Dr. Jekyll progress pictures

Check it out.

Wing is foam. Tips are Tom Morris style. Sheeted in balsa with carbon and Polycrylic fill.

All other parts are laser cut from my CAD drawings.

Top and Bottom block (not shown) molded from laser cut forms.

Fusleage is "no jig required" double crutched (my own design). All engine bearers are also made from laser cut crutches.

Control surfaces are sheeted laser cut cores. Controls are are all ball link and Central Hobbies Tom Morris suff.

LAST EDITED ON Jan-27-04 AT 05:03 PM (CDT)
 
Dr. Jekyll is the to mate Mr. Hyde.

I was bored so I thought I would post some sunny summer pictures.

Your ship really looks great Brad. Could you tell me more about the "no jig fuselage". I'm currently building a Magnum and I'm using a jig to keep it somewhat straight. I'm always interested in new building techniques. Thanks

A no jig fuse. In RC for sometime now they have been using a piece of wood that follows the top view and bottom view of the fuse. Like a piece of 1/16 or even 1/8 on larger models. After you have made your motor crutch and glued it in to the fuse sides and have it straight you take your F3 former and install it per planes. You take your piece of 1/16 or 1/8 that follows the top contour of the fuse from the top view and but it up against F3 should be a tappered piece of balsa. Do all of this with the fuse upside down on the table. Now you should have your fuse with cructh installed and F3 and this piece of tappered balsa down on the table. Now just squeeze in your fuse sides to the top piece that is on the table. Glue them to this piece. Now slide in formers. Now glue in the piece that follows the bottom contour. It creates a strong box type construction. VERY STRONG! With a pipe tunnel you will have a pipe floor instead of bottom piece but the top piece is still there. I have done this on several of my latest planes and it works well.

Brad corrct me if I am wrong but I think this is pretty much how you do it?

Brad desigened his to work with the laser cutter and has many cutouts and the design he used builds a very solid and straight fuse.

I use a jig and this method and it makes for straight fuses every time.

That plane (both versions of it) looks cool. SO, Mr 'Zilla, when are you going to get that thing made up as a UHP kit????????

Brad,

Is this the airplane you need the canopy for? I have one BBQB canopy and you are welcome to it (if yo actually use it, otherwise, return it. They aren't easy to make and there are many rejects)

>That plane (both versions of it) looks cool. SO, Mr 'Zilla,
>when are you going to get that thing made up as a UHP
>kit????????
>
>
>
>Steve

Maybe some day, when I get the bugs worked out of it. I need to move the wing forward to get that "snappy" Nats corner. So, to that end I have move the wing forward 3/8" on the Dr. Jekyll as compared to Mr. Hyde. That will move my CG from 22% MAC to 25% MAC. I hope this will result in the "magic" combination that will give me that super hard corner in the strong winds without loading the handle.

I think ultimately this design would fare better with the smaller, lower aspect ratio wing that I used to run in my previous airplanes. This was basically a Time Machine foam core. I may try the Avanti 60 core, as it is even more low aspect ratio. I simply feel the Saito 72 is a little too brutish for these high lift Impact wings, and I never had any problem with weight before, just balance. The high aspect wings seem to develop a lot of power on there own when the wind blows. Something the Saito really does not need.

As far as the current desing it would be a wicked muther with a piped motor...

I simply feel the Saito 72 is a little too
>brutish for these high lift Impact wings, and I never had
>any problem with weight before, just balance. The high
>aspect wings seem to develop a lot of power on there own
>when the wind blows. Something the Saito really does not
>need.

uhhhhhh....what???? Looking for less lift? Hummmmmm.....

Kind of goes against the whole fighting the burn down effect dont you think?

I mean we are looking to keep the load on the 4s motor out of the equation right? Remember...Eliminating the variables. So if you go back to a lower AR wing you are going to need more motor in places right where the 4s wants to sit down and take a breather.

If you have more power from your wing you will need less from your motor, or should I say you can use more steady power instead of a boosting type of power. It can run a more steady run all the way through. You can run flatter pitches and have more steady RPM all the way through. At least it seems that way.

Good example is what I have been experiencing between the two Bears. The little one has to have a more 4-2 pipe run(not a true 4-2 but a deffinent boost in the maneuver and on the exit type of run) The wing demands more pitch to get through the maneuvers. Move to the large Bear, more lift than needed. Wing loading is very similar on the two models. Pitches are flatter, by a good amount. Engine is setup to run real steady with minimal boosting, you know the real heavy 4s sound from high nitro setups. It is a run that more resembles that of the 4s engines. The wing allows this type of run.

The lower AR might make the 4s heatup even more.

However the 52 runs the other little bear really good. But you have to spin the crap out of it. Something it really seems to love..:) Anyway, what the heck to do I know???

The engine is to brutish? Could you go on that a little more? I am curious.

By the way did you read Bill Werwage's articel in Model Aviation? He was so far ahead of the curve. Long tail numbers in the early seventies, hummmmmm easy to see where so many models came from. 45% nitro!! Awesome! I see where my wing came from.

PSS I kicked ##### on my practice test..

I just think the small winged planes are better in the wind and turbulence. They do not find extra energy like the big winged planes.

I was just thinking out loud.

I was just considering the same design with the Zone wing.

People keep saying they(small wing planes) handle the junk better. Could it be that the power to plane ratio goes up? I understand that a higher AR grabs more turb but the maneuver performance is so superior it isnt even question.

A compliment to you. I have said it many times and will continue to do so until you prove me worng. I have never seen you fly better with any other plane than with the SP. I remember all the way back to Unassuming. I also remember the first time I saw SP in the air. After you landed I said "Be glad you crashed the Zone." and you said with smile "Yep" That plane has brought you so far compared to where you were just a few seasons ago, not mention all the hours hard work. My .02 cents, even though you didnt ask, dont venture to far from where you are right now.

>People keep saying they(small wing planes) handle the junk
>better. Could it be that the power to plane ratio goes up?
>I understand that a higher AR grabs more turb but the
>maneuver performance is so superior it isnt even question.
>
>A compliment to you. I have said it many times and will
>continue to do so until you prove me worng. I have never
>seen you fly better with any other plane than with the SP.
>I remember all the way back to Unassuming. I also remember
>the first time I saw SP in the air. After you landed I said
>"Be glad you crashed the Zone." and you said with smile
>"Yep" That plane has brought you so far compared to where
>you were just a few seasons ago, not mention all the hours
>hard work. My .02 cents, even though you didnt ask, dont
>venture to far from where you are right now.

I agree with all of the above. I certainly have a lot of high AR planes going into the future, since I plan to rebuild the SP after the Dr. J with a new fuse and tail.

I may get the Unassuming back out to test engines. I will fly it some and we will see just for kicks.

If the Saito 72 is too "brutish" under some conditions, and the wing needs to be moved forward for improved "Nats" corner, why not go back to the Saito 56??? That takes a couple of ounces off the nose, gives you the turn back and eliminates any chance of overpowering the model...

At least on my buddies TM 60, the .56 seems to give excellent power, and that with a stock Zinger prop on plain old 10/22 fuel. As developed as your setups for the 72 are, I imagine you could eke enough power out of the 56 to do very well.

ps. I may be forgetting some compelling reasons not to use the 56 from the article you wrote, but its not in front of me right now to check. The .56 seems like a good idea at this moment, just from your quick comments about the models qualities....

from the picture Mr. Hyde looks to have an AR of 5- ~1.1 chord by 5.5 span. Is that about right? Doesn't look to be a high aspect ratio. A Nobler is about 4.9(52in span, 550 squares)

>from the picture Mr. Hyde looks to have an AR of 5- ~1.1
>chord by 5.5 span. Is that about right? Doesn't look to be
>a high aspect ratio. A Nobler is about 4.9(52in span, 550
>squares)

62 /11 =5.63