Redshift; Used Purchase

[Konrad]

Ouch! Sorry to learn of this. Looks like some kind of failure not allowing for the flair (turbulance or RF link).
Can we see the failure? On my slopes this seems to be a knock against the Aeroic models, that is the guys claim the fuselages fail far too easily (Schwing Corsa 108 and Stormbird) I suspect it has to do with the lay up and the fact that most Aeroic models have a long nose adding more leverage.

While the Redshift is a new design it does have many element of old. Like the top loading servo tray. Most new designs are now bottom servo trays, as it allows for the top of the nose to carry much more of the impact loads from a typical landing. The top load servo tray tends to allow the sides of the nose to buckle outwards (the nose cone was an attempt to control this).

The shot gun ballast port on the bottom does remove a lot of structural strength from the nose. It was thought that the added carbon ballast tube would replace this lost structural strength by being a carry through spline. I’ve learned to really pack the opening with fiber and epoxy. (I hope that the epoxy soaked cotton balls work). I also carried the 3mm plywood servo tray aft past the fuselage part line. I laid 3.7 oz Kevlar cloth on this tray and bound it to the fuselage sides that were above the tray. I think I now have a much stronger nose and fuselage joint that what was originally offered with the glass servo tray and the square ballast tube.

On the next Redshift (II?) I’d like to see a bottom servo tray and the nose cone part line slanted about 7° to be closer to 90° to the normal impact force. ( This is now standard stuff in most larger slope ships)

Thanks for the feedback on set up values.

Doc, Wayne, this brings up a good question. Now that Doc has lost control of the original molds how does one support this model with parts?

All the best,
Konrad

 

[purview]

No, in that case the how to install the ballast-tube and the how much of fuselage material can be removed to give proper access to the ballasting system "questions" were the main parts of the error of the misshap landing 'proach. Why it happened is another question, and how to get it back in the air again again and also again another.... meanwhile it stays in the corner ?

I’ve learned to really pack the opening with fiber and epoxy. (I hope that the epoxy soaked cotton balls work). I also carried the 3mm plywood servo tray aft past the fuselage part line.

 

[Doc J]

Ouch! Sorry to learn of this. Looks like some kind of failure not allowing for the flair (turbulance or RF link).
Can we see the failure? On my slopes this seems to be a knock against the Aeroic models, that is the guys claim the fuselages fail far too easily (Schwing Corsa 108 and Stormbird) I suspect it has to do with the lay up and the fact that most Aeroic models have a long nose adding more leverage.

While the Redshift is a new design it does have many element of old. Like the top loading servo tray. Most new designs are now bottom servo trays, as it allows for the top of the nose to carry much more of the impact loads from a typical landing. The top load servo tray tends to allow the sides of the nose to buckle outwards (the nose cone was an attempt to control this).

The shot gun ballast port on the bottom does remove a lot of structural strength from the nose. It was thought that the added carbon ballast tube would replace this lost structural strength by being a carry through spline. I’ve learned to really pack the opening with fiber and epoxy. (I hope that the epoxy soaked cotton balls work). I also carried the 3mm plywood servo tray aft past the fuselage part line. I laid 3.7 oz cloth on this tray and bound it to the fuselage sides that were above the tray. I think I now have a much stronger nose and fuselage joint that what was originally offered with the glass servo tray and the square ballast tube.

On the next Redshift (II?) I’d like to see a bottom servo tray and the nose cone part line slanted about 7° to be closer to 90° to the normal impact force. ( This is now standard stuff in most larger slope ships)

Thanks for the feedback on set up values.

Doc, Wayne, this brings up a good question. Now that Doc has lost control of the original molds how does one support this model with parts?

All the best,
Konrad

View attachment 4187
View attachment 4188

Hi Konrad - the simple answer for the old type fuselage is no I will not be able to support.

I apologise for this, but I think you know the situation.

For models that were made/purchased illegally then I would not support under any circumstances, as nobody who is sensible helps people who rip them off. I do however have a few fuselages here at my studio - as long as you don't mind pink (Yuk!)

The comment on the slope that the old fuselages failed too easily may be justified from time to time, as one of the reasons that I fired the original manufacture was just this point. The quality was unstable. More apologies there.

With the new factory - who is an expert in DS type models - we have done extensive fuselage testing and modifications and I'm happy to say the new ones are over TWICE as strong - but almost the same weight as the previous types.

Anyway, for Redshift wings and tail, then yes I will be OK to support but not for a few months - so don't go breaking any of those!

As you know I have the plug for a new, better, and slimmer bottom loading fuselage done, and its just waiting for a slot in the manufacturing schedule.

Hopefully I can get that going ASAP. It will be directly compatible with wings and tails now made.

Cheers,

Doc.

 

[Konrad]

Chris, thank you.
I noticed when "dis-assembling" my used Redshift that the supplied square carbon tube did not offer much stiffness. I'm using the round ballast tube supplied by Aloft Hobbies. This is a very stiff tube that looks to have been autoclaved. The only issue with these is that the length is a bit short. You might notice that my loading port is only 10mm away from the nose cone part line (I'm using 32mm long tungsten slugs).
(I see you went for the clean look of the OEM by running the wires under the servo tray. I chose to run my wires over the servo tray as there is no space, with my cotton balls along the side of the fuselage past the loading port).

@DOC,
So the new fuse will be backwards compatible with the 2018 Redshifts? (Not mine as I've flipped the stabs). This will be good news and great customer support!

BTW; My Redshift is ready to maiden (well except for radio programing). I was hoping to maiden her at last Sunday's race at the "Slot". But late Saturday I found that the wing and and fuselage harnesses weren't compatible. (This was actually a blessing, as it allowed me an excuse to go to bed)! As the next race isn't until July I might swap out the aileron servos for KST X0-8+ to fit into the wings.

 

[Konrad]

Chris, while we can all agree that the landing you show was a bit excessive, it is often in line with my landing.

I’m trying to understand the failure mode of your landing. It looks by your photos that there was a bit of a side relief at the loading port. It also looks like the area may have been repaired before. Can you confirm these observation?

@DOC, I know you have said the new molds are cut. I’d like to ask your position on the slanted aft nose cone part line? I’ve been see this in many new ships. That is the part line is slanted 3° to 7° to present a face 90° to the anticipated, worst case survivable condition.

All the best,
Konrad

 

[Doc J]

Chris, while we can all agree that the landing you show was a bit excessive, it is often in line with my landing.

I’m trying to understand the failure mode of your landing. It looks by your photos that there was a bit of a side relief at the loading port. It also looks like the area may have been repaired before. Can you confirm these observation?

@DOC, I know you have said the new molds are cut. I’d like to ask your position on the slanted aft nose cone part line? I’ve been see this in many new ships. That is the part line is slanted 3° to 7° to present a face 90° to the anticipated, worst case survivable condition.

All the best,
Konrad
View attachment 4212

Re: Slant: YES.

Doc.

 

[purview]

Chris Landing yes: horrible
Load port true: failed

 

[Konrad]

Does system integration have to be this difficult!

Here I'm trying to fit a set of XO-8 servos into the wing as aileron servos. So far so good until I try to size the mono push rod. I have the shortest IDS XO-8 rod shown and with the tray up against the sine wave spar the mono push rod is still too long.

I do have some Mono push rods for the IDS KST DS125 that appear to be the correct length. But the servo end of the mono rod is too wide. I could sand the width down to fit the supported servo arm. But really is there no other way?

What am I missing?

 

[Konrad]

Well, that doesn't work! The pin sizes are different. The XO-8 IDS uses 1mm pins The KST DS125 IDS uses 1.5mm pins. This will take another set of "custom" hardware.

How did the British team assemble their Redshifts? While I think I can get the aileron servos (XO-8) to fit, I won't be using parts with the stock form factor for the IDS.

I'm at a loss as to what was used in the CAD fitting for the flap servo. I can't get the "standard" 30mm wide wing servo to fit in the space (cover) provided. I'm starting to wonder if the unique sound of the Redshift isn't just the servo cavities whistling from all the holes not covered by the covers. (Not likely as I think I saw cover hold down tape used going over the holes).

So I have to ask, what skinny and narrow servos were intended to be used in the outfitting of the RedShift? I don't think they were MKS or KST models.

P.S.
The fitting (or lack there of) of IDS is not an Aeroic issue. The RedShift is supplied with standard clevis control horns. BTW these were well glued in.

 

[Wayne]

They offer some other lengths, but my crew have not put them up on the site just yet. You going to be in the area, or should we mail them to you? What length do you need?

 

[Konrad]

Well necessity is the mother of invention. Not wanting to loose a night of epoxy curing I made my own set of shortened rods. This is a nice thing about having a set of sub 1mm drills. While I won’t have as much of a boss around the servo end pin hole . I still think the servo gears will fail before the push rod will.

And right on time my last order from Aloft arrived with my missing X0-8+ V2. So The wings are now waiting the the servo frame epoxy to cure.

With the left over epoxy I’m making a set of servo covers for my white and Red Strega.

I really want to get this Redshift into the air, maybe before the next race! Far to often I'm maidening my models on race day. I want to get ahead of the power curve on this one.


I do miss coming by for my semi-weekly retail therapy sessions to lighten my wallet. There is so much in your store that never seems to make it on to the web site.

 

[Konrad]

Well, I have to admit it that I would not have used these great KST XO-8+ servos if Doc hadn't said to.
Wow, I'm always impressed at just how much better the controls feel with IDS. These are rock solid and I can actually use much more of the servo's resolution than what was in the aileron servo pocket. I'm thinking that the XO-8+ v2 is a more robust set up than what I found with the KST DS125 (yes the large wing servo). Also with the IDS I can now have a smooth wing no servo arms or servo body bumps in the airflow!

So this only leaves the flap servos as received. I may have to change these as they are the DS 125 which are rated for 6V. I hope to have a 2 cell 18650 battery in the nose. Before I do that I noticed that the max flap is about 70°. I'd like to ask if there is a reason for this? As a general rule I like the American practice of allowing the flaps to drop 85° to 90°. It may be a style thing but I like it. Some claim that it can stress the flaps as they extend below the fuselage. Even at 70° the flaps are hitting the rocks on landing so that's not a reason not to drop them all the way.

 

[Konrad]

I really need to finish this bird!

After our work party we open up the site to sport flying

I saw two Aeroic models come out both 2 meter ships. One was the Aresti 80 and the other was the little brother to the Redshift, the Stormbird.

Aeroteam Aresti 80 2 Metre Aerobatic Glider

The Aresti 80; a high performance aerobatic sailplane from successful designer Dr. James Hammond.

alofthobbies.com

The Stormbird by Aeroic

Armed with a completely new planform, new airfoils, and a new roomier, stronger fuselage, the Stormbird is the latest installment in James' prolific line of high performance gliders. Like all of the Aeroic thoroughbreds, the Stormbird is easy to fly, trac

alofthobbies.com

This was Gerard’s yellow (a very nice non camo livery) Stormbird. After sharing our stories of quality issues, he added ballast and we went off to the front face. I was really impressed at the energy retention super crisp hesitation rolls and roll rate. It was looking like the wing shape was working real well. Landings were also very stable.

The Aresti 80 only had one flight but it didn’t look all that great. The pilot was complaining of wandering ailerons. It was found that the factory installed left aileron horn had pulled out.

Between the two, the Strombird is more aligned with my style of flying.

Really can’t wait to get its bigger brother the Redshift in the air!

 

[Konrad]

Ok, I try to learn something from my mistakes. With the last set of pushrods I verified that the process I used to glue in the steel rods into the carbon tube was adequate.

With the servo arms now at 90° to the push rod at center I now get 10.5 mm of flipper motion each way with 100% servo motion! I think this will be the first Redshift that may need more than 100% servo motion. I may need to use an unbalanced V-tail mix like 70% elevator and 30% rudder. I may even have to go up to 120% servo motion. I’m happy with this, as I think it is far better than 25% or 20% most guys are using on their Redshifts. In case anybody forgot the surface arms are 11mm long and the servo arms are 4.5mm long.

Now the reason we buy molded ships is for the fidelity to the airfoil this kind of construction affords us. Now my particular Redshift had damaged V-tail flippers as a result of trying to get rid of the double centering issue from the binding snakes and ultra short control arms. It looks like the surface was crushed by clamps of some sort as the wire arms were bent with a set of pliers. I’m using Superfil epoxy as a filler. Normally I don’t care about the color line but this time I want to see if I can repair this without needing mix two colors. The damage is pretty much limited to the white areas. (No, I’m not trying to protect the camo look!) Now I’m sure the surface discontinuity won’t cause too many issues as most of them are aft of the hinge line. I just want to see it I can actually repair this area to better than new (longer control arms).

I have repaired the wipers and they look better than they should!

 

[Konrad]

I need to thank Doc for the wiper repair process give elsewhere in this forum.

Earlier I had said that I had adequate clearance with the longer horns and clevises. I did note that I had them installed backwards. Well, after making up the pushrods it dawned on me the clevis pins need to move downward to capture the control arm. There is no clearance to move the clevis outwards as it hits the fuselage side. In fact the clearance is so tight that I ground the top of the retention side of the clevis arm just for the added clearance as I didn’t want any contact drag. Flipping the clevis to allow for the proper motion to install them caused a bind at the center line as the clevis is twice as thick on the pin boss side. To gain clearance I had to grind a 45° flat. This is a bad idea as the pins are swaged (staked) to this side of the clevis. I was then forced to silver braze (45% silver) the pin to the clevis arm.

Also I said I thought that I’d need fuselage bulges to clear the clevises. Not so, I think the bulges came from trying to get more motion with the spherical ball ends. With the clevises I don’t see the need for the bulges.

 

[Konrad]

I said that I thought all I needed to do was change out the wing wiring harness and I’d be ready to maiden the Redshift. Well, I hit a snag in that the flap servos only allowed for about 60° of motion rather that the normal 100°. Now I have to think, do I want to just get the flaps to work. Or should I remove the trays and install a proper IDS. As I want to go with a 2 cell lipo system I need to change out the servos anyway. I’m thinking of delaying the maiden and trying to do the flap servo install properly.

Has anybody documented a proper servo installation with the RedShift? The airframe appears to have so much potential, but I keep hitting system integration issues at every turn. Poorly installed systems, not just by the end user but at the design stage, are sure to give airfames a bad reputation.

 

[Konrad]

System integration is the bane of my existence!

Earlier I bemoaned the poor installation of the wing servos. I noted the serpentine flap pushrods.
Well I learned why the pushrods needed to bent as such. It wasn’t for lack of knowledge by the installer. But rather the space provided did not allow for the installation of the classic 30mm x 35mm wing servo. One can’t place the servo properly as the end of the servo hits the wing ballast box. Going down to a smaller 30mm x 30mm wing servo would allow for proper span wise placement of the servo to align with the control horn.

To my way of thinking this is classic CAD failure. The power of CAD is in system integration. CAD is not a drawing program. It is a design program. And key to design is form fit and function. All these things can be tested in CAD. With CAD it would have been easy to find the interference with the servo and the end of the ballast box. With CAD the size of the servo opening could be determined properly, In CAD the control horn could have been moved further outboard to align with the servo arm.

I can’t understand why designers (not just Aeroic) don’t mention the criteria for the components used/needed to properly integrate with the airframe. I can understand not calling out brand names as that can cause issue in the distribution network. But please tell us the size and configuration of the components that the design needs!

 

[Konrad]

Doc, It looks to me that the wing ballast box is made of nylon. If so I have concerns with the epoxy bond. I've found it rather difficult to bond anything to nylon. I fear with the forces involved with a ballasted box and my landing that the box will break away. Is the ballast box, by design, up against the spar? If so then there is no place for the ballast box to go. This is a good thing. If not should i add epoxy to the void shown above between the ballast box and spar to hold the ballast box captive? Now how is the front ballast box held to the wing structure?

P.S.
This is not the case. The ballast boxes are not nylon.

 

[Doc J]

Konrad - when are you going to chuck that model off a cliff?

We are all waiting with baited breath - and its not from last night's Catch of the day supper...

Nylon ballast boxes? I wouldn't have put it past that bloody nitwit to try it.

Hopefully not.

Cheers,

Doc.

 

[Konrad]

I really want to throw this thing off a cliff!

Got the wiring harness in. I even got the flaps to work well, even with the 30mm x 35mm servos.

I owe you an apology for the serpentine pushrod comment awhile back. I now understand why you did it.

So it's now up to programing the radio, and arranging a visa from SWMBO. Maybe this weekend!

I think with this kind of feed back you will have a world class ship here. I base this on what I saw of the Stormbird.