protodeviln Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 My hat is off to you guy's - as someone who races nitro's - fly's heli's and planes, this project blew me away. Not just as an rc buff, but as a long time macross fan, to see the SV-51 take shape and then fly on the breeze is awesome. Congratulations on all your hard work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renato Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 However, from what I understand the RC SV-51 footage was cut from the broadcast in some areas due to time constraints. I was told the RC-51 footage aired in Osaka, but not in Tokyo. Graham Aw, that sucks. They should have cut the ten minutes of those useless celebrity presenter guys going "Yeah, I remember Macross... Der-der-der-DAH-DAH, Der-der-der DAAAH" etc. Good thing I watched the Kansai version. Nice work, Graham and IAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 (edited) Thanks! It's so funny, seeing those clips on a TV show... ~Luke Edited February 3, 2008 by IAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Hey Luke I'm curious, what CAD program do you design with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I use Rhino... Good software, better than ProE/AutoCAD, etc, for this sort of thing, in my opinion. ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiotheforsaken Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 http://www.stage6.com/user/ikatendon/video/2134015/MACROSS-F that has the full broadcast with the RC sv-51 as well as the prototype toys/models being talked about in the thread in the toys forum. It isn't subbed, but it's still interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiriyu Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Congrats on the positive exposure IAD. We told you that SK would like it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Teaser... The old 'block' model is being reworked; CNC milling requires a more detailed CAD model. (Hand-carving a 5' long airframe doesn't appeal to me.) ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Teaser... The old 'block' model is being reworked; CNC milling requires a more detailed CAD model. (Hand-carving a 5' long airframe doesn't appeal to me.) ~Luke IAD, you never cease to amaze. Now, it's time for one that has at least GERWALK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That's hard. Maybe variable-geometry wings, first? ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fade Rathnik Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 well you could make a gerwalk with a static leg position and thrust vectoring... But i know the real trouble with something like that would be keeping it upright being top heavy and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yes, non-transforming GERWALK would be reasonable... The weight of the fans, vector servos, etc. would probably be significant enough to actually keep most of the weight relatively low, and gyros/thermal sensors could be used to take care of the stability augmentation... Still, fixed pose would lack the overall 'living creature' feel that you get, watching the M0/MF aircraft in GERWALK. (You know, all the small twitch motions of the legs, etc.) ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yes, non-transforming GERWALK would be reasonable... The weight of the fans, vector servos, etc. would probably be significant enough to actually keep most of the weight relatively low, and gyros/thermal sensors could be used to take care of the stability augmentation... Still, fixed pose would lack the overall 'living creature' feel that you get, watching the M0/MF aircraft in GERWALK. (You know, all the small twitch motions of the legs, etc.) ~Luke More reasons I like the VF-1... Nothing is expected of its legs I'm gonna make one and it will have GERWALK! And, if I really work hard, Battroid as well... But only as a display piece. IE: It won't be able to fly as a Battroid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) Continuing my slow rework of the CAD model... I've decided to go with Yamato-style boosters, instead of the somewhat-flattened Hasegawa ones. This model is just for developing the CNC toolpaths, so the level of detail will be pretty low; it's the basic shapes that I'm after. Surface details (sensors, bumps, panels, etc.) will be added by hand, using bits of balsa/foam. ~Luke Edited March 2, 2009 by IAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badboy00z Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Are you going to put motors in the boosters? I'd love to see a RC VF-25. Hint hint. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Motors in the boosters... That depends on what sort of power system I go with, but they do provide the perfect location to "hide" a pair of pusher props. (Yep, Schizophrenic, props. ) As I said before, I always liked the thrust, but never could find a good spot for them. I've come up with a set that will give me about 4 lb. of thrust, and 80 MPH top speed, with pitch/roll/yaw thrust-vector... Should do. I'll probably build a 'plain' version, to put the ducted fans in, as well... After all, I did a lot of design work to get the ducting right. VF-25: Wouldn't an RC VF-27 be more appropriate? (I could even put a video downlink, so I could fly by virtual cockpit... ) Really, though, I didn't much like the M-F designs... Just a personal preference... I was sort of figuring I'd do a VF-0 (S or D), once I got the SV out of my system. ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 What ever you build it will be a really well watched thread here at MW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 (edited) Hehe... Yeah, everybody waiting to see if I'll crash, right? More work done on the CAD model, finally got some work done on the nacelles/legs... ~Luke Edited March 6, 2009 by IAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Almost finished... I think it captures the look. Still needs some cockpit detail, and the ducting needs reworking... Wings-wise, I put a MH-32 airfoil on it... Should be more efficient than a flat plate, especially at higher speeds. Not so important for the prop version, but the fans like a clean airframe. ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HWR MKII Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Im in Luke. Pretty messed up that you and i are the only 2 qualified SV pilots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Muhahaha! There can be only... Errr... Never mind. Checked the landing gear geometry last night... It will need either 90 deg. rotation types, or a custom Flanker-style angled axis design. The fuselage isn't deep enough to allow the gear to retract straight in. To keep the servo count low(er), I'm thinking that electrically-driven retracts might be a good plan. This one could take a lot of rigging, though... Right now, it looks like it'll need about 8-9 servos, for a 'nicely equipped' ducted fan setup: Thrust-vector (2 + Differential throttle) Flaperons (2) Rudders/ruddervators (1-2) Canards (2) Fin retracts/gear doors (0-1, depending on mechanics) Retracts (0-1, using electric units; depends on switching technique) While the two-servo setup used on the smaller SV could theoretically work, the pushrods would be VERY long, introducing the potential for a lot of slop. Maybe something in between would be the best compromise between precision and cost. ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Another semester almost finished; I'm starting to think about summer projects. (Already started writing the SV CNC toolpath! Probably should be studying instead.......) I've decided to do what the toy guys do... Stick with one scale. Mine will be 1:16. ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Another semester almost finished; I'm starting to think about summer projects. (Already started writing the SV CNC toolpath! Probably should be studying instead.......) I've decided to do what the toy guys do... Stick with one scale. Mine will be 1:16. ~Luke I love super-scale... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I love super-scale... Oh yeah!! The more I see of this thread the more I want to get into fan duct RC. Having not flown in years this could prove exppensive though I may need lots of glue and duct tape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Ah, a few hours on an electric aileron trainer, and it would all come back. Flying is like riding a bike! ~Luke Edited May 18, 2009 by IAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badboy00z Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 So...are you making a VF-22 or is that just for size comparison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The CAD model I'm working on is designed to fly... It has appropriate intake/exhaust areas, provision for retracts, etc... So, yes, I am planning on making a -22, after the larger SV. (But, if the CNC mill handles the SV well, I may end up building them at the same time. Big IF, though.) They'd both be around 1:16, the VF-22 would be a couple inches longer than true scale, to allow me to fit everything in it. ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badboy00z Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Sweet. Can't wait to see the 22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Well, months later... Guess what, I'm not building either... I'm going to break ground (cut foam, what have you) tomorrow on a 63" long FRX-99 RAFE (Yukikaze, obviously.) It's a prop-jet, nothing fancy there, but it is going to use a different construction technique than I used on the SVs, which should produce lighter airframes that are still reasonably strong. (This was a major reason the big SV never moved forwards, I wasn't satisfied with the projected thrust/weight ratios with the ducted fans.) The framework will be assembled and covered with 0.2" thick sheet foam. This should also minimize the amount of carving I have to do, too, which is a bonus. I'm thinking it could also be a little quicker, which is always a good thing. Obviously, should it work out, SVs/VFs are in the lineup, since I have the surface models I need to get the cross-sections. ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 So are you testing out the adage that anything will fly, given enough thrust? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Heheh... Sorta. The real issue is the lack of vertical stabilizers... There's plenty of wing, but the nacelles are about it for vertical surface area. (There are some small fins at the back, alongside the nacelles, which I'm going to make the most of.) I'm planning on using a gyro and differential throttle to help tame it a bit. Having said that, I've been flying a chuck-glider version, and it seems to be OK. ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Pinned!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 Just an update, the main fuselage is framed up, waiting to be glued. I'll post pictures later today. (Going to try and get the nose done for the first photos.) ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAD Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 As promised. 63" long, and going as planned. (Except for a minor issue where the nose connects to the fuselage; small error in the CAD file.) No glue yet, just trial-fitting the parts. ~Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Holy Super-Sylph! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.