Ever since the Fox started using its designated battery, the 1800 Nanotech, it has suffered from a buzz. Initially I thought this was because the motor mount wasn't tight enough, and then I thought that perhaps it was because the firewall wasn't sturdy enough, gluing in a second mount in tandem to beef things up.
And so the imbalance persisted since I'm not sure how to balance folding props. However the other day I found a spare set of Walrus props and decided to install them on the Fox.
This works surprisingly well and they seem to provide quite sufficient thrust for the Fox, which is much sleeker than its portly donor plane.
So, the Fox now has white props to match its colour scheme, and is flying quite happily with cheap plastic instead of swishy carbon fibre...
...good and not so good The little 850 4S lipo that had served the Radjet well finally went to battery heaven which left me pondering what to do. However, with the Stinger in pieces under the table awaiting a new fuselage, the obvious option was to adopt that. I'd flown the Radjet once before with the 1800 4S; it flew OK although the battery is a little oversized, and it also didn't quite fit in with the small hatch I'd made to fit the battery in with the Radjet's reconfigured nose.
So I made a second magnetic hatch, which allowed the big battery to be inserted with ease, being pushed into the front fuselage just enough to secure it and allow balance to be set. As before, the extra weight shows, with the Radjet needing a little up-elevator trim to compensate. Also, although the battery has a 40C rating, it still doesn't deliver the kick that the little 45-90 nanotech does. But the Radjet still flies well and, with its sleeker lines, isn't much off the pace. A bonus with the big pack is that the Radjet now flies flat out for longer...
...without disaster or mishap This afternoon was gorgeous and sunny, slightly warm with a gentle breeze from the south west, perfect for letting the recently-refurbished Radjet loose with its boisterous battery pack, the 1800 4S 40C borrowed from the Stinger. As mentioned previously, I'd had several concerns relating it being too heavy with the oversize battery or simply bursting into flames due to the ESC being overworked. Fortunately, neither happened, with the Radjettaking to the skies without incident and flying well.
I did a few circuits before bringing it down, needing to make a few adjustment to the elevator settings after the servo change, and also to dial in a little more expo with the new servos having a bit more travel than before. Having sorted out the details, I threw the Radjet up again to give it another run. The battery, significantly larger than the recommended 1300 and substantially larger than the 850 I'd been using, is rather oversized for the power system and changes the characteristics of the Radjet into something of a grand tourer. I think a 1300 4S battery is probably the ticket, providing enough current and flight-time without carrying any excess. So, while this exercise answered one nagging question, it also raised another; considering it can comfortably carry the 1800, what if you uprated the motor and the ESC...
...and no crashes! Today I had the first flight of my Stinger 64 EDF, running in on a Zippy Flightmax 1800mAh battery, although I believe some people fly it with a 2200mAh power pack. The first launch wasn't good; I'd watched some launch videos and concluded that it needed full power as well as some correction for roll on launch. Well, it does need full power but the roll correction's a another story.
I'd launched it in a similar fashion to the Radjet, with about two-thirds right aileron. I'd also read that the Stinger was quite sensitive to control input, so I'd set it on low rates with expo. It turned out that the torque reaction wasn't nearly as severe as I'd expected and my low rates were still much too high for aileron.
The result was that, on the first launch, the Stinger was inverted at about four metres above the ground. Fortunately, with experience in this regard with the Radjet, I was able to correct it and then bring it in for a landing. I launched it again, without dialled-in aileron, which was OK, needing just a dab of correction. The ailerons continued to be extremely sensitive, flying on full power, leading to a few harrowing moments, although fortunately I managed to keep it in the air. My first impressions of the Stinger, aside from the over-sensitive controls, were that it was fast but not super-powerful. Having said that, its climb rate and general pace were quite impressive, and the EDF sounds really good. The landing wasn't great - I over-flared it on approach, but still got it down OK. So, for the next flight, I am setting both ailerons a tiny bit down to give a bit of extra lift, and I'm going to add a little up elevator. I've also set my rates down by ten percent. In combination, that should make the Stinger a little easier to control and more fun to fly...
