Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS: clik.cc/rSEbJ ✅ ANDROID: clik.cc/MglMr Start with💰50K silver and get a Free Epic Champion 💥 on day 7 of “New Player Rewards” program.
u had ur trail edge way to sharp for control surface to take effect and lost lift to cause of this .. like a mini tornado behind the plane... boundary layer separation from the high pressure below the wing swirling up to meet the low pressure above the wing or body in this case... extend the top of the body and have a slope to the bottom of the body try an angle then try a curve.> [][][[[][][]][]]][[][[]][[]][[][][[]][[][]][[[]][]
hey Id like to give a recommendation for further drops. One problem you are having is how the vehicle is released. Im an armament technician, one of the things iv learned over the years is there is a reason all munitions and even air launched vehicles are carried horizontally. Its for stabilizing airflow over the surface, and the keep the nose forward for improved aerodynamics. In most of your videos the aircraft is basically vertical, this is costing you time, altitude, and stability. If possible- have the vehicle dropped horizontally while flying forward (even if slow). you should have better results.
Daniel, I don't think that anybody from this community plays that kinda stuff. But also, nobody will criticize you for having that sponsor and saying things like "I don't play a lot, but when I play, I make sure to play Raid...". We all know that youtubes ad revenues are rough these days. Sadly (as a student ;) ) I simply can't afford to support you on patreon either. => I'm so happy to be able to support you by just giving a bit of my time to your sponsor. Don't hesitate to take more sponsors, even if you don't particulary support this stuff. Because in the end: it's not about some strange ads here and there, it's about implementing crazy ideas and projects, pushing the industry and bringing new people into this hobby, just as you did with me back in 2012.
i think a major issue is the 3D print roughness of the surface. You need a very smooth surface for a good laminar flow and lift. perhaps with some good sanding and polishing it would have been a lot better.
I'd be interested in seeing it without the slots underneath. I suspect (as you mention) that they might not be doing too much given that they don't increase the cross-section. Speaking as someone who's done zero reasearch on lifting body aerodynamics, I also suspect that they're killing a lot of your lift. They're a pretty big departure from the shapes which were known to work in the 60s. Maybe try something closely modelled on one of those designs, just to get a feel for how the designs scale?
me thinks too. maybe a shape that resembles the bottom of a boat.and model b (fatty) needs more surface area in the verticle stabilization area, me thinks
That diffuser is definitly not helping the lift, but it will help track straight. It actually is creating drag at the bottom, pushing the nose forward and down. I would recommend sizing it down a little or putting it on top where it will lift the nose. Great work though!
I agree. I also think the rear of the craft is too blunt and would create a very turbulent and unstable wake. If that could be streamlined I think it will significantly reduce drag and help with stability.
Notice how the NASA/ US government..DID...NOT PUT A "DIFFUSER" on the bottom of it's LIFTING BODY AIRCRAFT !!!!!!! I have an extremely low IQ....most would agree that I'm fairly retarded...I barely graduated....and even I....even I... FEAKED out when I saw the diffuser.....@RCTESTFLIGHT do you know what helps small lifting body aircraft fly better than slotted and straked race car style diffusers.... ? Bowling Balls !!! srsly Attach one to the nose via a wire.
@@goku445 it crashed because a chase helicopter was in the wrong place, blocking the pilot's view of the ground. The lifting body pilot released the landing gear too late, it smacked into the ground too low to lock down. So the gear collapsed, the belly crashed into the ground then the lifting body went sideways and rolled. The pilot survived with some injuries but later lost an eye from an infection. (Dirty hospital!) Why he survived was design problems with those lifting body shapes. Having to be bigger at the back makes them tail heavy. Their initial solution idea was to borrow some gold from the government, load it into the nose, do the test flights then put the gold back. Ah, the glory days when NASA had that kind of pull. Then one of the team suggested they just add a whole bunch of steel to the internal frame around the pilot, but make it all structural rather than just dead weight. All that super strength saved the pilot's life and minimized the damage to where the craft was rebuilt with an altered shape and flown for several more test flights.
Lol! That's the first thing I thought of when he said they all landed ok, and yeah, that was real life footage, not a simulation or a model. Probably the worst crash footage the show could find where the aircraft wasn't engulfed in flames.
The M2F2 was the lifting body that crashed. It was rebuilt as the M2F3, with aerodynamic modifications to make it more controllable. The most obvious being a third vertical stabilizer {the M2F2 had two vertical stabs}. This book covers lifting body development in the United States: www.amazon.com/Wingless-Flight-Lifting-Body-Story/dp/0160493900
One of the major lessons learned from the M2 lifting body in the 60's, which is most similar to the one in the video, is it needs a vertical fin right on the centerline to stabilize in roll. I bet if you add a centerline fin, the uncontrolled spins would stop. I also agree with the poster who questions the use of a flight controller. It hides the real behavior of the vehicle, and will often make things worse once they go bad (like spins).
Fyi, something I have learned from making boomerangs from aircraft grade plywood: as smooth as the raw wood surface can be made, a gloss finish makes a drastic difference in flight characteristics! I would try to throw an unfinished boomerang and it wouldn’t want to fly, much less with stable and predictable characteristics, clear coat it and suddenly they fly like a dream!
you might be interested to know the lifting body principle was designed by Vincent Burnelli back in the 1930s. he made lots of odd looking planes which i personally love. Like the CBY-3 Loadmaster
@@rctestflight I don't blame you. It's just unfortunate that many creators have to rely on ads that could potentially alter their content negatively. You should consider starting up a patreon or even a PayPal so we can support your projects. I'm sure many of us would be happy to do so.
The most interesting aspect of the lifting body is that it at least proves aerodynamic concepts that can be utilized in new experiments. It may eventually change the ways we compensate for drag in actual vehicles.
A good resource for you on this is "Flying Without Wings" By authors Thompson and Peebles covering the full history, flight by flight with the test pilots notes and feedback. Your flying prototype resembles the M2-F3 profile, but your ventral slots may be robbing you of lift... maybe if try some flights where it's taped over in increasing stages from front to rear. Your more streamlined shape is closer to the HL-10 without the mid fuselage volume but with the flared wingtips. Hope you continue making and flying these models... maybe check out the "Dreamchaser" by Sierra Nevada Corp... it could lead to a job with them perhaps !
This sponsorship is so random for this channel lmao I wonder if the issue is flow separation due to the flat top and the high angle of attack due to the high wing loading. Daniel, could you try shaping the top to keep the flow attached?
Some time ago I made a lifting body design that was very stable. he endured large angles of attack without swinging and had good control. It was also quite light, although I have made others of free flight that measure 10 cm and they weighed quite a bit. and flew perfect without any control. if you want I'll send you the design to make one similar.
Have you considered the rear slots could be pulling the tail down? That is what f1 cars use for maximum vacuum downforce. I'm not sure if this applies when there is no ground surface to interact with, but might be a problem when landing, at the very least.
@@KnowledgePerformance7 I'm pretty sure diffusers reduce drag by energizing the flow behind the vehicle, which reduces turbulence. But it does reduce lift because it reduces the air pressure below the fuselage.
Great video. I built a couple of powered scale rc lifting bodies about 10 years ago but never got the chance to fly them. I built them from depron. Now that I have the time, I definitely want to revisit this project.
Sanding really goes a long way on 3d printed parts, the layer seams/printing artifacts definitely seem to affect drag. Great design, dont worry too much if your revisions start to stray from the original idea, just about anything ive made that actually works ended up looking only vaguely like the original concept lol
I’ve already designed a stable tandem wing lifting body called Future Star. It can carry lots of weight and has its own propulsion. It’s also air launched.
@@rctestflight What's the lense diameter for the fpv cutout? Print volume available? I know you can just scale it, but I want to make life easy for ya, want the servos to fit nice.
That's actually a direct successor to the other lifting bodies you saw in the NASA footage, they basically contonued on the research when NASA stopped working on the HL-10
From what I've read is that NASA was initially interested in lifting bodies for spacecraft coming back from orbit. During one drop test the lifting body which flew more like a streamlined brick made a successful landing on the dry lake bed. Shortly after rolling to a stop the B-52 mothership roared over at low altitude. One of the engineers asked: How did he get down from altitude so quickly. The B-52 pilots showed the engineers their technique and proved that winged aircraft can be used for reentry. About being a streamlined brick... A local glider club presented one of the test pilots a trophy that was a red brick ground to a streamlined shape.
"So that goes to show I spent way too much time on this project" Please, no... at least for the sake of the video, you got my interest!!!!! :D More more more :D Thanks for sharing!
I hope you can keep getting sponsorships! I know some people attack creators for getting sponsors or what not but if it helps you keep making awesome videos thats a plus in my book! Great video!
One reason you probably are having control issues is they were studying these for the shuttle program, and the powered ones were actually super sonic. Maybe add a model rocket booster to get it up to speed? good idea making the lower fins farther apart, you have to be careful about turbulent boundary layer flow on RC scale aircraft (and with the 3D printed surface) which actually helps it stall later, but causes other trade offs
It would be interesting to build one with a smooth bottom and top and compare it to the flight characteristics of the one with ventral channels. With the channels, the dis-similar surface flows (as they meets at the trailing edge) might be quite chaotic across the lower surface resulting in that tendency to flat spin under light loading, or require higher weight than is optimal for efficient lift to regain stability.
Some of the reasons why the F-35 looks a little stubby with its upturned nose and short neck compared to the sleek F-16 is because it has incorporated some of the lifting body characteristics into its airframe. I believe this gives the airplane high AOA authority, especially at low speeds.
YESSSSS... a passion of mine - aircraft carriers, drop ships, co-op (possible) flying (i.e. one person manning the host plane, one manning the parasite)
I am building and flying planes since a very long time now. I also fly quads for years. I know a quad definitely needs a fc for sure. But I never use fcs in planes. They are so well controllable without it. Of course when well tuned it works and helps you flying it. But in windy conditions it often over or underreacts. I think you should try doing it with just connecting the servos to the receiver, Programm a mix and give it a hell of expo for smoothness. I think especially with a small „plane“ like this it’s too hard to tune it right and the fc just uses the servos to much, causing it to slow down because it wants to stabilise it perfectly. Maybe it gains more speed. But definitely a nice idea!!! Never have heard of something like this before! Very nice build. And very nice, simple and working mechanism to drop the plane. Thumbs up!
its so cool, its like he miniaturized areospace development and now he can just iterate on it over and over really quickly. become his own nasa launching tiny rockets with recovery vehicles that fly back home
In the first test flights (before any components were added to the craft) it looked like the drone was creating a bunch of turbulence on the crafts as they were released. You might try having them tethered further away from the drone (like 20ft below it), or have a very long beam extend off the drone so the craft is outside the turbulence. If the drone can't maintain balance, you could extend a beam in both directions with a counter weight that gets dropped at the same time as the craft, and have it tied to the center of the drone to prevent the counterweight from falling on anyone's head.
I think your "built in" strakes on the underside might be creating an area of low pressure, which could be causing some of your instability. Maybe try sculpting them in smoother so that the don't have such a sharp cutoff where they meet the middle underside of the fuselage? Or maybe try one without them all together? Cheers and thanks for another interesting video :)
The "tail heavy" one's design doesn't actually generate lift, it just rides the air like a boat. You've tried to add an airfoil to the top of that, which basically means it's now a cone, neither a lifting body nor an airfoil. Of course all it does is dive into the ground.
That was a great kick at the can, I’ve watched your videos since the wooden H quad. Your content is always inspiring and helps motivate me to keep working on my own RC experiments and projects. Thanks Daniel
The bottom fins look like air diffusers. A lot of race cars use them to help boost the speed air moving beneath the car. They re probably reducing a lot of lift. If it was smooth you'd likely have a lot more lift. (diffusers are meant to create downforce) Aerodynamically you would want slower moving air with more drag on the bottom of the wing, and faster moving air at the top. Having diffusers on the top might help
Try covering the thing with aluminum flue tape to smooth the surface. Don't rub it hard onto it, that will only result in a somewhat smoother surface across the print layers. Another thing to try is heavy duty clear packing tape. I mean the really good tape, not thing dollar store crap. With either tape, bridge over those slats you put on the bottom. Next thing to do is drop it almost flat, a little nose down rather than hanging with the nose straight down. Nose down dropping is like those wingsuit fliers jumping off high cliffs. They lose a huge amount of altitude before they get significant horizontal velocity. If they had some sort of launch rail or slingshot they could fly much farther.
Hi Daniel! Maybe try putting some vortex generators on the very thickest part of the body to make the airflow seperate later from the body and thus generating more lift. It´s also a possibility i am completley wrong too lol
5:25 my totally unsubstantiated guess would be that the increased speed of the horizontal flight makes the "wingtip" vortex increase up to a point it totally stalls the lifting body. Maybe some vertical stabilizers can help separate/block that vortex, like winglets on passenger jets.
Speaking of high wing loading. I'd like to see you do a project on a heavy/highly loaded plane. Something that needs to fly at .8 AOA just for level flight.
You are really pumping out a lot of projects these days! Really cool to see. You should bring back David Windestal's fpv glider drop from space. Ive always wanted to see somebody do it successfully!
I know it's 4 years too late, but IMO one of the main handicaps you faced was due to the way you suspended it from the drone. It simply didn't have enough time to get into a stable flight position before reaching the ground. I'll bet that if you had a simple 3-point harness (a string coming from the nose and each of the rear corners, meeting in a loop, and you suspended it from that, it would be a lot more likely to reach a controllable attitude before approaching the ground.
Early flying wing designs would flat spin and kill pilots when they stalled. The B-2 Spirit has a fly by wire system that refuses to let the pilot stall the plane.
Thats an interesting shape. Might want to blend the removable top section into the sides better. Help with a little lost lift. Body lifting aircraft land at relatively high speeds by nature so Im not sure you can get that nice soft landing
Fun video, make sure to mention that there was another person there with you to control your multi rotor. Dont want someone thinking you were flying 2 aircraft at the same time.
I may be wrong, but try making the bottom a little flatter, and the control surfaces a little wider. Also I think the flat back could be causing a lot of turbulence
Who is ready to climb in and fly this thing ? Hands up, please ! Interesting project. It seems to be too heavy to fly like the full size planes you show. But next tries should be successful. We all want to see...
3:05 NASA One (flight control): "It looks good at NASA One." B-52 Pilot: "Roger. BCS Arm switch is on." NASA One: "Okay, Victor." B-52 Pilot: "Lining Rocket Arm switch is on." B-52 Pilot: "Here comes the throttle. Circuit breakers in." Steve Austin (voice of Lee Majors): "We have separation." Chase plane: "Roger." B-52 Pilot: "Inboard and outboards are on." B-52 Pilot: "I'm coming forward with the sidestick" NASA One: "Looks good." B-52 Pilot: "Ah, Roger." Steve Austin: "I've got a blow-out - damper three!" Chase plane: "Get your pitch to zero." Steve Austin: "Pitch is out! I can't hold altitude!" B-52 Pilot: "Correction, Alpha Hold is off, turn selectors Emergency!" Steve Austin: "Flight Com! I can't hold it! She's breaking up, she's break" Oscar Goldman: Steve Austin, astronaut: a man barely alive Gentlemen we can rebuild him We have the technology We have the capability to make the worlds first bionic man Steve Austin will be that man Better than he was before Better, Stronger, Faster
The wings change the angle of attack for the lifting body. The "grooves" on the bottom are pulling nose down.. this is adding drag. perhaps more than stability.
I made some lifting bodies in high school that were launched from a drone and eventually from a rocket. I ran into a lot of the same problems as you with the yaw stability. A more flat body and larger body and larger vertical stabilizer closer to the edge of the body helped a lot. Still squirrely though.
I'm not an exptert, but my opinion is that this rear slots that you have put in for stability, might diminish lift effect or even produce turbulence that can result in los of stability and lift. Try one without those slots.
Keep the upper Surface flat, and get rid of the Grooves on the lower Surface, @ high AOA the Airflows Direction is'nt only from the Nose to the Rear, Your Airflow takes also, from the lowest Part of the "Belly" to the outside(Tip) ,place ,basically it flyes by the Vortex, it's like two Wingtips, without the whole Wing between.
Hey Dan. This was a very interesting project, especially since it seems that with 3d printing you can quickly modify and test for a number of versions. One suggestion that will make is that since you don't have a vertical stabilizer, your fuselage is going to have to stabilize yaw. When you look at the side profile of the aircraft, there should be much greater area behind the CG rather than in front. This is something I noticed on the full scale aircraft. The raised nose section on your aircraft also seems to be aiding the spin tendency, particularly at high? AoA. I would suggest flattening the nose and maybe getting rid of the vertical fins. Happy landings!
i think its just too heavy, try using foam next time (use the PLA shape to make a negative and fill said negative w/ construction foam and carve the body out of that )
There's a flood of printer dependent "creators" out there. They don't have the ability to work with different materials, shaping, etc... But software modeling, they can do that all day. It's like those Tesla car dweebs that talk it up as the greatest car ever, but couldn't change a tire or brake pad to save their lives.
Honestly, there's no strict definition, so I'd say that if it looks more like a wing, then it's a flying wing, but if it looks more like a lifting body, then it's a lifting body. A prime example would be the first plane is a wing, but the second is a body.
Consider Colorfabb's new filament its FOAMING. you can print it at 35% extrusion rate but full flow. of course the parts will be much weaker but also upto 65% LIGHTER for the same volume of printed material. very neat stuff!
Every single video you make is amazingly interesting. Cool to see the progression. And yeah, active flight control must be huge in those full-scale versions. Maybe a slightly larger scale would be helpful for your experimentation, but then 3D printing is harder.
The USAF X-20 Dyna Soar and Soviet Era MIG 105 are two design solutions that you might like to research. The Lockheed X-33 VentureStar is a modern attempt to produce a Space Shuttle replacement. NASA abandoned the round bottomed #2 model shape for the flattened cone configuration of your model #1, it might be best to build upon their research.
Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS: clik.cc/rSEbJ ✅ ANDROID: clik.cc/MglMr Start with💰50K silver and get a Free Epic Champion 💥 on day 7 of “New Player Rewards” program.
...ok
Yea, no thanks lol
u had ur trail edge way to sharp for control surface to take effect and lost lift to cause of this .. like a mini tornado behind the plane... boundary layer separation from the high pressure below the wing swirling up to meet the low pressure above the wing or body in this case... extend the top of the body and have a slope to the bottom of the body try an angle then try a curve.> [][][[[][][]][]]][[][[]][[]][[][][[]][[][]][[[]][]
hey Id like to give a recommendation for further drops. One problem you are having is how the vehicle is released. Im an armament technician, one of the things iv learned over the years is there is a reason all munitions and even air launched vehicles are carried horizontally. Its for stabilizing airflow over the surface, and the keep the nose forward for improved aerodynamics. In most of your videos the aircraft is basically vertical, this is costing you time, altitude, and stability. If possible- have the vehicle dropped horizontally while flying forward (even if slow). you should have better results.
Daniel, I don't think that anybody from this community plays that kinda stuff. But also, nobody will criticize you for having that sponsor and saying things like "I don't play a lot, but when I play, I make sure to play Raid...". We all know that youtubes ad revenues are rough these days. Sadly (as a student ;) ) I simply can't afford to support you on patreon either. => I'm so happy to be able to support you by just giving a bit of my time to your sponsor. Don't hesitate to take more sponsors, even if you don't particulary support this stuff. Because in the end: it's not about some strange ads here and there, it's about implementing crazy ideas and projects, pushing the industry and bringing new people into this hobby, just as you did with me back in 2012.
So stoked Daniel is ramping the videos back up, this is the channel that got me into rc to begin with
HAha. That was the most unenthusiastic ad read ever!
Love the aircraft though.
Clive Myrie 😂😂😂
_look how detailed these warriors are_
not scripted lol
They deserve no more
_*in the most monotone voice:_ ThAt WiLl HaVe YoU oN tHe EdGe Of YoUr SeAt
i think a major issue is the 3D print roughness of the surface. You need a very smooth surface for a good laminar flow and lift. perhaps with some good sanding and polishing it would have been a lot better.
Especially at that scale. Imagine how big those lines would be if it were full scale...
Destin heard you say laminar flow. He is coming.
Maybe vapor smoothing it
@@anikpatel6727 that only works on ABS. All these planes are made of PLA.
Cupcake maybe try printing in abs or with non planer printing also maybe try printing with less infill since the lifting body is heavy
I'd be interested in seeing it without the slots underneath. I suspect (as you mention) that they might not be doing too much given that they don't increase the cross-section.
Speaking as someone who's done zero reasearch on lifting body aerodynamics, I also suspect that they're killing a lot of your lift. They're a pretty big departure from the shapes which were known to work in the 60s. Maybe try something closely modelled on one of those designs, just to get a feel for how the designs scale?
I bet it's making the air in the back too turbulent and slowing it down making it do the flatspins
I agree with both of these comments and would bet that the bottom grooves may be hindering more than helping. keep it up! love the videos.
me thinks too. maybe a shape that resembles the bottom of a boat.and model b (fatty) needs more surface area in the verticle stabilization area, me thinks
Theyre probably acting like a diffuser on f1 cars
Its creating downforce
the sudden angle change probably causes flow separation and turbulence. The strakes on a diffuse exists to control vortices if I recall correctly.
That diffuser is definitly not helping the lift, but it will help track straight. It actually is creating drag at the bottom, pushing the nose forward and down. I would recommend sizing it down a little or putting it on top where it will lift the nose.
Great work though!
I agree. I also think the rear of the craft is too blunt and would create a very turbulent and unstable wake. If that could be streamlined I think it will significantly reduce drag and help with stability.
Notice how the NASA/ US government..DID...NOT PUT A "DIFFUSER" on the bottom of it's LIFTING BODY AIRCRAFT !!!!!!! I have an extremely low IQ....most would agree that I'm fairly retarded...I barely graduated....and even I....even I... FEAKED out when I saw the diffuser.....@RCTESTFLIGHT do you know what helps small lifting body aircraft fly better than slotted and straked race car style diffusers.... ? Bowling Balls !!! srsly Attach one to the nose via a wire.
When I was a kid, I watched a lifting body crash at the beginning of every 6 Million Dollar Man episode.
ruclips.net/video/bGO57y4td-c/видео.html
@@Stumblingthunder That goes to show the design was bad. :D
@@goku445 it crashed because a chase helicopter was in the wrong place, blocking the pilot's view of the ground. The lifting body pilot released the landing gear too late, it smacked into the ground too low to lock down. So the gear collapsed, the belly crashed into the ground then the lifting body went sideways and rolled.
The pilot survived with some injuries but later lost an eye from an infection. (Dirty hospital!) Why he survived was design problems with those lifting body shapes. Having to be bigger at the back makes them tail heavy. Their initial solution idea was to borrow some gold from the government, load it into the nose, do the test flights then put the gold back. Ah, the glory days when NASA had that kind of pull. Then one of the team suggested they just add a whole bunch of steel to the internal frame around the pilot, but make it all structural rather than just dead weight.
All that super strength saved the pilot's life and minimized the damage to where the craft was rebuilt with an altered shape and flown for several more test flights.
Lol! That's the first thing I thought of when he said they all landed ok, and yeah, that was real life footage, not a simulation or a model.
Probably the worst crash footage the show could find where the aircraft wasn't engulfed in flames.
The M2F2 was the lifting body that crashed. It was rebuilt as the M2F3, with aerodynamic modifications to make it more controllable. The most obvious being a third vertical stabilizer {the M2F2 had two vertical stabs}.
This book covers lifting body development in the United States:
www.amazon.com/Wingless-Flight-Lifting-Body-Story/dp/0160493900
One of the major lessons learned from the M2 lifting body in the 60's, which is most similar to the one in the video, is it needs a vertical fin right on the centerline to stabilize in roll. I bet if you add a centerline fin, the uncontrolled spins would stop.
I also agree with the poster who questions the use of a flight controller. It hides the real behavior of the vehicle, and will often make things worse once they go bad (like spins).
Love these vids Dan, keep them up. Would love to see this baby boy flare out!
Fyi, something I have learned from making boomerangs from aircraft grade plywood: as smooth as the raw wood surface can be made, a gloss finish makes a drastic difference in flight characteristics! I would try to throw an unfinished boomerang and it wouldn’t want to fly, much less with stable and predictable characteristics, clear coat it and suddenly they fly like a dream!
you might be interested to know the lifting body principle was designed by Vincent Burnelli back in the 1930s. he made lots of odd looking planes which i personally love. Like the CBY-3 Loadmaster
Ive been digging through what I can find of his research, I'm intrigued and hopefully it help with my race planes
Don't hesitate to do some more sponsored content as long as it helps you !
Everything besides the lackluster sponsor plug was fantastic
Johnathan Tafoya it's so him though. I personally loved it. Hilarious
Video games are not my forte...
These mobile games offer stupid amounts of money to promote their shitty games. I can't blame so of these smaller creators caving into the pressure.
@@__gavin__ it's not even pressure imo. I think every creator should make a buck off their videos
@@rctestflight I don't blame you. It's just unfortunate that many creators have to rely on ads that could potentially alter their content negatively. You should consider starting up a patreon or even a PayPal so we can support your projects. I'm sure many of us would be happy to do so.
The most interesting aspect of the lifting body is that it at least proves aerodynamic concepts that can be utilized in new experiments. It may eventually change the ways we compensate for drag in actual vehicles.
A good resource for you on this is "Flying Without Wings" By authors Thompson and Peebles covering the full history, flight by flight with the test pilots notes and feedback. Your flying prototype resembles the M2-F3 profile, but your ventral slots may be robbing you of lift... maybe if try some flights where it's taped over in increasing stages from front to rear. Your more streamlined shape is closer to the HL-10 without the mid fuselage volume but with the flared wingtips. Hope you continue making and flying these models... maybe check out the "Dreamchaser" by Sierra Nevada Corp... it could lead to a job with them perhaps !
This sponsorship is so random for this channel lmao
I wonder if the issue is flow separation due to the flat top and the high angle of attack due to the high wing loading. Daniel, could you try shaping the top to keep the flow attached?
Some time ago I made a lifting body design that was very stable. he endured large angles of attack without swinging and had good control.
It was also quite light, although I have made others of free flight that measure 10 cm and they weighed quite a bit. and flew perfect without any control.
if you want I'll send you the design to make one similar.
Still willing to share?
@@ravileejones7381 The prototypes I made were made of foam, I still don't have
stl
Have you considered the rear slots could be pulling the tail down? That is what f1 cars use for maximum vacuum downforce. I'm not sure if this applies when there is no ground surface to interact with, but might be a problem when landing, at the very least.
You're confusing the Difuser with the ground effect. Look it up.
@@vvhat similar idea though. I think it is hurting the performance by making the air behind the vehicle swirl
@@KnowledgePerformance7 I'm pretty sure diffusers reduce drag by energizing the flow behind the vehicle, which reduces turbulence. But it does reduce lift because it reduces the air pressure below the fuselage.
No infills and 2 shells, than put a 80mm EDF on it. Would be cool to see :D
Great video. I built a couple of powered scale rc lifting bodies about 10 years ago but never got the chance to fly them. I built them from depron. Now that I have the time, I definitely want to revisit this project.
Sanding really goes a long way on 3d printed parts, the layer seams/printing artifacts definitely seem to affect drag. Great design, dont worry too much if your revisions start to stray from the original idea, just about anything ive made that actually works ended up looking only vaguely like the original concept lol
I like the idea of attaching control surfaces directly to the servomotor.
"hah WOW that worked!" - Best quote ever 😍😍😍
I’ve already designed a stable tandem wing lifting body called Future Star.
It can carry lots of weight and has its own propulsion. It’s also air launched.
at 6:34 all i could think of was "Hey Buzz You're Flying", "This Isn't Flying. This is Falling, With Style."
How about Dream Chaser design? Thats a lifting body spaceplane, pretty similar to your design
Thats a great one! Would definitely print it if someone made the CAD model
@@rctestflight
What's the lense diameter for the fpv cutout?
Print volume available?
I know you can just scale it, but I want to make life easy for ya, want the servos to fit nice.
Check the video description. You can get the critical dimensions off my lifting body STL @@index7787
@@steadikek
It's a hell of a good reference, I'll clean it up and make it RC friendly. Thanks man!
That's actually a direct successor to the other lifting bodies you saw in the NASA footage, they basically contonued on the research when NASA stopped working on the HL-10
the fins at the bottom is ok, but the inclined angle of the tail creating low pressure that's why its tail heavy.
just make it smooth straight.
Its kinda sad that the sponsor is forcing you to read a *script* , doitwithdan said the same thing
who cares, the only important thing is that Daniel is making new videos!
i mean thats what most ads on tv are right? anyways we get more quality content this way
From what I've read is that NASA was initially interested in lifting bodies for spacecraft coming back from orbit. During one drop test the lifting body which flew more like a streamlined brick made a successful landing on the dry lake bed. Shortly after rolling to a stop the B-52 mothership roared over at low altitude. One of the engineers asked: How did he get down from altitude so quickly. The B-52 pilots showed the engineers their technique and proved that winged aircraft can be used for reentry.
About being a streamlined brick...
A local glider club presented one of the test pilots a trophy that was a red brick ground to a streamlined shape.
With 3D printing and laptops and smart people like you, perhaps technology will make another huge leap forward. Great video!
When the lifting body drops from the drone and is filmed from the drone, it looks like the start sequence of the six million dollar man...
I would love a series where you just drop weird gliders and see if they can fly. This was super interesting.
You got me into RC by showing me how cool it can be
Increase your printer's flow rate and infill overlap, should fill in those gaps.
More on this please! So interesting.
we can feel the pain while talking about raid appreciate you mental strength bro, but can't wait to see the second part of the video keep going !!
"So that goes to show I spent way too much time on this project"
Please, no... at least for the sake of the video, you got my interest!!!!! :D
More more more :D
Thanks for sharing!
Wow. Flys like a LAWN DART !
I hope you can keep getting sponsorships! I know some people attack creators for getting sponsors or what not but if it helps you keep making awesome videos thats a plus in my book! Great video!
One reason you probably are having control issues is they were studying these for the shuttle program, and the powered ones were actually super sonic. Maybe add a model rocket booster to get it up to speed? good idea making the lower fins farther apart, you have to be careful about turbulent boundary layer flow on RC scale aircraft (and with the 3D printed surface) which actually helps it stall later, but causes other trade offs
I'd never even heard of lifting bodies before this video. Fascinating stuff. A lot of those glides looked really cool from the Alta shots.
Looking at that infill is like sneaking into an AI’s mind.
Dan you saw that the wing flew perfectly. Why didn't rig that one up?
It seems to me that his primary focus was the lifting body design, not the wing.
It would be interesting to build one with a smooth bottom and top and compare it to the flight characteristics of the one with ventral channels. With the channels, the dis-similar surface flows (as they meets at the trailing edge) might be quite chaotic across the lower surface resulting in that tendency to flat spin under light loading, or require higher weight than is optimal for efficient lift to regain stability.
Some of the reasons why the F-35 looks a little stubby with its upturned nose and short neck compared to the sleek F-16 is because it has incorporated some of the lifting body characteristics into its airframe. I believe this gives the airplane high AOA authority, especially at low speeds.
YESSSSS... a passion of mine - aircraft carriers, drop ships, co-op (possible) flying (i.e. one person manning the host plane, one manning the parasite)
I am building and flying planes since a very long time now. I also fly quads for years. I know a quad definitely needs a fc for sure. But I never use fcs in planes. They are so well controllable without it. Of course when well tuned it works and helps you flying it. But in windy conditions it often over or underreacts. I think you should try doing it with just connecting the servos to the receiver, Programm a mix and give it a hell of expo for smoothness.
I think especially with a small „plane“ like this it’s too hard to tune it right and the fc just uses the servos to much, causing it to slow down because it wants to stabilise it perfectly. Maybe it gains more speed.
But definitely a nice idea!!! Never have heard of something like this before! Very nice build. And very nice, simple and working mechanism to drop the plane. Thumbs up!
its so cool, its like he miniaturized areospace development and now he can just iterate on it over and over really quickly. become his own nasa launching tiny rockets with recovery vehicles that fly back home
In the first test flights (before any components were added to the craft) it looked like the drone was creating a bunch of turbulence on the crafts as they were released.
You might try having them tethered further away from the drone (like 20ft below it), or have a very long beam extend off the drone so the craft is outside the turbulence. If the drone can't maintain balance, you could extend a beam in both directions with a counter weight that gets dropped at the same time as the craft, and have it tied to the center of the drone to prevent the counterweight from falling on anyone's head.
I think your "built in" strakes on the underside might be creating an area of low pressure, which could be causing some of your instability. Maybe try sculpting them in smoother so that the don't have such a sharp cutoff where they meet the middle underside of the fuselage? Or maybe try one without them all together? Cheers and thanks for another interesting video :)
Great seeing your flight testing of lifting body. I worked 10 years designing & wind tunnel testing lifting bodies.
The "tail heavy" one's design doesn't actually generate lift, it just rides the air like a boat. You've tried to add an airfoil to the top of that, which basically means it's now a cone, neither a lifting body nor an airfoil. Of course all it does is dive into the ground.
NASA also had a relatively unlimited budget (in those days) and also access to wind tunnels.
Would love to see you continue this project, the original drop shuttle lifting body video is what got me to subscribe in the first place
I’m literally in a lifting body obsession phase rn this is so perfect
Glad you spent the time to do this. Great video!
That was a great kick at the can, I’ve watched your videos since the wooden H quad. Your content is always inspiring and helps motivate me to keep working on my own RC experiments and projects. Thanks Daniel
The lifting body series is really good.
The bottom fins look like air diffusers. A lot of race cars use them to help boost the speed air moving beneath the car. They re probably reducing a lot of lift. If it was smooth you'd likely have a lot more lift. (diffusers are meant to create downforce)
Aerodynamically you would want slower moving air with more drag on the bottom of the wing, and faster moving air at the top. Having diffusers on the top might help
Try covering the thing with aluminum flue tape to smooth the surface. Don't rub it hard onto it, that will only result in a somewhat smoother surface across the print layers. Another thing to try is heavy duty clear packing tape. I mean the really good tape, not thing dollar store crap. With either tape, bridge over those slats you put on the bottom.
Next thing to do is drop it almost flat, a little nose down rather than hanging with the nose straight down. Nose down dropping is like those wingsuit fliers jumping off high cliffs. They lose a huge amount of altitude before they get significant horizontal velocity. If they had some sort of launch rail or slingshot they could fly much farther.
That's not flying, that's falling with style! :-D
That flatspin looks like so many of my KSP aircraft. Slight pull on the stick -> instant spin.
Hi Daniel!
Maybe try putting some vortex generators on the very thickest part of the body to make the airflow seperate later from the body and thus generating more lift. It´s also a possibility i am completley wrong too lol
"The pitch is out, I can't hold altitude. Oh my god, she's breaking up, aaaaaaaaaaah !"
5:25 my totally unsubstantiated guess would be that the increased speed of the horizontal flight makes the "wingtip" vortex increase up to a point it totally stalls the lifting body. Maybe some vertical stabilizers can help separate/block that vortex, like winglets on passenger jets.
6:23 the plane monitor likes those old tv designs
Speaking of high wing loading. I'd like to see you do a project on a heavy/highly loaded plane. Something that needs to fly at .8 AOA just for level flight.
You are really pumping out a lot of projects these days! Really cool to see. You should bring back David Windestal's fpv glider drop from space. Ive always wanted to see somebody do it successfully!
I know it's 4 years too late, but IMO one of the main handicaps you faced was due to the way you suspended it from the drone. It simply didn't have enough time to get into a stable flight position before reaching the ground. I'll bet that if you had a simple 3-point harness (a string coming from the nose and each of the rear corners, meeting in a loop, and you suspended it from that, it would be a lot more likely to reach a controllable attitude before approaching the ground.
What you need is a Steve Austin action figure in there.
Early flying wing designs would flat spin and kill pilots when they stalled. The B-2 Spirit has a fly by wire system that refuses to let the pilot stall the plane.
Thats an interesting shape. Might want to blend the removable top section into the sides better. Help with a little lost lift. Body lifting aircraft land at relatively high speeds by nature so Im not sure you can get that nice soft landing
Fun video, make sure to mention that there was another person there with you to control your multi rotor. Dont want someone thinking you were flying 2 aircraft at the same time.
I may be wrong, but try making the bottom a little flatter, and the control surfaces a little wider. Also I think the flat back could be causing a lot of turbulence
Who is ready to climb in and fly this thing ?
Hands up, please !
Interesting project. It seems to be too heavy to fly like the full size planes you show. But next tries should be successful.
We all want to see...
3:05 NASA One (flight control): "It looks good at NASA One."
B-52 Pilot: "Roger. BCS Arm switch is on."
NASA One: "Okay, Victor."
B-52 Pilot: "Lining Rocket Arm switch is on."
B-52 Pilot: "Here comes the throttle. Circuit breakers in."
Steve Austin (voice of Lee Majors): "We have separation."
Chase plane: "Roger."
B-52 Pilot: "Inboard and outboards are on."
B-52 Pilot: "I'm coming forward with the sidestick"
NASA One: "Looks good."
B-52 Pilot: "Ah, Roger."
Steve Austin: "I've got a blow-out - damper three!"
Chase plane: "Get your pitch to zero."
Steve Austin: "Pitch is out! I can't hold altitude!"
B-52 Pilot: "Correction, Alpha Hold is off, turn selectors Emergency!"
Steve Austin: "Flight Com! I can't hold it! She's breaking up, she's break"
Oscar Goldman: Steve Austin, astronaut: a man barely alive
Gentlemen we can rebuild him
We have the technology
We have the capability to make the worlds first bionic man
Steve Austin will be that man
Better than he was before
Better, Stronger, Faster
The wings change the angle of attack for the lifting body. The "grooves" on the bottom are pulling nose down.. this is adding drag. perhaps more than stability.
love seeing these videos again, feels old school. Can't wait for the printed wing video :D
Toy Story: that's not flying, that's falling with style.
The lifting body tends to roll easily. You need to spread the tail part to add stability and to make it easier to control.
I made some lifting bodies in high school that were launched from a drone and eventually from a rocket. I ran into a lot of the same problems as you with the yaw stability. A more flat body and larger body and larger vertical stabilizer closer to the edge of the body helped a lot. Still squirrely though.
You re-created the Six Million Dollar man crash! You should try an Arup. This was great thanks.
Wow! Glad you got this to work👍
Cool. I was thinking of trying this, now I think I'll skip it hehheh. Great video.
I'm not an exptert, but my opinion is that this rear slots that you have put in for stability, might diminish lift effect or even produce turbulence that can result in los of stability and lift. Try one without those slots.
I think you should try to make a warped wing, where the wing twists instead of using a control surface.
Love the channel man! Im trying to get into prototyping and have some project ideas I want to show you once I start
Keep the upper Surface flat, and get rid of the Grooves on the lower Surface, @ high AOA the Airflows Direction is'nt only from the Nose to the Rear, Your Airflow takes also, from the lowest Part of the "Belly" to the outside(Tip) ,place ,basically it flyes by the Vortex, it's like two Wingtips, without the whole Wing between.
Hey Dan. This was a very interesting project, especially since it seems that with 3d printing you can quickly modify and test for a number of versions.
One suggestion that will make is that since you don't have a vertical stabilizer, your fuselage is going to have to stabilize yaw. When you look at the side profile of the aircraft, there should be much greater area behind the CG rather than in front. This is something I noticed on the full scale aircraft. The raised nose section on your aircraft also seems to be aiding the spin tendency, particularly at high? AoA. I would suggest flattening the nose and maybe getting rid of the vertical fins. Happy landings!
"I've got a blowout--damper 3!"
"Get your pitch to zero."
"Negative, I can't hold it-she's breaking up, she's breaking up--"
i think its just too heavy, try using foam next time (use the PLA shape to make a negative and fill said negative w/ construction foam and carve the body out of that )
There's a flood of printer dependent "creators" out there. They don't have the ability to work with different materials, shaping, etc... But software modeling, they can do that all day. It's like those Tesla car dweebs that talk it up as the greatest car ever, but couldn't change a tire or brake pad to save their lives.
I’ve always liked the idea of lifting body aircraft. Excellent video!
You should add a deployable parachute to them. That way you won't break so many in testing.
Where does a lifting body actually turn into a flying wing, is what I wondered when looking at both your designs. Thanks for the nice video.
Honestly, there's no strict definition, so I'd say that if it looks more like a wing, then it's a flying wing, but if it looks more like a lifting body, then it's a lifting body. A prime example would be the first plane is a wing, but the second is a body.
@shinukism shnuck No need to be a dickhead.
THIS IS AMAZINGLY INTERESTING!!
I would watch hours of video about this.
Consider Colorfabb's new filament its FOAMING. you can print it at 35% extrusion rate but full flow. of course the parts will be much weaker but also upto 65% LIGHTER for the same volume of printed material. very neat stuff!
Super-Duper! Very interesting experiments with great results!))
Every single video you make is amazingly interesting. Cool to see the progression. And yeah, active flight control must be huge in those full-scale versions. Maybe a slightly larger scale would be helpful for your experimentation, but then 3D printing is harder.
The USAF X-20 Dyna Soar and Soviet Era MIG 105 are two design solutions that you might like to research. The Lockheed X-33 VentureStar is a modern attempt to produce a Space Shuttle replacement. NASA abandoned the round bottomed #2 model shape for the flattened cone configuration of your model #1, it might be best to build upon their research.