be nerve racking. The glide slope is very shallow on the AH-100.
Yes, opening a prop up and spinning it slowly is a huge drag circle. The large the disc, and the lower the pitch the better this works. Since the AH-100 does not need speed when at full throttle we can happily swap pitch for more diameter. Currently the 9x6 prop at minimal throttle does not allow the plane to come down, it is basically enough pitch speed to keep the plane flying. a 10x5 or 10x4 will probably do the trick. You will notice the landings were sort of high speed events. They were downwind as this direction gives a wider approach to the landing area. Coming of the dump trucks is not ideal and a more narrow approach, but we are getting used to that approach more and more.
Yes, opening a prop up and spinning it slowly is a huge drag circle. The large the disc, and the lower the pitch the better this works. Since the AH-100 does not need speed when at full throttle we can happily swap pitch for more diameter. Currently the 9x6 prop at minimal throttle does not allow the plane to come down, it is basically enough pitch speed to keep the plane flying. a 10x5 or 10x4 will probably do the trick. You will notice the landings were sort of high speed events. They were downwind as this direction gives a wider approach to the landing area. Coming of the dump trucks is not ideal and a more narrow approach, but we are getting used to that approach more and more.
G-man
Very Strong User
Got two flights yesterday with the Aloft AH-100R wing on PRELUDE fuselage.
Man-o-man that plane flys SMOOTH. Soooo darn smooth. REALLY SMOOTH.
I have built and flown 105 RC planes and this one is in the top ten smoothest I have flown since 1988.
In my view, Wayne and Aloft crew have achieved 90th percentile of smooth flying polyhedral gliders.
"Dave, those are strong words, and we know you don't have much of a memory left. Were there any witnesses?"
Why yes there was one. My honorable wife of 54 years was the photographer yesterday.
She said spontaneously, "I've seen you fly many planes, and this one seems really smooth. I can tell."
.
Man-o-man that plane flys SMOOTH. Soooo darn smooth. REALLY SMOOTH.
I have built and flown 105 RC planes and this one is in the top ten smoothest I have flown since 1988.
In my view, Wayne and Aloft crew have achieved 90th percentile of smooth flying polyhedral gliders.
"Dave, those are strong words, and we know you don't have much of a memory left. Were there any witnesses?"
Why yes there was one. My honorable wife of 54 years was the photographer yesterday.
She said spontaneously, "I've seen you fly many planes, and this one seems really smooth. I can tell."
.
Attachments
Tmcfarland
Strong User
Great news. I think Aloft will have a hit with this one. Actually there are very few 2.5 meters on the market. The 2M class is very competitive in Europe with lots of innovation.
I have a 2M Eli and a 3M Inside F5J. I love the Inside and its a big step up in performance. But flying it means screwing on the tail and mid panel wing. Then the tips, and all the electrical connections. Not really a big deal but the Eli is so convenient to fly. Slide on the wings. Magnets click and fly. Like the AH-100 will be I assume. I know Wayne is correct about spoilers but this would be the only glider on the market without spoilers or flaps. That might scare some people off. I would think flaps would be easy to add. Perhaps include the materials and instructions to build it either way.
The AH-100 is not at all intended to be a competition model.
Prior to the RES competition class spoilers were not very common. You would see them on vintage floaters, on scale gliders and just the rare other model. They were out of favor with modern designs where camber control took over.
My understanding is the original goal of the RES class was smaller and more budget friendly class of model that was less technical to fly and generally more enjoyable. Since they knew they would outlaw camber control they opened it up to spoilers. This cast the mold and spoilers where a thing again.
I have some things I want to test and if it works out I'll publish a video showing the results. Glide slope control without spoilers or camber, using just the motor and the prop disk. I have a little mix I want to setup in my radio to unlock the brake and get the blades open and then drop the power to just above the brake activation. In my mind this will work, but needs to be confirmed.
Would it be legal to do in a competition? No, not with the current rules, but I think it speaks to the RES class efforts to keep our models on an affordable budget. I do think the RES class rules could be refined some if they really want to see budget friendly models competing. A competitive RES glider is about $500 now once it is fully built out.
If nothing else, it will be fun to test and maybe be of interest to others.
Prior to the RES competition class spoilers were not very common. You would see them on vintage floaters, on scale gliders and just the rare other model. They were out of favor with modern designs where camber control took over.
My understanding is the original goal of the RES class was smaller and more budget friendly class of model that was less technical to fly and generally more enjoyable. Since they knew they would outlaw camber control they opened it up to spoilers. This cast the mold and spoilers where a thing again.
I have some things I want to test and if it works out I'll publish a video showing the results. Glide slope control without spoilers or camber, using just the motor and the prop disk. I have a little mix I want to setup in my radio to unlock the brake and get the blades open and then drop the power to just above the brake activation. In my mind this will work, but needs to be confirmed.
Would it be legal to do in a competition? No, not with the current rules, but I think it speaks to the RES class efforts to keep our models on an affordable budget. I do think the RES class rules could be refined some if they really want to see budget friendly models competing. A competitive RES glider is about $500 now once it is fully built out.
If nothing else, it will be fun to test and maybe be of interest to others.
G-man
Very Strong User
> If it flies as pretty as it looks I'd gonna agree at 99th percentile.
I think it flies as pretty as it looks.
When the rain here stops, we will have the flight performance report of the AH-100R by another long time RISER-100 pilot.
The two AH-100s I built are both heavier than the design target weight, which suited me fine in 10 MPH wind.
In development at Aloft is the balsa fuselage "AH-100SL for Super Light." That one could be a game changer.
> Since you have flown the vintage the Sig Riser wing on the same fuselage it would be great to hear your thoughts on how they compare. glide, sink rate. landing, turning, etc.
I have flown seven wings on the TopmodelCZ PRELUDE fuselage: the OEM Prelude REF, an Olympic-II, (two) Riser-100s, a Wanderer-99, and (two) AH-100s.
The OEM Prelude REF wing did not suit my flying style; it had to be flown too fast for my comfort. Also, I do not need flaps in the fields I fly thermals in.
The other four designs (each with two inches longer chord than Topmodel OEM) fly much more alike than different from each other. Any differences are subtle.
The only same-day flight performance comparison I have made so far is AH-100P and Wanderer 99.
The AH-100 was able to fly slightly slower, slightly faster, and seemed to deliver a flatter glide path.
As the weather warms here, there will likely be more same day one-to-one comparisons.
One you make the decision whether to fly Topmodel faster, or one of the wide chords slower, The the choice depends on aesthetics and availability.
- The only one available built and covered is from TopmodelCZ. It will be interesting to see if Aloft offers a built version.
- Kits for the vintage designs must be scrounged. I built one Olympic, one Riser, and the Wanderer from scratch over Outerzone drawings.
- Kits for the AH-100 will be available when final development is complete. The Aloft kits include a design goal of quicker building time than the others.
TL/DNR: Performance of these wings are quite close to each other.
Many RC glider pilots will be so, so, so much happier flying any one of these wings over not flying a long-chord, fat airfoil, relaxing gasbag floater.
// Dave
.
I think it flies as pretty as it looks.
When the rain here stops, we will have the flight performance report of the AH-100R by another long time RISER-100 pilot.
The two AH-100s I built are both heavier than the design target weight, which suited me fine in 10 MPH wind.
In development at Aloft is the balsa fuselage "AH-100SL for Super Light." That one could be a game changer.
> Since you have flown the vintage the Sig Riser wing on the same fuselage it would be great to hear your thoughts on how they compare. glide, sink rate. landing, turning, etc.
I have flown seven wings on the TopmodelCZ PRELUDE fuselage: the OEM Prelude REF, an Olympic-II, (two) Riser-100s, a Wanderer-99, and (two) AH-100s.
The OEM Prelude REF wing did not suit my flying style; it had to be flown too fast for my comfort. Also, I do not need flaps in the fields I fly thermals in.
The other four designs (each with two inches longer chord than Topmodel OEM) fly much more alike than different from each other. Any differences are subtle.
The only same-day flight performance comparison I have made so far is AH-100P and Wanderer 99.
The AH-100 was able to fly slightly slower, slightly faster, and seemed to deliver a flatter glide path.
As the weather warms here, there will likely be more same day one-to-one comparisons.
One you make the decision whether to fly Topmodel faster, or one of the wide chords slower, The the choice depends on aesthetics and availability.
- The only one available built and covered is from TopmodelCZ. It will be interesting to see if Aloft offers a built version.
- Kits for the vintage designs must be scrounged. I built one Olympic, one Riser, and the Wanderer from scratch over Outerzone drawings.
- Kits for the AH-100 will be available when final development is complete. The Aloft kits include a design goal of quicker building time than the others.
TL/DNR: Performance of these wings are quite close to each other.
Many RC glider pilots will be so, so, so much happier flying any one of these wings over not flying a long-chord, fat airfoil, relaxing gasbag floater.
// Dave
.
Attachments
-
Dave Steve RISER-100s JUN-2023_1748.webp -
Dave WANDERER-99 AH-100P_BW-9758.webp -
AH-100P WANDERER-99 -FEB-17-2026 9761.webp -
Dave RISER-100 OLYMPIC-2 wings on PRELUDE fuselages_SAW-9035s.webp -
RISER-100 OLYMPIC-2 wings on PRELUDE fuselages_9037.webp -
AH-100R covered_3944.webp -
100-inch glider wing weights_3930.webp
Last edited:
G-man
Very Strong User
The AH-100R is ready to fly but it was snowing when I got up this morning.
Weather later in the week looks promising.
Weather later in the week looks promising.
Attachments
Tmcfarland
Strong User
Great info. Thanks for posting. What does the R stand for?
G-man
Very Strong User
AH-100P -
P for Prototype
P for Plywood
AH-100R -
R for Rewind, Replay, Repeat
R for RISER wing joiner system
You'll remember, two kits were sent to NY for prototyping, but due to planned changes in the plastic parts, the second kit became surplus.
The balsa selection and cutting is so good, and flight performance was so good, I could not let the kit go to waste, so I built it for a friend.
My two prototypes have 1/4 inch music wire wing rods, and plywood to strengthen certain joints.
It is well established that I am unable color within the lines.
P for Prototype
P for Plywood
AH-100R -
R for Rewind, Replay, Repeat
R for RISER wing joiner system
You'll remember, two kits were sent to NY for prototyping, but due to planned changes in the plastic parts, the second kit became surplus.
The balsa selection and cutting is so good, and flight performance was so good, I could not let the kit go to waste, so I built it for a friend.
My two prototypes have 1/4 inch music wire wing rods, and plywood to strengthen certain joints.
It is well established that I am unable color within the lines.
Attachments
Last edited:
AH-100 gets a new wing.
What? Why?
The wing was originally drawn up by me a good time ago, and my skills have improved, and well, we had opportunity to make the wing better! Alpha testing found some weaknesses, and we can sort these issues out pretty quick and have an ever better wing that is quicker to build, lighter and more durable.The wing is designed for both bolt on and slide on applications. The original wing was biased towards bolt on.
The wing now uses two bolts instead of a single bolt based on feedback.
The rib count has been reduced and spar has been relocated slightly forward. This will help with torsional rigidity and makes the wing more robust and easier to build.
Spar construction has been optimized, it is now lighter and more tolerant of build errors.
Simple plywood polyhedral brace.
Slight more wingspan as we were a little short on span.
After the next alpha build we will probably tweak the airfoil section to precisely match our intended Drela airfoil section. I'm rather excited to make this change. This will require some test samples to confirm we get it correct.
Here is a quick peak where it currently stands. Still more to be added.
Everything is looking really good so far. I have a couple of more items to do, but time to go enjoy this Sunday.
A further explanation why the changes were made.
The original wing was not designed around using the intercostals (diagonals) to control twist. They were recommended after I started, and turned out to be key to the wing staying out of flutter. For the intercostals to work to their best potential, they need to be at 45 degree angles to the ribs. The old wing had them closer to 30 degrees, this angle for sure helped with twist, but it also puts added stress on the diagonals when loading gets too high. We saw this on an Alpha build when the wing entered flutter and several intercostals took damage. To get the correct angle we needed to move the spar forward, and move the ribs further apart.Everything else was minor improvements that could be accomplished during the redesign.
The airfoil change is a little more cutting edge. When the wings are covered in film, the film will take a curve over the ribs, and sag into the space below. This is a catenary curve.
In the photo you can see the curve of the bubble surface between the rings.
This is the challenge of a film covered wing. The designer picks an airfoil based on published or calculated data, but when it is a film covered wing, the covering sags and the only place you have a chance at the accurate airfoil is on top of the rib, the rest is a very different shape. It would not be so bad if the curve was consistent along the entire rib, but it is not. You have a lot more sag in more curved sections of the airfoil, so the trail edge for example has very little curve, but the leading edge is very curved.
There are common construction methods to fight this, the obvious is sheeting the wing, or at least the front 40% of the wing, we do this on our Le Le wing. Half ribs can help fight the sag, we do a little of this on our Gentle Lady Evo design. Another method that was well intentioned is running stringers running from rib to rib, but stringers are a poor choice as they result in flat spots on the airfoil, thus they received the name of turbulators for all of the turbulence they create.
The AH-100 wing is different and can take advantage of this curve to give a more accurate airfoil for the majority of the film surface. By modifying the rib profile we can have a very accurate airfoil for the majority of the wing surface. Unlike the image above, the catenary curve for our films is nearly flat in the center and an initial heavy cuve near the rib. So the airfoil will be oddly shaped at the rib and slightly beyond it, but very quickly the rest of the surface will be much more accurate. And with our wider rib spacing on the new wing, we gain a more accurate airfoil for a higher percentage of the surface area.
Hope this helps to understand what we are doing with this wing.
How do I expect the new wing and the old wing to compare in flight? The new wing should be slower and create more lift, and the already gentle stall should be very gentle. Time will tell.
The first 40% of most any airfoil is very important to get right. This is where the airfoil does most of it work.
Similar threads
