I always watch your videos fascinated, you always do a great job! Can you make a video explaining how to build this model, please? I loved it since I saw it.
Hey Max, Thank's for all your Tip's on Building, It has helped, I'm finally enjoying my Power -up.. Your tip about right Dollar Tree foam board, it work's well, when the paper is removed. I also made the flying wing and it's working, I'm loving having my plane fly. Thank's again, for your sharing tip's.
Thank you for the memories! While working with my father and Don Mitchell and his ultralight flying wing development, we also encountered many flight design hurdles. FYI we used a NACA 215 airfoil with inverted slotted ailerons and tip rudders.
full size Northrop wings were not steered by rudder (same as B2) but by split spoilers near wingtips ( aelerons / elevons ??) causing differential drag . to do "flat" turns .
Those are some nice YB49s. I have successfully added a Power Up unit to a commercial 17" span WalkAlong glider. With its extreme undercamber and reflex, it flies quite slowly, and it turns nicely with an enlarged rudder.
Thanks for sharing your experience. The wingspan of my larger YB49 is more than twice as large as your 17" WalkAlong glider. I guess that's why the rudder on my larger YB49 refuses to work reliably.
I made a similar aircraft but using paper. I wanted to explore a printable aircraft that had strength through folds and curves. It flew well but was tricky getting C of G right. The Powerup 4.0 module was used and I flew it in a gym. Not a great turning circle!
When I was a kid, a man named Jack Pffarr ran a hobby shop that I spent hours in. He was one of the designers on the original Northrop Flying Wings. Sadly, he didn't live long enough to see the B2 Spirit.
You've probably solved the rudder issue by now, but what I thought of is to just make the control surface bigger with a foam addition to the profile of the rudder. Like the plastic rudder would fit into a notch in a piece of foam and voila - larger control surface. Maybe?
No, I haven't solved the issue yet. I am hoping now that POWERUP 4.0 will solve the problem. Enlarging the rudder area was one of a few things I tried at first, but it is limited by the power of the rudder actuator, which is only capable of driving a small rudder.
My thought with your rudder authority issue is to remove the center fin mimicking the body and 2 of your vertical stabilizers. flying wings lack tails like conventional frame aircraft so the 4 vertical stabilizers and the fin in the center on your yb49 help keep it flying straight. On Flite test RC flying wings they only have 2 vertical stabilizers, one on each end of the wing.
Max another great job on your build and video. To get more rudder response change the magnet to a stronger one and less friction at the 2 attachment points. With a stronger magnet you can make a larger rudder and the coil will be able to move the extra weight.
Low and slow....... ......the way to go 😍😍 most model aircraft are much too fast......................................................................................................................indoor wing is a little masterpiece , just georgeous to watch .
Hi Max, yet another exellent video please keep them comming. Loved the Horten but didnt realise that it couldnt do tight turns! Flight test did a video a few months back with a 2 prop power up ( thats where I found out about your channel )
Some early planes had the rudder in front. Try that or larger area rudder, or a transparent film rudder if you do not want to ruin the scale appearance.
Alter the rudder with glue and add an extension to get more control or add two motors and use two phones on a board to keep controll in sync with one another. Looks Nice I'm getting a few
Very interesting. I was a hang glider pilot years ago, and got out of it just as the first double surface gliders were coming out. I built countless hand launched Topcoat Mylar and balsa wood models. The plane you show here much more closely resembles the modern hang gliders. Not sure if I will ever make any more models, but still curious. What is nose angle? I am guessing 150+. How much dihedral? Wing not straight across, so with one wing flat on the table, how high off the table is the other wing tip? How much wash out, which is what we called the difference in wing twist, so center is at 0 degrees, wing tips at 10? 20? degrees??? Airfoil cross section???
You can use two small rudders moving in opposite directions one on each side of the wing. May be just before the elevator. Or simply use a 2mm foam rudder slightly bigger and attach it to the rudder
The first thing I would try is to enlarge the rudder. If the mechanism is not strong enough to turn it, I would try making a more balanced rudder, with maybe 20% of the area in front of the pivot point, which should reduce the force necessary. Another possibility is to make a biplane wing which gives you the same lifting area with half the width, which should help with easier turning.
Impressive. As for the larger model, your power module increases lateral area at the nose. If you can move that backward or bury it, that would increase yaw stability. However, you would need nose weight to compensate, increasing overall weight. I'm sure you have thought of this, but I offer it for what it's worth.
Years ago I built a flying wing glider of balsa and tissue paper based on a NASA no stall profile. It was only about 16" wing span my constitution was not perfect it had a slight twist in the wing. How ever when doped from balanced from my finger it flew in a 10 " circle around the room several time coming to a light touch down.
The new version of the POWERUP module (4.0) will feature 2 propellers side by side to provide differential thrust. I think that will solve the turning problem.
Awesome! Have you tried changing the rudder surface area? Theoretically, it should give more turning power. You can glue some peace of foam right on top of the Powerup rudder
I noticed the thrust angle on the larger wing seems to be more important. I’m not sure lowering the angle would improve the handling. What certainly plays a role is the lack of control surface. The slow speed and inertia of the large wing make it much more difficult to induce a turn on prop power alone. You obviously found a better compromise in the smaller wing but at the cost of a faster airspeed. Maybe you could try to mount some form of surface behind the prop wash. The aerodynamic force on the airframe would be more direct. I was thinking along the lines of a double beam v-tail behind the prop. You’ll have to adjust the center of gravity and it will add some weight but who knows....
The YB-49 was used to drop the A-bomb on the Martian invaders in the fifties War of the Worlds. Ever try some Horten or Lippisch designs? Double up on the motors on the larger wing using speed control to help turn it as well as the rudders perhaps.
Increase your rudder area. You will need to enlarge enlarge it both in front of and behind the pivot point to balance the aerodynamic loads on the actuator.
Alser mas grande, las alas ofrecen mas resistencia y el peso mas inerci. Necesitaría poner el timón mas alejado y mas grande pero aún así, la inercia sigue estando en contra aunque sea un poco. Construyo mis alas volantes con electrónica de quadcopter y aún con el mismo peso, la envergadura tiene sus efectos.
Can you make the Power Up module increase deflection for steering? The only other thing is to use two motors and have differential thrust. I made a slow flyer like that and it turned nicely (from a cheap faster twin engine plane).
Very nice! The professionally made Night Vapor is 17 grams. My guesses for better turning are (a) more dihedral, and (b) make the rudder larger. I don't know if these are practical. I look forward to seeing your further experiments! PS your artwork is splendid.
I've made a similar one to his slim flying wing for my powerup 4.0 and tried it flat along the wing plane. It tended to fly with high alfa. I shimmed the back of the motor up about 5deg to force the nose down and it flew much more like his flight in the field shown here with his slim wing.
I have a suggestion. On the PowerUp RUclips channel, the guy who made this toy said that we can put tape on the rudder so that we can have a bigger one. Thanks for reading.
If this video is still relevant what if you took some of that same thickness foam and attached it to the rudder too give it a bit more prominence in the airflow
The problem is that model elevons don't do everything that the Northrup flaperons did. On the Northrup wings there was a top and bottom piece, that works together. They could operate like a normal aileron (up & down), or they could spread, creating an airbrake. The drag would pull the wing around. They may have used differential thrust too, but it's weird flaperons that I remember. My source on this was Jack Pfarr, who was one of the engineers at Northrup.
Very nice flying ! To help the larger wing turn better , you could try to increase the surface area of the rudder , and/or maybe add dihedral . Or use two POWERUP units on one airframe . Would it be possible to attach a small gearbox to the motor so it can swing a bigger prop at lower RPM's ?
Thanks, Albert. I cannot figure out how to use two POWERUP units on one airframe unless some kind of electronic hacking is involved. Can you elaborate? I did see a couple of instances involving more than one POWERUP unit on www.poweruptoys.com but that looks like one of the features that they planned but later abandoned. I have not tried to alter the POWERUP module in anyway other than making the rudder area larger. I haven't found out how far I can go in this respect.
@@maxxu8 Using two POWERUP units is not something I've done , just an idea I had . You are right , it would probably take some electronic hacking to set up something like differential thrust . Here is a video of a very slow flying wing that uses micro electronics with differential thrust for steering : vimeo.com/59410644?cjevent=ac084fc2eaac11e882bc00470a1c0e10
The bluetooth POWERUP module uses an one-cell lipo pack and so the nominal V would be 3.7v and the max V 4.2v. The battery is built-in and I don't have its specs. The total weight of the module is between 9 and10 grams.
Very interesting. I have two of my students trying to make a similar flying wing. What thickness of foam are you using? Was the wing cambered or the foam cut into an airfoil? Any suggestions for my students? I know what you mean about the rudder. What we did to increase the response from the rudder was to attach a small piece of tape, folded over onto itself to increase the surface area of the rudder with minimal weight.
The thickness of the foam is 4 mm. I used a fresh retractable paper cutter knife to shape the airfoil roughly first and then sand the wing into its final shape. My suggestion for inexperienced students is to add two vertical winglets at the tips of the wing. In this way, no dihedral is needed. It's much easier to experiment with the winglets by changing their size than with the dihedral. This is what most RC flying wing builders do. Yes, I did put a piece of tape on the rudder as you can see on the still photo of my two flying wings used in the video. Thanks.
@@j.christie2594 Yes, it's better to remove the paper. The foam boards available at our local Walmart stores are of higher quality, which means it's difficult to peel off the paper. I use foam boards from Dollar Tree, which are cheaper and easy to work with. I use 150-220 grit sandpaper.
Hello Max, this video is great, and has motivated me to try the same 65cm wing as a project. Would you be able to share what your angle was for the two wings? Also what kind of glue did you use? Thank you.
@@IvanNieves Hi, Ivan, no dihedral is used. At least, the leading edge is totally flat. Since the wing has a little washout twist, the trailing edge does look like having some dihedral. The glue that I used includes UHU Por, foam safe CA, and Super Phatic. I find the UHU glue is the easiest to use, but it's not very sandable. CA is easy to use and sandable, but because the cured CA is so much harder than foam, you may get some surprises when you sand the glued area. Super Phatic is good for sanding, but it's not very easy to find and use. No, I didn't use tape to reinforce the central seam.
That's odd. Maybe, you've got a dud? I've bought several POWERUP modules. Their performances vary. Battery, motor, and prop can all affect the actual performance. Test-run your POWERUP module by using full throttle. It should be able to last 3-4 minutes with a full charge. When flying, try not to use full power in order to have a longer flight.
OK, It's only a small model/toy however if you want to really improve radically, you need to think seriously and critically about real aerodynamics principles. With that thought in mind, I offer the following to ponder though I cannot fully explain expand here. I am sure some will have a laugh about it being way too serious but it is simply intended to provide some insights that an enthusiast may find interesting. So following the Northrop flying wing development is probably not the best example. I think you would be better served following the Horton Flying wing development path which was based on Prandetl's bell shaped lift curve. This is because Prandtl's solution solves the adverse yaw control problem and is the optimum performance solution because it correctly identifies the real limiting design constraint as being the wing root moment load, and not the span. This solution is similar to tiplets except the tiplet is simply part of the span and provides both lift and thrust from the forward tilted force vectors due to the helical flow of the tip vortex. Your kind of doing this in an inefficient way already by adding up trim at the tip elevons. To do this efficiently, you need to adjust the spanwise distribution of wing camber, reflex and twist in a controlled way the achieves Prandetl's bell shaped spanwise lift distribution. However, you also need to realise that much of the area of a flying wing is not a lifting but a stabilizing surface. Well, OK more accurately it's a combination of both but the point is, the area is not all equally contributing to lift. This is the main reason that efficient gliders tend to be a main wing and a stab with a moment arms between the 2 aerodynamic centres (AC)s of at least 4 mean aerodynamic chords (MAC)s. That configuration makes the whole main plane equally contribute to lift while the longer moment arm allows a smaller stab to generate sufficient pitch stabilizing force. Depending on the moment arm you may get around 85-90% lifting surface efficiency compared to a flying wing's 75-80% or so. However the flying wing gains more efficiency from the absence of parasitic and interference drag of fuselage and fins etc. One of the main advantages of flying wings is stealth. They are extremely hard to spot which a military tactical advantage. While you are using Depron foam as is everyone else, you will all continue to come back to a similar optimum wing loading. If you want to fly slower than the others, you need to develop a better strength to weight construction solution. Airspeed is essentially a function of wing loading, coefficient of lift (Cl) and drag. Drag because because at small angles of glide, drag determines the sinking rate. If you increase Cl, you greatly increase induced drag. Operating at high trim can put a glider at a slower speed than optimum sink rate. In this condition it tends to fly very slowly down a steep gild path. This slow trim requires more power to maintain level flight. All I'm pointing out here is that increasing area and trim eventually leads to flying too slowly for the available power. So the trick is really about finding the optimum balance of the various factors. It is not true to say a particular design direction will always result in improvement. It only yields improvements up to the optimum point and yields a detriment after that. So the question is, where is that optimum point?
Thanks Ken. You have covered a lot of areas with your comment. My flying wings do have wing twist and I see the trimmed up elevons as a way to increase the wing twist. I guess it's not very efficient but I do things through trials and errors. I can build in more wing twist in my future flying wings.
@@maxxu8 Nice reply Max. I think the upturned elevons act as camber reflex, giving the tip sections positive stability. A symmetrical section has a stable center of lift at all trims at the wing aerodynamic center (AC). The AC is about 25% of MAC behind the leading edge. Increasing the camber shifts the whole lift curve up so the wing can produce higher lift before stall. Also, min profile drag occurs at higher lift so the sections efficiency at high lift is improved but drag at zero lift increases and pitch stability becomes negative (unstable). That is, nos down pitch causes the center of lift to move aft, pitching nose down even harder & visa-versa, You can build a straight plank cambered flying wing and make it stable by re-flexing the mean chord line at 75% so that the nose, reflex point and trailing edge are aligned straight even though the camber line through these points is curved. However, the CG is critical and you waste near 40% of the lifting area as the reflex counters some lift. In a sweped cambered wing, you can transition reflex from none at the root to around the 70-75% point of the tip chord (measures from the leading edge. This will also be stable but with much less wasted lifting area. In the case of the Horton's, the root had little if any camber but the tips had camber and reflex. This greatly minimized the amount of reflex required for positive stability as the root was not detracting much from stability. Following this, you could possibly and adjusting the CG point carefully, you could probably improve efficiency. Your elevons may also be compensating for a too forward CG. Careful experimentation with the most rearward CG and minimal reflex that obtains stability should optimize efficiency. I know this because several decades ago I was designing RC flying wings and studying aerodynamics. Worth a try maybe, Happy Hunting.
I bought two power-up planes, thinking the first one was just bad luck. Nope, 2nd was just as bad as the first. They have bluetooth connections that dont stay paired. But I took the guts out of a microdrone and made my own. It works great. I even made a few more to experiment with. I got the drones at Target for $20 each and Paper dont cost a dime. Just need hot glue, popsicle stick, a soldering iron and a super small phillips screwdriver. The planes I make are the kind John Collins makes. (record holder for paper airplane distance. He's in youtube under the paper airplane guy) And Peter(I cant ever remember his last name) Shows how to disassemble the microdrone and prepare it. ruclips.net/video/GSDNgnhJ-FM/видео.html for Peters video and ruclips.net/video/2n4xq0DnbHI/видео.html for John Collins planes.
A measured drawing of your wing would be awesome!
You can use a real YB-49 drawing and scale it up or down to your desired… scale.
I always watch your videos fascinated, you always do a great job!
Can you make a video explaining how to build this model, please? I loved it since I saw it.
Hey Max, Thank's for all your Tip's on Building, It has helped, I'm finally enjoying my Power -up.. Your tip about right Dollar Tree foam board, it work's well, when the paper is removed. I also made the flying wing and it's working, I'm loving having my plane fly. Thank's again, for your sharing tip's.
For a person that do not know about airmodels, you are an expert!!! Great model, great flight, definetely a nice video, thatnks for share.
Thank you for the memories! While working with my father and Don Mitchell and his ultralight flying wing development, we also encountered many flight design hurdles. FYI we used a NACA 215 airfoil with inverted slotted ailerons and tip rudders.
full size Northrop wings were not steered by rudder (same as B2) but by split spoilers near wingtips ( aelerons / elevons ??) causing differential drag . to do "flat" turns .
Great work Max! My son and I are going to use your designs as inspiration.
Those are some nice YB49s. I have successfully added a Power Up unit to a commercial 17" span WalkAlong glider. With its extreme undercamber and reflex, it flies quite slowly, and it turns nicely with an enlarged rudder.
Thanks for sharing your experience. The wingspan of my larger YB49 is more than twice as large as your 17" WalkAlong glider. I guess that's why the rudder on my larger YB49 refuses to work reliably.
I made a similar aircraft but using paper. I wanted to explore a printable aircraft that had strength through folds and curves. It flew well but was tricky getting C of G right. The Powerup 4.0 module was used and I flew it in a gym. Not a great turning circle!
When I was a kid, a man named Jack Pffarr ran a hobby shop that I spent hours in. He was one of the designers on the original Northrop Flying Wings.
Sadly, he didn't live long enough to see the B2 Spirit.
You've probably solved the rudder issue by now, but what I thought of is to just make the control surface bigger with a foam addition to the profile of the rudder. Like the plastic rudder would fit into a notch in a piece of foam and voila - larger control surface. Maybe?
No, I haven't solved the issue yet. I am hoping now that POWERUP 4.0 will solve the problem. Enlarging the rudder area was one of a few things I tried at first, but it is limited by the power of the rudder actuator, which is only capable of driving a small rudder.
My thought with your rudder authority issue is to remove the center fin mimicking the body and 2 of your vertical stabilizers. flying wings lack tails like conventional frame aircraft so the 4 vertical stabilizers and the fin in the center on your yb49 help keep it flying straight. On Flite test RC flying wings they only have 2 vertical stabilizers, one on each end of the wing.
@@kng128 Not independently actuated like my wing tip rudders on my Fledge 3-ET.
Max another great job on your build and video. To get more rudder response change the magnet to a stronger one and less friction at the 2 attachment points. With a stronger magnet you can make a larger rudder and the coil will be able to move the extra weight.
Low and slow.......
......the way to go 😍😍 most model aircraft are much too fast......................................................................................................................indoor wing is a little masterpiece , just georgeous to watch .
Hi Max, yet another exellent video please keep them comming. Loved the Horten but didnt realise that it couldnt do tight turns! Flight test did a video a few months back with a 2 prop power up ( thats where I found out about your channel )
Some early planes had the rudder in front. Try that or larger area rudder, or a transparent film rudder if you do not want to ruin the scale appearance.
Very, very nice! I think you will at some point fix the rudder problem. In the meantime, best of luck and thanks for sharing!
Alter the rudder with glue and add an extension to get more control or add two motors and use two phones on a board to keep controll in sync with one another. Looks Nice I'm getting a few
Very interesting. I was a hang glider pilot years ago, and got out of it just as the first double surface gliders were coming out. I built countless hand launched Topcoat Mylar and balsa wood models. The plane you show here much more closely resembles the modern hang gliders. Not sure if I will ever make any more models, but still curious. What is nose angle? I am guessing 150+. How much dihedral? Wing not straight across, so with one wing flat on the table, how high off the table is the other wing tip? How much wash out, which is what we called the difference in wing twist, so center is at 0 degrees, wing tips at 10? 20? degrees??? Airfoil cross section???
Northrop wasn’t sure how to solve the rudder problem either so don’t feel bad about it. It took fly-by -wire to fix flying wings.
well done, love slow flight :)
You can use two small rudders moving in opposite directions one on each side of the wing. May be just before the elevator. Or simply use a 2mm foam rudder slightly bigger and attach it to the rudder
BROmade wing flying… it’s my dream 💀
The first thing I would try is to enlarge the rudder. If the mechanism is not strong enough to turn it, I would try making a more balanced rudder, with maybe 20% of the area in front of the pivot point, which should reduce the force necessary. Another possibility is to make a biplane wing which gives you the same lifting area with half the width, which should help with easier turning.
You got the twin motors PowerUp 4.0? That should solve the bigger wing problems 😅
Impressive. As for the larger model, your power module increases lateral area at the nose. If you can move that backward or bury it, that would increase yaw stability. However, you would need nose weight to compensate, increasing overall weight. I'm sure you have thought of this, but I offer it for what it's worth.
Years ago I built a flying wing glider of balsa and tissue paper based on a NASA no stall profile. It was only about 16" wing span my constitution was not perfect it had a slight twist in the wing. How ever when doped from balanced from my finger it flew in a 10 " circle around the room several time coming to a light touch down.
Lmao that voice, Mr. Data: Teen Aeronautical years.
بسیار عالی بود استاد فقط د مورد ساخت این پرنده هم توضیحاتی را بیان میداشتند........موفق باشید 👏👏👏👍👍👍❤️
Nice Wings👍
Sub and 👍
Could you try to replicate the YF-23 Pav-1 as a powerup plane?
Would be awesome
If you want it to fly slowly, get rid of the sweep. Use a thick, high lift airfoil.
Thanks the power up 4.0 is really fast
Fit a steerable propeller to turn the larger wing at slower speeds or use weight shift as used in a hang glider
The new version of the POWERUP module (4.0) will feature 2 propellers side by side to provide differential thrust. I think that will solve the turning problem.
Awesome! Have you tried changing the rudder surface area? Theoretically, it should give more turning power. You can glue some peace of foam right on top of the Powerup rudder
I noticed the thrust angle on the larger wing seems to be more important.
I’m not sure lowering the angle would improve the handling.
What certainly plays a role is the lack of control surface.
The slow speed and inertia of the large wing make it much more difficult to induce a turn on prop power alone.
You obviously found a better compromise in the smaller wing but at the cost of a faster airspeed.
Maybe you could try to mount some form of surface behind the prop wash. The aerodynamic force on the airframe would be more direct.
I was thinking along the lines of a double beam v-tail behind the prop. You’ll have to adjust the center of gravity and it will add some weight but who knows....
Two power up units for the larger flying wing may be of benefit.
How much did the power up module weigh?
About 9 grams.
Boy I'm lucky if I get even a 50 foot radius to fly in. Is there a way to increase the range with a setting in my phone ?
😎👍Nicely done.👍
This is really awesome .....
The YB-49 was used to drop the A-bomb on the Martian invaders in the fifties War of the Worlds. Ever try some Horten or Lippisch designs? Double up on the motors on the larger wing using speed control to help turn it as well as the rudders perhaps.
How much for the TB-49, i'm serious.11 MANNINGDH2@.COM
Awesome build...
Increase your rudder area. You will need to enlarge enlarge it both in front of and behind the pivot point to balance the aerodynamic loads on the actuator.
Great! Plans?
Alser mas grande, las alas ofrecen mas resistencia y el peso mas inerci. Necesitaría poner el timón mas alejado y mas grande pero aún así, la inercia sigue estando en contra aunque sea un poco.
Construyo mis alas volantes con electrónica de quadcopter y aún con el mismo peso, la envergadura tiene sus efectos.
Can you provide plans and construction details?
Make the rudder bigger and/or extend the length of the module to get more leverage.
Please make another plane like this..but a tiger moth bi-plane ... double wing ..
What kind of electric you used. Has remote, or flying it s self?
Can you make the Power Up module increase deflection for steering? The only other thing is to use two motors and have differential thrust. I made a slow flyer like that and it turned nicely (from a cheap faster twin engine plane).
Very nice! The professionally made Night Vapor is 17 grams. My guesses for better turning are (a) more dihedral, and (b) make the rudder larger. I don't know if these are practical. I look forward to seeing your further experiments! PS your artwork is splendid.
Thanks, Mark.
Thanks
Did you get the 4.0? With 2 motors maybe the bigger model will perform better.
Not yet.
I just now found this, but have you seen if you can create ailerons that have a control linkage to the rudder?
I feel like for the larger wing try to make the turning speed of the rudder faster
Jack Northrop would approve. 😊
I think you mean the Germans in WW@ they had a flying wing this technology was past down after the war.
Would the dual prop Powerup 4.0 give you better turn control on your Zagi-like design?
I was just wondering where your center of gravity was located along with thrust angle?
I've made a similar one to his slim flying wing for my powerup 4.0 and tried it flat along the wing plane. It tended to fly with high alfa. I shimmed the back of the motor up about 5deg to force the nose down and it flew much more like his flight in the field shown here with his slim wing.
I have a suggestion. On the PowerUp RUclips channel, the guy who made this toy said that we can put tape on the rudder so that we can have a bigger one. Thanks for reading.
Thanks for your suggestion. I tried the method.
If this video is still relevant what if you took some of that same thickness foam and attached it to the rudder too give it a bit more prominence in the airflow
Nice Max
What did you use to build it?
Very nice sir.
I want to build
The wings were known to be hard to turn. Bigger elevons or wider or both. Look at some foamy flying wings for scale.
The problem is that model elevons don't do everything that the Northrup flaperons did.
On the Northrup wings there was a top and bottom piece, that works together. They could operate like a normal aileron (up & down), or they could spread, creating an airbrake. The drag would pull the wing around. They may have used differential thrust too, but it's weird flaperons that I remember.
My source on this was Jack Pfarr, who was one of the engineers at Northrup.
i think expand the rudder with paper
What is your slowest powerups plane?
The rdder needs to be further aft. More dihedral would help.
Would the smaller model be close to 1/72 scale?
Great work.
Please how do i get this power up paper and how much.
I live in Nigeria
Very nice flying ! To help the larger wing turn better , you could try to increase the surface area of the rudder , and/or maybe add dihedral . Or use two POWERUP units on one airframe . Would it be possible to attach a small gearbox to the motor so it can swing a bigger prop at lower RPM's ?
Thanks, Albert. I cannot figure out how to use two POWERUP units on one airframe unless some kind of electronic hacking is involved. Can you elaborate? I did see a couple of instances involving more than one POWERUP unit on www.poweruptoys.com but that looks like one of the features that they planned but later abandoned.
I have not tried to alter the POWERUP module in anyway other than making the rudder area larger. I haven't found out how far I can go in this respect.
@@maxxu8 Using two POWERUP units is not something I've done , just an idea I had . You are right , it would probably take some electronic hacking to set up something like differential thrust . Here is a video of a very slow flying wing that uses micro electronics with differential thrust for steering : vimeo.com/59410644?cjevent=ac084fc2eaac11e882bc00470a1c0e10
What foam do you use?
Can you please give little information on control and battery?? What should be the battery V and weight??
The bluetooth POWERUP module uses an one-cell lipo pack and so the nominal V would be 3.7v and the max V 4.2v. The battery is built-in and I don't have its specs. The total weight of the module is between 9 and10 grams.
Thank you for your reply.
The automated voice is great.
Thank you.
Where are the servos? how did you make the plane turn?
There is a rudder with the POWERUP smart module.
Very interesting. I have two of my students trying to make a similar flying wing. What thickness of foam are you using? Was the wing cambered or the foam cut into an airfoil? Any suggestions for my students? I know what you mean about the rudder. What we did to increase the response from the rudder was to attach a small piece of tape, folded over onto itself to increase the surface area of the rudder with minimal weight.
The thickness of the foam is 4 mm. I used a fresh retractable paper cutter knife to shape the airfoil roughly first and then sand the wing into its final shape. My suggestion for inexperienced students is to add two vertical winglets at the tips of the wing. In this way, no dihedral is needed. It's much easier to experiment with the winglets by changing their size than with the dihedral. This is what most RC flying wing builders do.
Yes, I did put a piece of tape on the rudder as you can see on the still photo of my two flying wings used in the video. Thanks.
@@maxxu8 Couple question's, the foam you use. I tried Walmart, paper on both the face's, too heavy? What grit of Sand Paper?
@@j.christie2594 Yes, it's better to remove the paper. The foam boards available at our local Walmart stores are of higher quality, which means it's difficult to peel off the paper. I use foam boards from Dollar Tree, which are cheaper and easy to work with.
I use 150-220 grit sandpaper.
@@maxxu8 Thank's for the tip's. Love your work, and Thank's for sharing!
Hello Max, this video is great, and has motivated me to try the same 65cm wing as a project. Would you be able to share what your angle was for the two wings? Also what kind of glue did you use? Thank you.
My guess, from looking at the footage, was a 4-5 degree dihedral. Also, did you reinforce the central seam with tape?
@@IvanNieves Hi, Ivan, no dihedral is used. At least, the leading edge is totally flat. Since the wing has a little washout twist, the trailing edge does look like having some dihedral.
The glue that I used includes UHU Por, foam safe CA, and Super Phatic. I find the UHU glue is the easiest to use, but it's not very sandable. CA is easy to use and sandable, but because the cured CA is so much harder than foam, you may get some surprises when you sand the glued area. Super Phatic is good for sanding, but it's not very easy to find and use.
No, I didn't use tape to reinforce the central seam.
Nice! Can you show the aileron control rods and servos, please.
Thanks. There are neither control rods nor servos. There is only a rudder driven by an "actuator."
like a winding with a permanent magnet?
I like the planes, but not the pursuit of THAT music......
Thank you for the video!请问这个视频是你转发的吗？还是原创的？我一直想用D板做一个power up的机身 ！
都是百分之百的原创。😋
Max Xu 真棒！这个环境看起来应该是美国或者加拿大吧！
@@golfaircraft3681 嗯，加拿大。你看体育馆里挂着加拿大国旗。
有没有图纸？我刚买了个POWER UP 4.0 谢谢
I can't believe the length of the flight times. My power-up only runs for half that time. Bigger battery required?
That's odd. Maybe, you've got a dud? I've bought several POWERUP modules. Their performances vary. Battery, motor, and prop can all affect the actual performance. Test-run your POWERUP module by using full throttle. It should be able to last 3-4 minutes with a full charge. When flying, try not to use full power in order to have a longer flight.
That's cool 😎👍
The sweptback wing provides its own directional stability. Too much. Try a tiny bit of anhedral.
Thanks for your suggestion. It makes sense to me.
can you make a really fast power up in your next video built specfic ly to fly outside i liked and subed
OK, It's only a small model/toy however if you want to really improve radically, you need to think seriously and critically about real aerodynamics principles. With that thought in mind, I offer the following to ponder though I cannot fully explain expand here. I am sure some will have a laugh about it being way too serious but it is simply intended to provide some insights that an enthusiast may find interesting.
So following the Northrop flying wing development is probably not the best example. I think you would be better served following the Horton Flying wing development path which was based on Prandetl's bell shaped lift curve. This is because Prandtl's solution solves the adverse yaw control problem and is the optimum performance solution because it correctly identifies the real limiting design constraint as being the wing root moment load, and not the span. This solution is similar to tiplets except the tiplet is simply part of the span and provides both lift and thrust from the forward tilted force vectors due to the helical flow of the tip vortex. Your kind of doing this in an inefficient way already by adding up trim at the tip elevons. To do this efficiently, you need to adjust the spanwise distribution of wing camber, reflex and twist in a controlled way the achieves Prandetl's bell shaped spanwise lift distribution. However, you also need to realise that much of the area of a flying wing is not a lifting but a stabilizing surface. Well, OK more accurately it's a combination of both but the point is, the area is not all equally contributing to lift. This is the main reason that efficient gliders tend to be a main wing and a stab with a moment arms between the 2 aerodynamic centres (AC)s of at least 4 mean aerodynamic chords (MAC)s. That configuration makes the whole main plane equally contribute to lift while the longer moment arm allows a smaller stab to generate sufficient pitch stabilizing force. Depending on the moment arm you may get around 85-90% lifting surface efficiency compared to a flying wing's 75-80% or so. However the flying wing gains more efficiency from the absence of parasitic and interference drag of fuselage and fins etc. One of the main advantages of flying wings is stealth. They are extremely hard to spot which a military tactical advantage.
While you are using Depron foam as is everyone else, you will all continue to come back to a similar optimum wing loading. If you want to fly slower than the others, you need to develop a better strength to weight construction solution. Airspeed is essentially a function of wing loading, coefficient of lift (Cl) and drag. Drag because because at small angles of glide, drag determines the sinking rate. If you increase Cl, you greatly increase induced drag. Operating at high trim can put a glider at a slower speed than optimum sink rate. In this condition it tends to fly very slowly down a steep gild path. This slow trim requires more power to maintain level flight. All I'm pointing out here is that increasing area and trim eventually leads to flying too slowly for the available power. So the trick is really about finding the optimum balance of the various factors. It is not true to say a particular design direction will always result in improvement. It only yields improvements up to the optimum point and yields a detriment after that. So the question is, where is that optimum point?
Thanks Ken. You have covered a lot of areas with your comment. My flying wings do have wing twist and I see the trimmed up elevons as a way to increase the wing twist. I guess it's not very efficient but I do things through trials and errors. I can build in more wing twist in my future flying wings.
@@maxxu8 Nice reply Max. I think the upturned elevons act as camber reflex, giving the tip sections positive stability. A symmetrical section has a stable center of lift at all trims at the wing aerodynamic center (AC). The AC is about 25% of MAC behind the leading edge. Increasing the camber shifts the whole lift curve up so the wing can produce higher lift before stall. Also, min profile drag occurs at higher lift so the sections efficiency at high lift is improved but drag at zero lift increases and pitch stability becomes negative (unstable). That is, nos down pitch causes the center of lift to move aft, pitching nose down even harder & visa-versa, You can build a straight plank cambered flying wing and make it stable by re-flexing the mean chord line at 75% so that the nose, reflex point and trailing edge are aligned straight even though the camber line through these points is curved. However, the CG is critical and you waste near 40% of the lifting area as the reflex counters some lift. In a sweped cambered wing, you can transition reflex from none at the root to around the 70-75% point of the tip chord (measures from the leading edge. This will also be stable but with much less wasted lifting area. In the case of the Horton's, the root had little if any camber but the tips had camber and reflex. This greatly minimized the amount of reflex required for positive stability as the root was not detracting much from stability. Following this, you could possibly and adjusting the CG point carefully, you could probably improve efficiency. Your elevons may also be compensating for a too forward CG. Careful experimentation with the most rearward CG and minimal reflex that obtains stability should optimize efficiency. I know this because several decades ago I was designing RC flying wings and studying aerodynamics. Worth a try maybe, Happy Hunting.
How l can buy it?
Radio Control and 5g servo
twin motor and / or bigger allerons
3rd time watching this today
build it out of balsa and silkspan.
perfect aeroplanes and smart design! Is it possible to share the plan?
Could you send or link a blueprint?
Sorry, I don't have blueprints for these models.
Max Xu can you make a build video for it?
I bought two power-up planes, thinking the first one was just bad luck. Nope, 2nd was just as bad as the first. They have bluetooth connections that dont stay paired. But I took the guts out of a microdrone and made my own. It works great. I even made a few more to experiment with. I got the drones at Target for $20 each and Paper dont cost a dime. Just need hot glue, popsicle stick, a soldering iron and a super small phillips screwdriver. The planes I make are the kind John Collins makes. (record holder for paper airplane distance. He's in youtube under the paper airplane guy) And Peter(I cant ever remember his last name) Shows how to disassemble the microdrone and prepare it.
ruclips.net/video/GSDNgnhJ-FM/видео.html for Peters video and
ruclips.net/video/2n4xq0DnbHI/видео.html for John Collins planes.
bigger motor
👌👍
you should watch this video from Samm Shepperd ruclips.net/video/aSD69jdi2CE/видео.html
he has something you're looking for.
What's with the computer generated voice? Somewhat spoiled the video for me. A human voice over would be so much nicer.
A FUCKING ROBOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
.............................. 👍🔦🌷🎓💨