3D printed remote control plane: A learning experience
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- I backed the Powerup 4.0 on Kickstarter: a phone remote controlled kit for paper aeroplanes. Can I design and 3D print a lightweight ad functional body to fly it with? Yes and no.
After the disappointment of Powerup 3.0 Dart, I’m pleased with this purchase. I had a great time flying it with my kids. It works quite well with paper and foam.
With 3D prints parts, not so much. Hopefully using variables to drive CAD models and printing single layer folding geometry might be something to help your future projects.
This product was purchased with my own money. All opinions expressed are my own.
Powerup 4.0 Kickstarter (featured in this video, recommended): www.kickstarte...
Powerup 3 Dart kickstarter (not the version featured in this video, not recommended): www.kickstarte...
Buy quality and affordable filament from X3D. Buy 3, get 1 free and a free sample pack with every order: www.x3d.com.au
Get Quality Resins from 3D Printers Online. 5% off storewide for Teaching Tech subscribers [Code: tech5]
3dprintersonli...
Take a look around and if you like what you see, please subscribe.
Support me on Patreon: / teachingtech
A well-planned and executed failure :-) Mistakes were made, things were learned. This is usually how things work. Thanks for documenting the process and illustrating the parametric modeling, very useful.
While I always love your videos, on this occasion you had me at "A flying piece of lettuce."
The Kickstarter video is worth watching just for entertainment value.
As an aeronautical engineer, aircraft model enthusiast, and a maker, I consider leaving a comment as an absolute necessity :)
Firstly, there is a major design fault, why it probably wouldn't ever fly. Let me explain. Small conventional planes (eq general aviation) typically have their propulsion system on the nose or on the wings, rarely - behind the wing (like Icon A5). Puller configuration has a lot of benefits, including better plane controllability at low speeds (because of higher airspeed over the control surfaces). The pusher configuration is typically seen on canard planes, on "flying wing" tailless planes, or on modern jets with high sweep angle wings or delta wings.
The paper plane is a tailless delta wing design (F-22 has elevons with a complex integrated control system, but it's also delta wing). You need to have propellers on the back because there is almost no other place for them. The control box on the nose shifts the CG to the front so the aerodynamic center is behind it (it is also a necessary condition for longitudinal static stability, larger distance CG-AC results in better stability). Pointing pusher motors a little bit upwards or creating some fixed elevons up you get: low thrust - nose down due to CG before AC, high trust both - speed up and nose up, thrust differentiation - obviously bank control. That's the way you can control pitch and bank with only 2 motors and no control surfaces.
Your design is a conventional fixed-wing plane. You need to move the wing a little bit backwards in order to have the CG before the AC (which is around 1/4 to 1/3 of wing chord) to make it even possible to glide. There is no other way to make it stable. The horizontal stabilizer always produces lift "downwards", in order to stabilize the plane (obviously a very small amount of lift comparing to the wing). Placing motors on the back far away from the AC you get a huge destabilizing effect. Moreover, propellers don't blow over any of the lift surfaces (tail), thus you don't have such a good stabilizing effect.
Conclusion 1: you won't be able to get it airborne with sufficient stability and controllability with this configuration, even when you solve the problem with CG. You need to try another configuration, like canard style (see Rutan VariEze) or delta wing, which works great for this simple thrust-controlled planes. The other option would be to rearrange the motors - disassemble that tail rod thingy and place the motors behind or in front of the wings a little under the horizontal wing plane (that is the best place to control pitch/roll).
As for the mechanical point of view, I think it's a quite good design, although it's pretty heavy. Actually, the type of airfoil is not so important, almost all lift is generated because of the big angle of attack. We're talking about an extremely small airspeed and Reynolds number. The paper plane has no profile, but it's able to fly and glide quite well. You've used flat-bottom airfoil in a shell wing with some ribs, which is good, I don't think it's necessary tho. You may use a thin curved airfoil, it would be rigid enough and you'll save lots of material on it. You may also add some dihedral wing angle to increase bank stability (like 5 to 10 degrees would be enough).
Conclusion 2: Try to cut the weight. as was already said, wing loading is important. I used to make small rc planes and gliders, I think the model this size needs to weight 10-15 gram, max 20 gr. (just too lazy to make some aerodynamical design and basic computation..)
Thanks for taking the time to explain things with your considerable expertise.
@@TeachingTech Hmm, i got a pro-tip too. There's a certain filament you could use to reduce weight by a lot, it's LW-PLA by Colorfabb and does in fact get used to print RC-planes. With that you should be able to at least ½ your planes weight :) Now i've never used it myself, so i don't know it's properties regarding shaping the wings like you did, you may need a heat-gun to make that work.
King regards, another tech guy you've helped get started on custom 3D-printer setups :)
@@VikingRul3s Agreed; I have some LW-pla lying around (makes for excellent lampshades; high scattering. low absorption; anyway) and your video inspired me to order one of these kits and have a go at this. LW-lpa at max expansion has a density of about 0.4g/cc and depron is about 0.04g/cc though; so right off the bat its already an uphill battle. That said you need a depron sheet of several mm for stiffness whereas two 0.4mm skins printed in vase mode should more than suffice here I think. As others have noted the extra design freedom afforded by 3dp really does not buy you as much as you might think, relative to an angular folded piece of paper, at these low reynolds numbers. More streamlined is still better, but on net its probably still an uphill battle for the 3d printed design. All the more interesting a challenge though!
Id definitely go for a single lifting surface. A seperate wing and tail config is great for control; but we dont get any of that here, and a tail does not produce net lift when you are not trying to nosedive; which we cant use the tail for here since we cant actuate the tail surface anyway. So a single flying wing/delta/saucer type geometry seems ideal.
Interesting, and thanks again for the inspiration!
I have one it does fly. U gotta kno the basics of flight.
I love when we push the limits of something....You're gonna do what?? comes to mind...,..until it works and were left open jawed and speechless at the accomplishment. Great job
This is encouraging! I also backed this project, received the product a couple weeks ago, but when I went to connect it to my phone, it never connected. I contacted support, sent them a video showing the issue, and Shai, the guy that developed this thing, replied and said they were sending a new unit. Nice! and I get to keep the old one for tinkering. Schweet! now just to figure out what is under that canopy.
At that size (Reynolds number) an airfoil is not an asset, but a liability. It adds weight, drag, and will lead to premature stall.
There is one priority for small planes: wing loading. Then there's a second: wing loading. I think you can guess what the third one is.
You can attempt to design an open cambered wing (one layer over ribs, no underside covering), but this is more delicate considering flight parameters. The flat plate is more robust.
I am always baffled how much traditional modeling know how today's makers are willing to sacrifice in order to use their favourite tool. I know, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. You may end up with a few smashed problems, though.
ETA: I hear you came to the same conclusion...
So you are saying I need less wing loading?
@@TeachingTech Yep. And a thinner wing. Picking up on the other comment proposing you print a skeleton and skin it:
Wouldn't it be cool to truly 3D print such a skeleton, i.e. with 1 string ribs following a path in the yz plane?
COG is also important, of course, but you already realised that.
Every failed but conscientiously executed experiment is an opportunity to learn.... 🖒🖒🖒
Michael, 3D printing wasn't the problem, your design was! You even said so! The CG was definitely the trouble. As they say on FliteTest, if you have the CG and good motor, you can make anything fly!
All the paper and lettuce planes have a very swept-wing design. You need to emulate that with your printed design. If you want to keep the thin, straight wings, just modify your fuselage design to move the wings further back. I really think you need to give this another shot, before condemning 3D printed planes. It not might be the best tool, but as a frequent flyer of printed planes, it's a decent one.
Keep at it.... Try using an undercambered wing with a larger cord..... And definitely go easy on the super glue a couple of spots of super glue and some kicker would be more than enough.... Really like the folding wing print though would still love the files... Maybe try hollowing and narrower ribs as well if you want to keep a folded wing👍
I'd like to see you revisit this, but print a skeleton and wrap it with light paper, like a balsa frame plane.
or cling-film....
@@chrislx2006 Nah. At low Reynolds numbers you want a rough surface. (And no airfoil of significant thickness.)
There's a reason that the bumble bee, which famously can't fly according to rules of large Reynolds number aerodynamics, employs a thin flat plate as an airfoil.
There are traditional, very small model classes (Peanut, Walnut) that usually employ thin, but profiled double sided paper covered skeleton wings. But the double sided coating there plays mostly a structural role. Priority again is weight, weight, weight (and the scale aspect in those special cases.) The smallest and lightest classes (rubber powered indoor planes with various coverings of different degrees of sophistication) all go for single covered skeleton design.
The sad truth is that 3d printing is just not well suited to that kind of structural problem. It will always be way inferior to a carefully built up wing made of balsa. (Wood is a naturally grown structural composite with very strategically arranged material orientations. Paper comes close. We can't even hope to come close with our crudely deposited relatively thick layers of heavy, monolithic material.)
or 'light weight pla' :P
If it can fly a piece of lettuce, start out with a less complex design, flat wing one layer with a spar like design for some strength
@@chrislx2006 I've just posted the same thing!
I also received my Powerup 4.0 recently. On a first flight, there was about 5m/sec wind at the football field I tried the Invader paper plane. The glide test was spot on, but on a motor first fly, the damn app HALTED on my mobile phone, throttle at 100%. The plane took height pretty fast and then got my phone told connection was lost. I force shut down the app and restarted it. No luck. The wind had grabbed the plane and it has not been seen since then. And yes, I did quite an area of search. I contacted the support team and their initial response was fast. Since then, I've not heard in over week from the support guy even I've sent some reminders that we have some discussion to be done of the available options, as the place got lost not because of my actions. Keeping my fingers crossed I do get hold of the support guy.
Fingers crossed for a timely resolution for you.
At 50$ that's expensive as hell. You can get entry level 2 CH RC planes for that money without the Bluetooth limits. You even used to get a UMX vapor for that, which is 3 channel and has insanely calm flight characteristics
that is if you already have a transmitter... if you don't... it's a very good price in my opinion
@@santiagoblandon3022 Well, it also depends on you having a (very sophisticated) transmitter. It even has to have accelerometers...
I bought the first one, it was a total failure...so I decided to buy their second version... "I couldn't learn to fly it well".... "Fool me once..."
@@lacucaracha111111 6 channel fly skies are $45 on amazon.
I've also backed this and looking forward to recieving it. I will try with the foam-pla to see if I can make something fun :D
There's a saying in the rc world about rc planes; a nose heavy plane flies bad, a tail heavy plane flies once.
I don't think your design was bad, but it's way too heavy/thick in certain areas and you had no nose. You could probably use the same plane design, but extending the nose of the plane will bring CG where it belongs.
Thanks for the reviews on the printers, looking at upgrading from my Ender 3 Pro and been fishing for clues on what to get next. Keep up the great work. 👍
I was fascinated by this video. For quite some time, I have been working on a project that had similar requirements; in my case, it was attempting to 3D print and fly a rubber-band powered airplane. Since a rubber band motor has much less power than an electric motor, such a plane also needs to be very lightweight. My first attempts were printing the airplane parts out of PLA in vase mode, with walls of 0.3 mm. I did manage to get a few of these into the air, but they all proved to fragile to make repeated flights. I was ready to give up until I found out about a lightweight PLA made by Colorfabb. This material actually expands into a sort of foam while it is being printed. How much it expands depends on how much heat is transferred into the filament, which is a factor of your print temperature and the rate of flow from your nozzle. Once I started using this material, I was successful. I have been able to print Colorfabb LW-PLA at a temperature of 210 C through an 0.3 mm nozzle at 20 mm/s in vase mode with a flow rate of 35%. (This essentially means that my weights were 35% of what they would be if the parts were printed with normal PLA.) As an example of the weights I was able to achieve, my wing has a span of 530 mm (from wingtip to wingtip), an average chord of 75 mm, and weighs 18 g. If you ever try this project again, try doing it with Colorfabb LW-PLA (colorfabb.com/lw-pla-natural), and I think you will succeed. If you want to study my models, they can be downloaded freely at cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/flyer-mk-1 and cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/flyer-mk-1a-modifications. Here is one of my videos of the plane in action: ruclips.net/video/U_MD9a3IsKE/видео.html. Thank you for all of your wonderful videos.
Hey...
I originally baught my first printer to supplement my RC hobby... I have been flying since 1986 and have heaps of planes including 3d printed planes.
My first was a flying wing and it was a total fail as it was almost 4X over weight!
Then I printed a Spitfire and as awesome as it is, it's also VERY fragile and so it's staying on my wall! Lol...
My new attraction to the world of 3d printing has led me to you an dover the years, you have helped me out, I thank you!
Hi, this video made me subscribe to your channel. I’d love to see more of this subject.
Thanks so much for sharing your process and experience. I know the feeling of putting a lot into a project and finding that even after multiple tries it just doesn't work as expected. It takes courage and humility to discuss your failure, but often that's when get some key insight that you were missing. I can see that you know the importance of sharing failures as well as successes. Thank you for modeling that behavior on your channel. I am sure your former students are watching and continuing to learn from your example.
Just a tip, on the 3D-printed glider you show in the beginning, the hook for shooting it with the rubber band is mounted backwards :) Also, the wingspan of the first designed plane is way too small. It needs to be at least 2 times wider. Add more dihedral as well :) Eventually I think the connection part can be way thinner as well.
I know the struggle of combining aerodynamics, weight and 3dprinting. I've tried to make two 3d printed planes. The first one being extremely bad and the second one kind of working. Also working on a v3. Hope it finally works so I can publish it.
I backed this too, just got it. Glad to see it works so far. You don't have enough thrust to weight for a 3d print. Cool idea though. I am shocked the foam is just 1/3 the weight of the 3d print. Your design could probably still work if you had more powerful engine.
I've flown R/C airplanes and helis for over 25 years. Power to weight ratio is a key factor. You could try printing some wing "skeletons" and covering them with lightweight materials. You might get some neat designs.
Very interesting design and an excellent explanation. At that scale of aircraft an airfoil isn't really needed, for example that FliteTest F22 has flat foam board for a wing. A lettuce leaf is thicker at the base than at its tip but that does not make it an airfoil. If at first you don't succeed chuck it in a barrel and burn it...then try again after enjoying the S'mores.
I messed with RC planes & helis for 40 odd years and one of the last things I built before giving up on the hobby was a 'SPAD'. Simple Plastic Aeroplane Design. Build using some aluminium square for the fuselage and 'corex' sheet for everything else - basically, as @HotelPapa100 is suggesting - a flat plate for a wing. It flew, in as much as it stayed off the ground and it was fun simply because it was so ugly, flew in an equally ugly way and bounced when gravity noticed it was having the piss taken out of it. I suspect if I was still into RC, I'd be trying to 3D print planes as well.
Flite Test just did this... but correctly. Much bigger scale, though. I know that does factor in.
Great project
Great designed plane
Thanks for sharing👍😀
Michael, with there being some dihedral bend in the wings, you could likely design the fuselage to print the with wing sockets vertical and the center piece being bent back over itself (similar to the wing skins). This reduces the layer ridges on the outside surface and would allow you to make the sockets only a single parameter thick. That may reduce weight as well.
Loved your story! Great stuff!
I received my Power-up 4.0 kit last week.
Dad tip: Have the templates copied on colored paper. Save the original, and fold the copies.
Impressive none the less
Yes the high mass will make it fall like a brick. However, most importantly is the CG position! I guessed if you shift the wing say an inch and a half back, perhaps the CG will be around quarter length of the wing chord from the wing leading edge. That, at least allow it to decent in gliding mode.
Lots of good suggestions in these comments. If you dont want to use LW-PLA, an alternative might be to only print a .25mm or thinner shell.
Great to see your video. I have the reverse challenge of you. I'm an aeronautical engineer that has only just got his first 3D printer! I'm strong in the flight design department, weak in the hot plastic extrusion department! Thanks for your video. Subscribed.
Michael I still think that would fly being a bit on the heavy side. I would consider increasing the wing area. Instead of having tapered wings I would recommend the same width all the way to the ends. Also try redesigning the wing so that it can be repositioned forward or backward to adjust the center of gravity.
Either that or print a vase mode paper airplane.
I think you should keep trying!
on the planes original design, its center of lift was around the middle. what you make would still have the cg around the middle but center of pressure is moved fowards so you just made it insanely tail heavy
a thought out design would work though
Michael welcome to RC flying. Enjoyed your video. You have helped me with your knowledge. Like everything there is proper nomenclature in aircraft. So to help you out, what you are calling spars are actually ribs. Spars run length wise in the wings from fuselage to wing tips. than there are Longerons which are structural members running fore and aft such as in a fuselage. Hope this helps. So happy flying. Like someone previously mentioned try using LWPLA.
Lots of helpful comments, but all in all, I bet you had fun with this, which was the aim. It'd be interesting if you re-visited this one day, as a challenge... Great channel, long time sub.
A great learning experience for you and for us.
We have all been there boss. 😀😇😅
Nice project...and nice T-Shirt!
Keep trying. You could probably make a similar 3D printed design fly if it only had a top skin on the wing (saving approximately 1/3 the weight used by the bottom skin) and move the wings back maybe 4-5cm so that the CoG is slightly forward of the CoL.
When designing a new plane to fly, usually based on a sci-fi model of some kind, I'll start by cutting out a top-down view of it on a sheet of thin cardboard and then move taped-down weights back and forth along its centreline until it can glide reasonably well. This tells me where the CoG should be on a proper flying model and then I can "go to town" in CAD drawing it up and working out where all the motors, batteries and control equipment need to be.
Great video!
Hi, like you, I've supported both the Powerup 3.0 and 4.0. I've been flying the Powerup 4.0 successfully the past month or so, and I'd say it's much easier to fly than the 3.0. I actually use the Powerup 3.0 app and rotate my phone to landscape mode. This has the more conventional two thumb control and is wayyyy easier to fly than the 4.0 app or the 3.0 app in portrait orientation and tilting the phone. I tried both the 3.0 and 4.0 apps with my Powerup 4.0 and the 3.0 app just seems to work better for me.
Like you mentioned, CG, center of lift, thrust angle are important in the airframe design.
Lastly, weight is also important. Airframe (not including module) seems to be limited around 15 grams max. Any heavier and my designs have a hard time climbing or staying aloft. Paper designs are around 5 g and sustain flight at 20% throttle easy, climb and loop at 100%. At 15 g, it requires 100% throttle to stay aloft and climb slowly. 15-20 g planes require thoughtful design and maybe low/no wind conditions.
I wonder if that foaming filament would be good for this. The hotter you print the less dense. Alternatively perhaps choosing the least dense filament... HIPS maybe? Or go the other way and strap extra engines to it... then some simple weight tuning for stability.
Bravo!! I’ve laser cut a few of flighttests stuff just as throw planes. Fun project!!
If you want to revist this i Might be able to help you out a bit
Couple of suggestions. SWEEP the wing. this helps with dihedral and also helps with CG/CP relationship
VASE MODE print your fuselage. with slight modifications and some multi surface vase mode tricks I think you can vase mode print that without much trouble.
make the wing 2 layers so you have a cross hatch layer pattern. to keep the mass the same use 0.1mm layer heights. yes first layer is going to be a bear but not intolerably so.
get rid of the bottom layer of the wing all together. JUST print the ribs and then that fold over front section (so when its done the ribs are EXPOSED on the bottom) should still be strong enough and will be 40% lighter. or what I might try to do (not sure if this would work or not) design an entirely hollow wing no ribs but fully 3d and print it with the root of the wing down in vase mode with a 0.2mm nozzle or 0.4mm nozzle and the LW PLA foaming pla (below)
Consider trying colorfabb's LW PLA. its a foaming pla weaker but much much lighter. could bring your model into the 15g range even without any of my modifications.
It may not have enough thrust, but it really should not have fallen like that. I would try again with these changes... Make sure you do a light overhead toss....make sure the wing has 6-7 degrees of dihedral. If you put a strip of carbon fiber in the wing you can make it 1 layer for the layer height on the wing and it will have structural strength...Make the wing ribs 1 layer wide and have a few more of them. Print the ribs with a hole/slit for your strip of carbon fiber and insert it/glue it with thin CA before you fold the top of the wing over. The CG should be behind the leading edge of the wing, 1/3 of the cord length of the wing back from the leading edge....If this was balanced properly and given an overhead toss, it maybe would not have sustained flight, but it 100% should not flop out of the air. Every plane should turn into a glider when the thrust stops
Weight, weight, weight... Your 3d printed design looks to be over designed a bit. The ribs could be much thinner, get rid of the center section and address the CG (1/3rd of the way back of wing is a good starting point.) The LW-PLA is also something to try... Which reminds me, I really need to finish up my EBW-160 (printed with LW-PLA) and get a video of it up, Thanks, you've just buggered up my weekend! LOL
Please make a part 2 of this! Maybe have a competition of people to send in their designs.
Liked for the Senna shirt
use paper for the wings with the 3d printed spars and rib , just use a rigid that will give a nice weight reduction, like in a real (old) glider the skin is a very thin strech treated material
something like baking paper would do the job
Nice project sir
Hi Michael! Nice test... but thats motors are thinked for light planes, maybe you have to try with some LW-PLA to reduce the weight.
First flight "oh, how do I fly it" - sounds like something I would do
On the indigo Kickstarter it says max weight is 20g so you will need to reduce weight by a third
can we maybe get an update video with using a laser cutter attachment for a 3d printer and trying to make some nice planes with different materials like balsa and other light weight materials. it could combine a laser attachment review, material tests and cad tips all in one video, maybe stretch it to a series?
plane: *gets stuck in a tree*
my racedrone: "first time?"
Move the main wing rearward. Lighten it also. Maybe taper it, too. I'd like to see it fly.
Anything can fly, the only obstacle is horsepower! Certainly if you somehow managed to attach 2 or 3 of the little motor gizmos and make a design around them, you would have better results!
You don't need spars. Think of a "whitewings" airplane - nothing flew better, and it was just paper. Use 4 .05 layers to get a .2 layer of plastic - still thinner and lighter than the paper white wings used to use. Then, simply bend it 30% back (to give it a S L I G H T airfoil and you have a FLAWLESS nearly weightless wing.
The Makergear M2 came with a print sample that was a glider that might be a good basis for this. I printed it in PLA and it worked really well. You can get it from the M2 wiki. Also Form Futura Pegasus Polypropolene which is 40% lighter than PLA and really impact resistant would be a good filament for this sort of print.
what you need is the electronics from the aero ace, a toy foam plane sold at toys r us and target for a few years, about 15 years ago.. perfect for removing the electronics and putting them into other planes you make your self.. and if I rememeber right you had 20 grams to play with on the body
omg I am doing a very similar project right now. my first launch was catastrophic
I like the idea and love your attitude! If you’re pursuing the airfoil, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to try and print it on end (fuselage side down) in vase mode or with one wall and some ribs printed as bridges. Still learning 3D printing myself, so perhaps not an ideal suggestion. Nonetheless, thanks for the great videos! 👍🏻
Really enjoyed this one, I have also investigated 'flight' having tinkered with a glider design (so cheating a bit without a motor). I also went with a flat long wingspan. It kinda, almost, sorta flew well although the weight was an issue for me. Still quite fun, made the wife laugh and scared the cat..
3D print the wing structures and cover with tissue paper to reduce weight.
You may want to consider a canard design, easier to make that inherently stable. Also, in order for it to be stable you need to look at COG, center of thrust, and center of lift.
Hi, this video really helped me thanks
Dont lie
Eflo I am not lieing I am tray bg to make a 3d printed plane do you want the photos ?
You can do a weird trick with slicers where you actually 'inversely' model the part, and then configure your slicer for 0 infill and 1 outline. You can then add scaffolding by removing thin slices in the solid model where you want filament to bridge and reinforce. This way the orientation you print it allows the layer lines to be parallel to air flow, and no need for superglue, etc.
This sounds interesting, could I ask for a link to more info?
@@ciarfah ruclips.net/video/loWlW4bZNDw/видео.html -- I'm wondering here also if a small nozzle (0.1-0.2) would also help lighten things up as well.
I have the same kit on the way. I wonder about printing the wings as frames then covering them with clingfilm/saran wrap? Not especially durable but an interesting experiment.
nice accurate stick throwing. wish you'd shown it...
I lucked into an accurate throw quickly, before my daughter could bring the camera.
@@TeachingTech try grabing the plane by the fuselage, 2/3ds back and throw slowly....
@@TeachingTech BTW: could you try flipping the motors to the front? it might help get a better flight... plus you want more weight on the tail. if you have to. better to have your center of gravity shifted slightly back and adjust the tail to make it stop smashing into the ground.
Very interesting project Michael, I had similar incompetence issues with my first drone lol. Sadly I have had to cancel my Patreon support, sorry. I hope to rejoin if circumstances improve.
Good work Ruby, I look forward to seeing your name in movie credits one day.
Maybe try undercambered wing using paper or similar skin over a 3d printed skelton? Also try printing using the expanding PLA like CNC kitchen showed a few weeks ago.
Please make a following video! i'm certain next iteration will fly after having learned the importance of the CG =)
You might want to try making a plane with ColorFabb's foaming LW-PLA.
I don't know if you've seen it, but 3dlabprint sells 3d printable RC plane models
Document my failures? Why you I oughta....
Center of gravity should be between 25% and 33% of the chord.
Maybe ABS/ASA would be better as it's slightly less dense than PLA. Also, perhaps some contact adhesive for the wings would be better than superglue?
I'd like to see you make a part 2 of this video using lw-pla. It seems you might get results matching your original hopes.
I'm red/green color-blind so it would've needed to be yellow or something for me to spot it out there. ;)
Great try!
Good fun Michael, thanks :o)
The weight is what it is. The C.G. is king however. You can't really do anything about the C.G. on your design without adding more weight. (Edit:- Is that plasticene I see at 12:20?)
Soooo... redesign! Using what you have, reassemble it as a canard. (Main wing at the rear, small wing at the front). You will have to find a way of leaving the fin at the back, but the rest of it looks straightforward. The desired C.G. should be achievable without extra weight. It will still be too heavy, but it should be less like a leaf in a gale, and may even fly!
Really nice video about making a 3D printed remote control plane. How to make the 3d printed plane in a light weight by the way?
Michael go to 3dlabprint.com and pick a plane to print. i guarantee you and your family gonna have a ton of fun. Im printing my 3d one. i have 2 IL-2 and now printing as i write this a B-25 Mitchell bomber (its a monster). they provide all the instructions, STLs, factory files and even gcodes... its amazing. You can also help comunity to figure out Cura settings for slicing those models because its made for SF3D. your input would be extremely valuable.
if you are new to designing 3d planes it would be best to print and build an existing plane with good reviews first... you can tweak that one and get power weight and balance at its best...than design a plane similar ...if you start from scratch with little experience you will have to spend many extra hours tweaking a plane to get it good...
Has your wonderful daughter the same vampire teeth as you have or the teeth will come at a later age please? The rise of Teaching Tech vampire family 😉😉😉 ❤️
I watch you for the badass experiments and also for your special abilities. Thank you Michael
I love your channel, thank you for enabling a community of makers! I have a note about your voice audio though, if I may. In your videos my ears feel like they're being pummeled by the percussive compression that you (or your recorder) apply to your voice. It's really tiring on my ears! Is there anything you can do about that?
Print it with LW-PLA and the weight will be around 40% less, comparable with the foam version
still too heavy
@@cheetahfpv6476 then how do Eclipson airplanes flight?
Another great video, anyone know if you can do variables in the old version of Blender (2.79)?
Hey, my resume print is not working in ender 3 after power loss please help.
Can you use that variable thing in fusion 360?
Use Dimafix. Your prints will stick and release easily no matter the condition of your build surface. Or use a hammer. 😉👍
How about delta wing airplane design?
It is certainly aerodynamically more robust. A delta takes a lot of power to overcome its inherent high drag, though. Weight becomes even more of an issue there.
@@HotelPapa100 Which is why you need four Olympus 593 engines for good results ;-)
Interesting I have a similar kit although it’s a capacitor style kit that clips on paper planes also flys like shit haha 🤣
Why not use the nonplanar ender 3?
3d printing is heavy and your design use very heavy rebars for this type of wing and also the skin that you use is heavy try with thermofoil like mylar. Go and get good glider airfoil don’t draw it yourself. Use 3d printing only to create light skeleton and it will fly.
What about printing using the github.com/Zip-o-mat/Slic3r/tree/nonplanar release?
Other than being a novelty, there is no point to this product when you can buy a real RC plane with all required accessories for the same price
clearly you don't have young children :) that's okay though, this product isn't for everyone.
You should do your own 3d printer egen you reach 200000 subscribers.