look at the channel BPS Space. there the guy does a controlled vertical takeoff. quickly decelerate the rocket after a vertical force impulse. if it is at the height of radio coverage, you can make retractable wings and catch gliding. or glide with a parachute from the servo. ps. this is calculated from the power mass of the rocket, which means you need to calculate the strength of the initial charge on the stand with weights.
I agree and think that the launch angle should be at least 60 degrees. You want some altitude before gliding for both safety and having enough time to get it under control before it can hit the ground.
Getting the PID right with the airframe flexing all over is going to be almost impossible. The aircraft averaged almost 14 g when it hit top speed (165 mph in 0.54 seconds). Peak loading could be double that.
@@otm646 that's probably an argument against any control surfaces. Or perhaps an argument for fiberglass reinforced surfaces filletted directly onto the carbon fiber core.
Have you considered putting a flight stabiliser or flight controller on board? You're getting up near the speeds where a human can't react in time doing it line of sight - maybe a computer could help?
@@lukedavid8099 I would think any FC would work. You could prob even use an old Naze +iNav in a pinch. Even an old board is going to be faster than a human on the sticks.
@@lukedavid8099 I have the Aurora, it's a pretty amazing board, but it's main function is to smooth things out, so you can fly smaller planes and they feel like larger planes. Definitely get one if you get a chance. I've got mine on an overpowered STOL cub. Everyone who flies it is amazed at how easy it is to control. It smooths everything out but it doesn't feel like a typical stabilized controller would. It will still let you crash it into the ground though, so it's different than a standard fc.
@@lukedavid8099 i really like the safe system from the apprentice. I have a umx habu and it's really fun. It helps me with cross wind and such. Also nice to have the panic button lol.
You know it's a solid test flight when you take your aircraft home in a bin bag. I've done 150mph under FPV so I'm really routing for you to nail this cos it's one hell of an experience when you're under the hood. One big tip that will be handy down the line is to swap out that rubber duckie antenna on your goggles for something better. It will really help you get the most out of that little 25mw Vtx.
I used to this as my job ( I was missile programming engineer) and have a couple of pointers. But your launcher at a 45 degree angle. It gives you a little better chance to gain some altitude and time to recover from any mishaps. Also it takes some of the initial thrust and converts it to height instead of speed so it put less stress on the wings and controls. Putting the wing in the middle will make it more stable, the wing on the bottom is going want to flip it over. Or put the wings higher and a little angle up to give some inherent stability, otherwise put a gyro on it to try to keep it level. You might also consider replacing front canard with fully moving canards as elevons rather than flaps.
Something I remember from flying gliders, if you catch a stall, dive until you have enough speed to recover, otherwise turbulence will just keep building on the wings. Not saying this is what happened on the first flight, but it looks a slight bit like it. Thanks for making such amazing videos. Love your content. Cheers!
Wow that was exciting ! I think it's better to aim the ramp higher so you have more altitude and time to control the aircraft. You could put some electric motors to take off : it would make you comfortable with the controls and allow you to get up to much higher speeds since rocket motors aren't very efficient at taking off. Another idea : paint your underside black so you know if you're upside down.
hey little brother...aerospace engineer from usa..now in china. i would love to send you some green courage but unfortunately china doesnt let money go out...only in... how ever, i like what you do and im here for any adviuce you may need...my first advice would be to make you models a little bit bigger...the material isnt too much cost but you will find that the planes can be a bit more forgiving..goood luck little brother and please keep[ going...your doing very well.
That was great. Having the cameras and seeing the deflection on the control surfaces looks like it’s been really valuable. Looks like it pull loads of g before it terminated its flight. Can’t wait to see the next one. Do - Review - Apply.
Using the Canard as a flap is nice! What I do is move the battery rearwards on a stepper-motor during the rocket-burn to keep the CG from wandering. Long-burn rocketmotors help here.
Everyone’s saying flight controller: dRehmFlight is waiting for you James ;) But seriously, I think you found out the hard way that canards can be inherently destabilizing. If the vehicle pitches down, the canards in front of the cg will force the nose down more. On the other hand, a rear vertical surface will cause the nose to pitch back up. Next iteration I say: ditch the canards no matter how cool they look
Completely agree Nicholas! I’m think along the lines of a simple delta with a full composite construction - re: drehmFlight - would love to give that a try!
for the canards you might want to use a single CF rod to mount them and it can also be a hinge. Use a servo made for bigger gas planes so it can handle more force.
Very impressive! Many airliners (esp. A320) reduce the control surface gains in proportion to the square of airspeed - you could start with just low rates for powered flight then higher rate for landing.
If you ever step in motor size to over 160 Ns into true high power rocketry, as opposed to this being mid power, you'll almost certainly need to launch within 20° of vertical. Not sure what the high power rocketry organizations in your area say but both US organizations agree and have the same restrictions. Also, aircraft plywood completely reinforced with fiberglass or pure fiberglass is used for high powered rocket fins, especially if you're applying more load.
when the germans flew the ME 163 B in WW2 they would take off almost vertically to gain as much altitude as possible. maybe you could look into some of their designs? side note for those that don't know about the plane, its called the Messerschmitt ME 163 "Komet" . it was a liquid fuel based rocket interceptor that was made to defend german bases and strongholds. its engine was a catalyst based rocked that was run off of "C stoff" and "T stoff" which was super concentrated hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizer. this plane was recorded to go over 621 mph in level flight and had an unrecorded speed of over 700 mph.
It is funny that you use meters and miles per hour in the same sentence. I think that the best ways to improve the aircraft (without the obvious and expensive answer of using a LH LOX engine with refactory nozzles and regenerative cooling with the liquid fuel (preferably in an expander cycle)) is: 1: eject spent rockets and ignite the next solid rocket above it (longer flight time & faster speed). 2: make your fins for the control surfaces out of aluminum or a tougher material per unit weight. 3: Try to write an autopilot program to use the control surfaces to make the top of the camera frame face the sky. 4: do what another commenter stated of having the rocket initially travel upwards and level out once the first engine expires.
You'll obviously need to stiffen it BUT you should do the start on 2 stage With something this light and this much power, it will be uncontrolable, whatever you do I suggest igniting a weaker charge first to get it going and then the powerful one That or you increase the wingspan *A LOT* Next, do the same canards as the Rafale, not just moving flaps You can use a slower motor because the entire canards will be used and better tune it to achieve really precise movement, and not full up/down in 0.0001s like it seems to be x) And reduce them, *a lot* if you do that, and in the same axis as the wings, otherwise you'll not be able to control it It will also allow you to center the load ln the nose for them, having a better center of mass
We will need people like you considering where the world is headed. You will get more roll stability if you just flip the whole thing upside down so the wings are on the top.
Small details but bevel all your forward facing edged. The canards, vert stab, wings, etc. You might be surprised at how much better it flies, especially at high speed. It'll also help with any flutter and twisting. What you could also do is find some 2-3mm carbon spar and tape it to all the edges. That'll help stiffen and make the edges more slippery
Keep up the work ! As discussed earlier , maybe establishing a glide and adding increasingly sophisticated flight computers makes sense . Just for starters , getting roll under control .
I think the weather in his area is a disadvantage but also an advantage, since it gives him time to think thouroughly and prepare his projects. That's also why I love his vids!
I just started watching ur videos on my school computer, there only few channels active on my school RUclips and it includes ur too and I'll be honest u read my mind thats how I wanted to be!! Love from India 🇮🇳
Fabulous, in terms of the numbers of comments, you have hit an aerospace nerve! A kind suggestion only as you clearly are experts; a slightly larger airlift capacity of the rocket might allow you to control the post thrust portion of the ‘flight’. For Goodness sake, do not give up and keep up having fun. Australian rocket scientist probably started with a lot of fewer successes. Next video? Greetings from down under
If you wanna go even faster I think you should 1. Create an airplane that can fly without a rocket but has a rocket onboard that you can ignite using a switch (allows the rocket to provide additionnal thrust instead of providing the whole thrust at once and then leave you with a glidder with tiny control surfaces) 2. Implement some automated trajectory correction system into your plane because when you are dealing with that much thrust, you are bound to overcorrect since human reflexes aren't meant to do tiny corrections 100x a second
Couple notes: First note is stability, lift and structure; With just foam/cardboard it might be worth re-designing the craft to be more rocket-like, relying on large rear control surfaces to help produce decent lifting body forces along the length of the model (especially given the relative girth of the current design - maybe something more akin to an AGM-65 with larger body-fins and control surfaces, or even vaguely shuttle-like. This way the craft won't be as badly affected by high Gs or loading from AoA and control surfaces, but it's relatively low density will still allow it some respectable glide-range without the need for swing-wings or that large rear wing. Next note is control surfaces; As much as I love canards, trailing edge control surfaces and canard-flaps they are not as effective as they could be with their current materials and construction, instead I would suggest using stabilators (a rear control surface which moves in it's entirety). If loaded with its centre of rotation just forward of its centre of drag/lift then you get a control surface that will provide more dynamic stability at high speeds and more lift/control-impulse at low speeds. If you end up keeping the Canard design then I would highly recommend changing them to stabilators even if they are only used as flaps (they will naturally flex to match air-flow direction, resulting in negligable at high speed unless actuated). Finally (unless I think of something else) - control systems; While I adore the Valkerie/Viggen style canard-flaps + delta design, canard aircraft are notoriously hard to balance for stable flight across varying flight envelopes, as such I would recommend the use of some basic computer-control circuitry, even if just for keeping the wings level (you could even have the computer system run independant of the remote system, having the computer use out-board ailerons and the remote using larger inboard ones). The flaps, while handy might be better controlled using the unused throttle axis while still having those surfaces respond to pitch commands by blending the two inputs, even better if this functionality can be toggled - a "ballistic mode" for using only the rear surfaces and a "glide mode" using all available surfaces and the blended flap axis. And now that I'm reading this wall of text back to myself I realise this is probably a lot to take in and a lot of it is far too much to ask of someone who already works so hard on these cool projects XD Either way I'll leave it here in case it comes in handy - if you've got any questions I'd love to help out :)
A flight board with gyro stabilization built in might help for the level of development. Trying to correct small changes in direction manually at that speed would require razor shape reflexes. Thanks for sharing.
I'm going with this: Use a high-aspect-ratio glider as a launching airframe. Fly the rocket plane and launch off the top, or drop and launch off the wing like the pros did it in the 1950s.
I bet using a flight controller would help overcome the natural latency in correcting. If you have it in "launch mode" you can set a certain climb rate in the configurator and once the engine is off flick it into manual mode
A few tips for FPV, James... 😬 - If it's an airplane, use a pusher. If it's a quadcopter, always change the props. - Always clear your SD cards. - Always charge the goggles' battery! 😬 Anyway, fantastic work as always!!! 😃 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
To get away with using smaller wings you can make the fuselage longer. This allows you the same pitch and yaw authority as a smaller fuselage with bigger elevators and rudder.
I admire your experiments, and, if you’re aircrafts are fast, faster is your mind processing the data, obtaining answers, and formulating new questions from them. I tip my hat, Sir! Now, been thinking, how feasible is to make a rocket that on its return springs out wings and glide?
Well that is a prime example of “it has plenty of power to weight”! Also know as “overkill”. I have a feeling the speed and force over came the electronics and the drag of the cameras didn’t help the resistance. But all in all a very successful test flight! NEXT!
Perhaps to solve the nosy heavy issue you should consider custom printed pcbs. And spread the weight throughout the body wherever possible. Just ideas, its what I planned on doing.
Wow! That was FAST! Next stop: THE MOON! :D
Yep
Via the centre of the Earth! ;) Seriously though, that looks like a propper handful, is it even human controllable?
*Insert evil laugh here*
Yeah man 💥
look at the channel BPS Space. there the guy does a controlled vertical takeoff. quickly decelerate the rocket after a vertical force impulse. if it is at the height of radio coverage, you can make retractable wings and catch gliding. or glide with a parachute from the servo.
ps. this is calculated from the power mass of the rocket, which means you need to calculate the strength of the initial charge on the stand with weights.
It's an honor to have my name hit the ground at 160mph!
Haha! Thanks as always for the support Peter!
Why would you spoil it :(
pov you accidentally saw this before the video started
I did
@@SZ_DARKK pov yes
Point it up more, stiffen up the control surfaces, get it flying nicely as a glider first, think about a roll gyro, nice work and keep it up!
A gyro would definitely be a good idea here
yes he should not rely on his reflexes to control the rocket!
@@hawkfpv4950 if it has positive stability in theory it should be able to fly hands off during the boost phase.
also try not to crash :)
I agree and think that the launch angle should be at least 60 degrees. You want some altitude before gliding for both safety and having enough time to get it under control before it can hit the ground.
Your videos are always a treat, James, no matter the outcome! Fast rocket-y things are very hard to control :/
rocket go fwooosh
Thanks Joe. Success tastes sweeter after blood, sweat and tears - as I'm sure you appreciate!
BPS I’m a fan of u also
WOW BPS SPACE COMMENTED
YOOOO BPS
implementing automated flight control is probably the best thing you could do for the power and forces on the plane
Getting the PID right with the airframe flexing all over is going to be almost impossible. The aircraft averaged almost 14 g when it hit top speed (165 mph in 0.54 seconds). Peak loading could be double that.
@@otm646 I'm not sure if he used a gyro but if not, he should definitly get one mounted.
@@otm646 that's probably an argument against any control surfaces.
Or perhaps an argument for fiberglass reinforced surfaces filletted directly onto the carbon fiber core.
PLS DO! He would help your channel AND your avionics!
Maybe turn the sensitivity WAY down?
"Controlled into the ground" is a great phrase!
In aviation they say "CFIT" - "Controlled Flight Into Terrain"
@@matthewforan6397 Its one of the primary killers of pilots in Alaska.
Hey it’s a start and most of it survived!! If you need a hand getting some controls on that BEAST feel free to shoot us a message ;)
Have you considered putting a flight stabiliser or flight controller on board? You're getting up near the speeds where a human can't react in time doing it line of sight - maybe a computer could help?
Would the aurora board from flite test work for something like this?
@@lukedavid8099 I would think any FC would work. You could prob even use an old Naze +iNav in a pinch. Even an old board is going to be faster than a human on the sticks.
@@lukedavid8099 I have the Aurora, it's a pretty amazing board, but it's main function is to smooth things out, so you can fly smaller planes and they feel like larger planes. Definitely get one if you get a chance. I've got mine on an overpowered STOL cub. Everyone who flies it is amazed at how easy it is to control. It smooths everything out but it doesn't feel like a typical stabilized controller would. It will still let you crash it into the ground though, so it's different than a standard fc.
@@austntexan darn it man I wasn't sure if I should get one or not but you might have pushed me over the edge lol
@@lukedavid8099 i really like the safe system from the apprentice.
I have a umx habu and it's really fun. It helps me with cross wind and such.
Also nice to have the panic button lol.
9:27 was the best part because the fire coming from the igniter looked so cool
There's a reason why, "rocket science" is a euphemism for something difficult.
Difficult, but always spectacular
Rocket science is easy, rocket engineering is hard
You know it's a solid test flight when you take your aircraft home in a bin bag. I've done 150mph under FPV so I'm really routing for you to nail this cos it's one hell of an experience when you're under the hood. One big tip that will be handy down the line is to swap out that rubber duckie antenna on your goggles for something better. It will really help you get the most out of that little 25mw Vtx.
"high powered rocket planes are hard to fly".... Mate i'm not sure we learned that today, i thought we had found that out long ago!
im 15 and i find most videos boring but i truly love watching your videos and they inspire me a whole lot thank you
Regardless of the “failure,” that was still VERY COOL. Thank you for taking us on your journey!
And that Land Rover is AWESOME!
Thanks Dan!
A shifting mass in the fuselage would be an interesting solution to the rapid change in the CG from the rocket burning !
I think you owe Mike a pint! Sterling support!
Poor bloke had to wait until after the sponsor for a "Thank You!".
Yes, what a great flight compliments!
I used to this as my job ( I was missile programming engineer) and have a couple of pointers. But your launcher at a 45 degree angle. It gives you a little better chance to gain some altitude and time to recover from any mishaps. Also it takes some of the initial thrust and converts it to height instead of speed so it put less stress on the wings and controls. Putting the wing in the middle will make it more stable, the wing on the bottom is going want to flip it over. Or put the wings higher and a little angle up to give some inherent stability, otherwise put a gyro on it to try to keep it level. You might also consider replacing front canard with fully moving canards as elevons rather than flaps.
Last suggestion was my same idea
Something I remember from flying gliders, if you catch a stall, dive until you have enough speed to recover, otherwise turbulence will just keep building on the wings. Not saying this is what happened on the first flight, but it looks a slight bit like it.
Thanks for making such amazing videos. Love your content. Cheers!
Wow that was exciting ! I think it's better to aim the ramp higher so you have more altitude and time to control the aircraft. You could put some electric motors to take off : it would make you comfortable with the controls and allow you to get up to much higher speeds since rocket motors aren't very efficient at taking off. Another idea : paint your underside black so you know if you're upside down.
This kind of innovation is the future of engineering in the UK - keep up the great work.
hey little brother...aerospace engineer from usa..now in china. i would love to send you some green courage but unfortunately china doesnt let money go out...only in... how ever, i like what you do and im here for any adviuce you may need...my first advice would be to make you models a little bit bigger...the material isnt too much cost but you will find that the planes can be a bit more forgiving..goood luck little brother and please keep[ going...your doing very well.
Pro tip for the barbed wire fence, pull up on the middle line and step on the bottom before you go through it.
Enjoyed the video series, subscribed.
Congrats on personal speed record. Thank you for your videos!
rule#1 keep both hands on the sticks at all time and hold on for dear life.....very impressive young Sir
That was great. Having the cameras and seeing the deflection on the control surfaces looks like it’s been really valuable. Looks like it pull loads of g before it terminated its flight. Can’t wait to see the next one. Do - Review - Apply.
He could probably approximately calculate the g's during that turn from data he has for this flight if he wanted to. Was pretty tight corner
Using the Canard as a flap is nice! What I do is move the battery rearwards on a stepper-motor during the rocket-burn to keep the CG from wandering. Long-burn rocketmotors help here.
Love the fact that you take failures as a learning event. Well done.
I love the warts and all style of your videos, we're on a real journey with u, cant wait for the next vid!
Everyone’s saying flight controller: dRehmFlight is waiting for you James ;)
But seriously, I think you found out the hard way that canards can be inherently destabilizing. If the vehicle pitches down, the canards in front of the cg will force the nose down more. On the other hand, a rear vertical surface will cause the nose to pitch back up. Next iteration I say: ditch the canards no matter how cool they look
Completely agree Nicholas! I’m think along the lines of a simple delta with a full composite construction - re: drehmFlight - would love to give that a try!
@@Project-Air Awesome, good luck!
Fly it like the Space Shuttle. Vertical launch, horizontal landing. Altitude is your friend, giving you time to stabilise the return flight.
That was fun! I did expect the big version to be launched more vertically, similar in fashion to the test model.
for the canards you might want to use a single CF rod to mount them and it can also be a hinge. Use a servo made for bigger gas planes so it can handle more force.
Awesome flight! Congratulations! Also great to see your operator number in use :)
Yes yes yes bro! 🙌 I truly enjoy your way of experimenting and testing. It is how all the greats have done it! Great video mate!
Very impressive! Many airliners (esp. A320) reduce the control surface gains in proportion to the square of airspeed - you could start with just low rates for powered flight then higher rate for landing.
If you ever step in motor size to over 160 Ns into true high power rocketry, as opposed to this being mid power, you'll almost certainly need to launch within 20° of vertical. Not sure what the high power rocketry organizations in your area say but both US organizations agree and have the same restrictions.
Also, aircraft plywood completely reinforced with fiberglass or pure fiberglass is used for high powered rocket fins, especially if you're applying more load.
when the germans flew the ME 163 B in WW2 they would take off almost vertically to gain as much altitude as possible. maybe you could look into some of their designs? side note for those that don't know about the plane, its called the Messerschmitt ME 163 "Komet" . it was a liquid fuel based rocket interceptor that was made to defend german bases and strongholds. its engine was a catalyst based rocked that was run off of "C stoff" and "T stoff" which was super concentrated hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizer. this plane was recorded to go over 621 mph in level flight and had an unrecorded speed of over 700 mph.
It is funny that you use meters and miles per hour in the same sentence.
I think that the best ways to improve the aircraft (without the obvious and expensive answer of using a LH LOX engine with refactory nozzles and regenerative cooling with the liquid fuel (preferably in an expander cycle)) is:
1: eject spent rockets and ignite the next solid rocket above it (longer flight time & faster speed).
2: make your fins for the control surfaces out of aluminum or a tougher material per unit weight.
3: Try to write an autopilot program to use the control surfaces to make the top of the camera frame face the sky.
4: do what another commenter stated of having the rocket initially travel upwards and level out once the first engine expires.
That was awesome James I enjoyed that keep up the good work
You'll obviously need to stiffen it
BUT you should do the start on 2 stage
With something this light and this much power, it will be uncontrolable, whatever you do
I suggest igniting a weaker charge first to get it going and then the powerful one
That or you increase the wingspan *A LOT*
Next, do the same canards as the Rafale, not just moving flaps
You can use a slower motor because the entire canards will be used and better tune it to achieve really precise movement, and not full up/down in 0.0001s like it seems to be x)
And reduce them, *a lot* if you do that, and in the same axis as the wings, otherwise you'll not be able to control it
It will also allow you to center the load ln the nose for them, having a better center of mass
We will need people like you considering where the world is headed. You will get more roll stability if you just flip the whole thing upside down so the wings are on the top.
That engine is wild ! Beautiful flame !!
You should make a big red button on your control panel and have it set off an emergency parachute inside it and print ABORT onto it.
Small details but bevel all your forward facing edged. The canards, vert stab, wings, etc.
You might be surprised at how much better it flies, especially at high speed. It'll also help with any flutter and twisting.
What you could also do is find some 2-3mm carbon spar and tape it to all the edges. That'll help stiffen and make the edges more slippery
Keep up the work ! As discussed earlier , maybe establishing a glide and adding increasingly sophisticated flight computers makes sense . Just for starters , getting roll under control .
It wouldn't be a proper testflight without some damages.
Keep up the great work
A bigger Field?
Looks like the whole place is one Big Giant Field!!!
I think the weather in his area is a disadvantage but also an advantage, since it gives him time to think thouroughly and prepare his projects. That's also why I love his vids!
I like your positive thinking :D
I just started watching ur videos on my school computer, there only few channels active on my school RUclips and it includes ur too and I'll be honest u read my mind thats how I wanted to be!! Love from India 🇮🇳
True experimentation, loved it.
11:25 "oh look, there is a battery in the tree" ....that really got me xD
just the wicked flame coming out of the plane
Fabulous, in terms of the numbers of comments, you have hit an aerospace nerve! A kind suggestion only as you clearly are experts; a slightly larger airlift capacity of the rocket might allow you to control the post thrust portion of the ‘flight’. For Goodness sake, do not give up and keep up having fun. Australian rocket scientist probably started with a lot of fewer successes. Next video? Greetings from down under
Nice Land Rover!
by now these have become the equivalent of civilian guided missiles
Perfect weather!
:o
If you wanna go even faster I think you should
1. Create an airplane that can fly without a rocket but has a rocket onboard that you can ignite using a switch (allows the rocket to provide additionnal thrust instead of providing the whole thrust at once and then leave you with a glidder with tiny control surfaces)
2. Implement some automated trajectory correction system into your plane because when you are dealing with that much thrust, you are bound to overcorrect since human reflexes aren't meant to do tiny corrections 100x a second
the battery dangling from the barbwire fence.... looked like it hang itself
i lost it...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yet another incredible video from project air 👍👍👍👍
I absolutely love your videos
I hope you post the video more often.It is really good to watch.❤
They take a while to make! Although I'm now documenting larger projects in multiple parts - so they will be more frequent :)
Atleast you started to make high power RC rocket (controllable). In future I can expect more efficient controllable RC power rocket👍👍
Haha, nice first flight! Can’t wait for V2!!!
nice
No joke, but that looked just like a cruise missile, great jobs on creating such a cool rocket plane!
Woah, a super useful sponsorship? Dope
The original orange one that big would have been awesome.
Now I want to change the propulsion of my flying wing back to rocket.
Errr, think you need a parachute there mate. Good job overall!! Very cool!
Whose fields are you rummaging through like this?
Couple notes:
First note is stability, lift and structure;
With just foam/cardboard it might be worth re-designing the craft to be more rocket-like, relying on large rear control surfaces to help produce decent lifting body forces along the length of the model (especially given the relative girth of the current design - maybe something more akin to an AGM-65 with larger body-fins and control surfaces, or even vaguely shuttle-like.
This way the craft won't be as badly affected by high Gs or loading from AoA and control surfaces, but it's relatively low density will still allow it some respectable glide-range without the need for swing-wings or that large rear wing.
Next note is control surfaces;
As much as I love canards, trailing edge control surfaces and canard-flaps they are not as effective as they could be with their current materials and construction, instead I would suggest using stabilators (a rear control surface which moves in it's entirety).
If loaded with its centre of rotation just forward of its centre of drag/lift then you get a control surface that will provide more dynamic stability at high speeds and more lift/control-impulse at low speeds.
If you end up keeping the Canard design then I would highly recommend changing them to stabilators even if they are only used as flaps (they will naturally flex to match air-flow direction, resulting in negligable at high speed unless actuated).
Finally (unless I think of something else) - control systems;
While I adore the Valkerie/Viggen style canard-flaps + delta design, canard aircraft are notoriously hard to balance for stable flight across varying flight envelopes, as such I would recommend the use of some basic computer-control circuitry, even if just for keeping the wings level (you could even have the computer system run independant of the remote system, having the computer use out-board ailerons and the remote using larger inboard ones).
The flaps, while handy might be better controlled using the unused throttle axis while still having those surfaces respond to pitch commands by blending the two inputs, even better if this functionality can be toggled - a "ballistic mode" for using only the rear surfaces and a "glide mode" using all available surfaces and the blended flap axis.
And now that I'm reading this wall of text back to myself I realise this is probably a lot to take in and a lot of it is far too much to ask of someone who already works so hard on these cool projects XD
Either way I'll leave it here in case it comes in handy - if you've got any questions I'd love to help out :)
So close to 100k!
Really made my day with the shoutout, as always great and inspiring video. Keep it up 🔥
A flight board with gyro stabilization built in might help for the level of development. Trying to correct small changes in direction manually at that speed would require razor shape reflexes. Thanks for sharing.
I randomly found your channel because of this series and am a new Sub now
I like the ad timer on the bottom
An "Air Launch" version with a larger "carrier aircraft" will probably get you the best "bang for you buck" and maybe more flight time/speed?
I'm going with this: Use a high-aspect-ratio glider as a launching airframe. Fly the rocket plane and launch off the top, or drop and launch off the wing like the pros did it in the 1950s.
That was my original idea - but I need to build a drop ship first :)
@@Project-Air Yep, i don't mean to rush/pressure, wa sjust wondering what you thought of it/if you were planning something similar; Best of luck!
I bet using a flight controller would help overcome the natural latency in correcting. If you have it in "launch mode" you can set a certain climb rate in the configurator and once the engine is off flick it into manual mode
A few tips for FPV, James... 😬
- If it's an airplane, use a pusher. If it's a quadcopter, always change the props.
- Always clear your SD cards.
- Always charge the goggles' battery! 😬
Anyway, fantastic work as always!!! 😃
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
To get away with using smaller wings you can make the fuselage longer. This allows you the same pitch and yaw authority as a smaller fuselage with bigger elevators and rudder.
Wow! Awesome flight man!
Kudos from across the pond....u are a smart kid, always experimenting and overcoming.....i see you going places👍
the sound was amazing great job
THAT WAS AWESOMEEEEEEEEE.
That was awesome you gatta build another one
I admire your experiments, and, if you’re aircrafts are fast, faster is your mind processing the data, obtaining answers, and formulating new questions from them. I tip my hat, Sir!
Now, been thinking, how feasible is to make a rocket that on its return springs out wings and glide?
Cake, Tea, and Rockets. After lockdown, you should sell tickets.
4:38 dude, i just realized you got an awesome style man! Seriously, very nice fashion! xD
6:16 You made a pretty good ballistic missile lol
Well that is a prime example of “it has plenty of power to weight”! Also know as “overkill”. I have a feeling the speed and force over came the electronics and the drag of the cameras didn’t help the resistance. But all in all a very successful test flight! NEXT!
I liked the video before the ad finished
Great job 👏🏻
Never heard a brit complaining about it being too warm in england.
i think its more confusion and disbelief ...
I love how when all all fails, like any good Brit, the solution is to go make a cup of tea.
my aerospace company is akkadian aero im 28 and you still inspire me
Quite the punch in the second flight
Perhaps to solve the nosy heavy issue you should consider custom printed pcbs. And spread the weight throughout the body wherever possible. Just ideas, its what I planned on doing.
Super cool, definitely need a flight controller and some stiffer control components though.
Need something a lot more rigid for the wings and control surfaces, the flexing really made it go wild.