Gliders

[mycrofte]

I have been wanting to try out a glider but wasn't sure about them. I originally wanted the Estes SR-X but can't find one. So, the closest thing I can is a Estes X Prize Cosmos Mariner.

What little I could find on it was that they tend to loop into the ground rather than lift up and fly. Any one here know more about them?

[spacecenturion]

I've heard the same thing about it. I've wanted to get one as it is a nice looking bird, but I dont want to spend a lot of money on something that will either crash quickly, or never be flown. There was a youtube vid of a guy reviewing it.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGHNbDaGS8s

"worst rocket ever" he claims....

Also just found a slow-mo crash of one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q7PYGJ_3cI&feature=related

I hear the Dr. Zooch shuttle is a good one, or the Semroc Orbital Transport.

[Bob Kaplow]

Do you want to build a GLIDER, or do you want to build a sport rocket that uses glide recovery? I wouldn't consider any of the kits mentioned so far in this thread to be GLIDERS. They are more like "Falling with Style".

Try one of the Edmonds kits, the Quest Flat Cat or Q-E-Z, or something like that. Or go to the NAR web site, and order some glider plans from NARTS or download this one for free:

http://www.nar.org/competition/plans/pdf/rockyMtCanary2.pdf

[motley16]

I have been wanting to try out a glider but wasn't sure about them. I originally wanted the Estes SR-X but can't find one. So, the closest thing I can is a Estes X Prize Cosmos Mariner.

What little I could find on it was that they tend to loop into the ground rather than lift up and fly. Any one here know more about them?
The cosmos mariner is to heavy does not glide well and is an overall disapointment. But it is a fun build and looks great as a show kit. The estes orbital transport has it all great looking show kit fun build and great flyer. The glider stays in the air for a long time floats to the ground slowly soft touch downs a favorite of mine. The quest flat cat is a blst to build not a "show" kit to me but gives a nice long glide to the ground. If you want all the fun in a single kit my money is on the orbital transport. Other options are out there but most dont seem to have the qualities i like or want. :) :)

[Shreadvector]

What Bob said is correct. The average American consumer selects a glider-looking rocket based on it's "coolness" and then becomes a boost-glider hater after it crashes or fails to glide.

The solution to that is to find a good boost glider and learn how to trim it to glide and then fly it. Then do the same with a few more.

See attachement and note that the captions for 2 of the glider types are reversed (extensible rogallo and moveable canard).

The Estes eagle is not bad but eventually the tail can warp. If that happens, it can easily be replaced with a balsa tail - just make a pattern before you damage it.

If anyone wants an Estes Eagle plus one of my "Shadowcat with Parasite Glider" kits I can sell you both for $25 plus the shipping cost (which I will guess in just under $10).

http://www.geocities.com/fredeshecter/prdctinf.pdf

http://www.ehobbies.com/est2186.html

[Jeff Walther]

I really liked the Estes Hummingbird. The main problem with building one of those is the lack of die-cut card stock parts for the two booms. But one might be able to glue a couple sheets of 110 together and cut them out of that or something.

[mycrofte]

Yeah, what I am looking for is a single rocket with glide recovery. Well, 'was' looking for until I read the replies. I wanted to avoid the two part rocket/gliders since it can be hard enough tracking one return, let alone two. But if they fly that badly, I may as well get a plastic model for display...

[Mikus]

Yeah, what I am looking for is a single rocket with glide recovery. Well, 'was' looking for until I read the replies. I wanted to avoid the two part rocket/gliders since it can be hard enough tracking one return, let alone two. But if they fly that badly, I may as well get a plastic model for display...

Aye. The problem I've found with single-body flyers is none of them go high enough to give a really good flight. My "foam brick of death" space shuttle on a pefectly straight flight will only give about 10 seconds of "glide" time max. And it pops the engine pod so there's 2 pieces to track anyway. So you might as well go for the 2 piece anyway. ;)

Finally, look at this and tell me you don't want one.... :D

Fake Wulf (http://www.rocketreviews.com/reviews/all/rokit_fake_wulf.shtml)

[mycrofte]

YEAH! That was cooler than shit! Now, if they would only make a one piece model like that...

[Mikus]

YEAH! That was cooler than shit! Now, if they would only make a one piece model like that...

Hmm, I have an idea of old design you might like. Let me go dig a bit. :cool:

In the words of Ah-nuld, "Ah'll beeee bach!"

[georgegassaway]

For a first-time sport glider, I HIGHLY recommend the Edmonds CiCi Boost Glider.

Laser-cut parts, super-easy to build, flies pretty nice. And it has no pop-pod, it uses engine ejection, so the only part you have to watch and find is the glider.

http://www.asp-rocketry.com/store/category.cfm?Category=190

BMS also carries it, as do some other dealers, including hobbylinc (do a google search for "Edmonds Glider".

Even I have one and have flown it a pretty good bit. Which might be surprising to those who know how many of my own glider designs I have done. A few pics of it:

http://birminghamrocketboys.com/BRBGallery/main.php?g2_itemId=124959

http://birminghamrocketboys.com/BRBGallery/main.php?g2_itemId=125072

http://birminghamrocketboys.com/BRBGallery/main.php?g2_itemId=125077

- George Gassaway

[mycrofte]

Well, it's not much to look at but fits the bill. One rocket that glides instead of a rocket and glider. The Ecee is more of what I'm looking for!

[mycrofte]

Well, I did the dirty deed and ordered 2 types from ASP. I went with the Tinee and the Ecee. One type of C engine was "out of stock". So, I figured they may as well take the same engine. Makes it worth ordering engines online since there aren't any 'A' engines locally.

[Mikus]

Hmm, I have an idea of old design you might like. Let me go dig a bit. :cool:

In the words of Ah-nuld, "Ah'll beeee bach!"

Mmm I was thinking of the old Mach-10 design but it looks like it pops something off too. :(

Mach-10 @ JimZ (http://www.spacemodeling.org/JimZ/centuri/ka-4.pdf)

[o1d_dude]

George, I'm noticing the rocket tubes on your Edmonds gliders are vented.

Do the kits come this way or is that a "user mod"?

[shockwaveriderz]

my overall skill level is poor at best but I always liked the flatcat or the old cmr manta....


terry dean

[Shreadvector]

MANTA!!!!!!!


:D

http://www.oldrocketplans.com/cmr/cmrBG1a/cmrBG1a.htm



my overall skill level is poor at best but I always liked the flatcat or the old cmr manta....


terry dean

[mycrofte]

I was looking at that Manta link. Now that would be cool if I could make it a one piece like the Edmonds I ordered.

[Bob H]

The Semroc Hawk fits your description of a one piece glider.

http://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/RocketKits.asp?SKU=KV-65

[mycrofte]

Biggest problem I have with most of them is that they look like an old Guillows yard flyer. Which is why I was looking into a lifting body type. It's just my luck, the cool ones don't fly so well...

[georgegassaway]

George, I'm noticing the rocket tubes on your Edmonds gliders are vented.

Do the kits come this way or is that a "user mod"?
The kits have that, pre-punched. It makes sense, reduces the "hard kick" of the motor so there is less chance of the pod ripping off - I have to figure that Rob may have had such a problem before and that is a great fix. A fix worthy of doing with other birds, like Falcons and such.

Since "mycrofte" wanted a glider that did not have a pod to chase down, that is why I did not suggest other kits or plans.

BTW - go EASY on those C engines! For the CiCi, make your first flights on an A engine. The bird might require a little trimming. On one of the pics I posted, you might notice a little blob of clay on the inside root of the left tip rudder. Here is the link again for that pic:

http://birminghamrocketboys.com/BRB...2_itemId=125072

That was because the model had turned too tight to the right and had been a bit nose-heavy. So, it needed some tailweight, and to fix the turn rather than bend a rudder I just put that "tailweight" on the left tip, since with that canard design the wingtips are at the tail anyway.

Then once you have it trimmed, you still need to be careful on going up to larger engines. Because it is NOT a brick, with a B and a bit of wind on a not-so-big field, you could possibly lose it. On a C, you better not fly it on a windy day or you may lose it. I have not flown mine with more than a B. The one time a club member flew his on a C, at our old larger site we used to have, almost lost it, and it was not too windy. Flew for 2.5 minutes or so, and I do not think there was a thermal helping it.

Also note I used a magic marker to give it a bright color. Makes it easier to find when it lands. Especially when bare balsa does not stand out against dry grass or yellow weeds. This does not mean I recommend using PAINT, because paint adds weight, and also can cause the balsa to warp over time. Magic Markers are plenty fine. Of course this tip applies to any of the gliders, not just the CiCi (as does the tip about not flying with maximum engine power unless you are pretty sure you won't lose it for the given wind and field size).

- George Gassaway

[mycrofte]

Well, thanks for the advice. That was the whole idea of asking about them here first. I'm about the same with balsa planes as I am rockets. It is something I 'used' to do a lot of but haven't for years. So, flight testing before launching I can do.

[PaulK]

Biggest problem I have with most of them is that they look like an old Guillows yard flyer. Which is why I was looking into a lifting body type. It's just my luck, the cool ones don't fly so well...I think this one is cool looking, and while it won't win contests, it is easy to build, and can give very nice glides:

Squirrel Works Red Baron (http://www.squirrel-works.com/glider.html)

[blackshire]

The Semroc Hawk fits your description of a one piece glider.

http://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/RocketKits.asp?SKU=KV-65

Indeed--as do the Starlight Model Rockets Sparrow (see: www.rocketreviews.com/reviews/all/sl_sparrow.shtml ) and Zoomie (see: www.rocketreviews.com/reviews/all/oop_hov_zoomie.shtml ). (The Zoomie was originally developed by Holverson Designs, and Starlight Model Rockets is gearing up to produce Zoomie kits [the original balsa-winged version] this summer.)

[mycrofte]

OK, I got my Tinee done and ready to fly! I've already test tossed it in the back yard. It actually flies better than I expected. Now I'm just waiting for the engines to come in the mail...

http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/uu15/Mycrofte/Current%20Build/Tinee.jpg

[mycrofte]

I just got done with a Sparrow. It's pretty cool too! I sprayed it yellow to be easy to see, she said "YUCK".

So, now I have to spend the day sanding back down...

[georgegassaway]

I just got done with a Sparrow. It's pretty cool too! I sprayed it yellow to be easy to see, she said "YUCK".

So, now I have to spend the day sanding back down...
So, are you going to paint it another color.... and THEN show it to your wife, or do you not have enough sandpaper stocked up if she does not like that one either? :)

Actually for anyone getting into RBG's, paint is not your friend. Magic markers are, for a color that is visible on the air and for on the ground. The paint adds weight, which makes them glide more poorly. For some, the paint may be worth it, like the old Estes SkyDart (see above left on the YORF banner), but for others it just makes the trimming more difficult and the flight performance worse. I am not really talking contest-type models here either, where of course performance is crucial. I am talking about getting more enjoyment out of a sport flying model that does fly pretty decently, and is not as potentially difficult to adjust it to fly decently.

- George Gassaway

[mycrofte]

Well, I'm not painting them real heavy. You can't see it in the detail but it's just a quick primer (mostly) on my Tinee above. And, I make sure they fly ok out in the yard.

On my Ecee, I just did a light spray of flat black.http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/uu15/Mycrofte/Current%20Build/Ecee_Build_03.jpg

It seems to glide pretty well so far!

[o1d_dude]

One thing I might suggest is if you're going to paint your gliders, paint them so they will stand out on the ground, ie. you want to be able to easily spot them.

While camo is stylish these days it will make your bird invisible in the tall grass, etc.

I dust the wingtips of my birds with fluorescent pink or similar.

[mycrofte]

OK, after the Edmonds Tinee's first launch I have another question. What can I do about it spiraling into the ground on launch?

I had lightly weighed down the left side with push pins so it wouldn't change the straight wings. When I test fly it, it does not spiral like that. But, it launched just like the Cosmo Mariner video and spiraled into the ground nose first.

The only thing I could think of would be to put a second launch lug on the right side to even out the air flow during powered flight...

[Mark II]

The Semroc Hawk fits your description of a one piece glider.

http://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/RocketKits.asp?SKU=KV-65
I was going to recommend that one, too.

MarkII

[Mark II]

OK, after the Edmonds Tinee's first launch I have another question. What can I do about it spiraling into the ground on launch?

I had lightly weighed down the left side with push pins so it wouldn't change the straight wings. When I test fly it, it does not spiral like that. But, it launched just like the Cosmo Mariner video and spiraled into the ground nose first.

The only thing I could think of would be to put a second launch lug on the right side to even out the air flow during powered flight...
Gliders perform differently under powered boost than they do during the unpowered glide. Your hand tosses only tested it for the latter. There is no real way to test the glider's performance in the powered boost phase except to launch it. Does it loop down forward or backwards? If it does it going forwards (nose dives into the ground), then it might be too heavy.

The paint...the paint...

... as others have said, they are REALLY sensitive to weight.

If it loops into the ground backwards off the launcher (back-flips), then there might be too much incidence in the rear stabilizer (but if you built it according to Rob's instructions, then that shouldn't happen). I'm still trying to de-bug this problem with my gliders, too.

MarkII

[georgegassaway]

OK, after the Edmonds Tinee's first launch I have another question. What can I do about it spiraling into the ground on launch?

I had lightly weighed down the left side with push pins so it wouldn't change the straight wings. When I test fly it, it does not spiral like that. But, it launched just like the Cosmo Mariner video and spiraled into the ground nose first.

The only thing I could think of would be to put a second launch lug on the right side to even out the air flow during powered flight...
The hand throws tend to be so short in duration that they often do not show you a bad trim that will eventually end up as a spiral into the ground.

Key thing #1 in solving it - WHICH DIRECTION????? Did it spiral left, or spiral right?

When I first was getting into gliders, it took me some time to realize how important it was to notice which direction it turned when it spiraled badly, so if you do not know.... most if not all of us glider fliers have been there... not noticed that. So if you do not know, that makes it harder to work out the solution, but I am going to “guess” it spiraled to the left.

You say you added weights to the left side so it would not "change the straight wings". Huh? If you did that to MAKE it turn, and it spiraled to the left, you caused it to spiral. If you do not remember which way it spiraled, this is why I “guess” it spiraled left.

Until you get to be pretty decent trimming gliders, I would not suggest TRYING to make it turn in any specific direction. Because when you build a glider it will almost always have some gradual turn in one direction or the other, what if yours was already going to turn left a bit without spiraling? That would have taken a gradual left and made it spiral in. With my CiCi, it spiraled the first time I flew it. Spiraled to the right. I added weight to the left wingtip, and also added some tailweight (more later). It still glides to the right, but it is a nice wide right turn, enough to help make sure it does not just go glide straight off.

Launch lugs would have nothing to do it anything, unless you glued a launch lug out on the middle of a wing or something else “out there”, which I figure you did not do.

It also could be that one wing has more paint on one side than the other.

Or it could be that the wing has a slight warp to it. Sight straight down the boom, and adjust the elevation until you see the wing root dead-on, and then try to see if one wingtip is as a different angle than the other wingtip. Since this is a flat wing, the wing ought to look exactly the same angle by eye, both tips should look exactly the same angle. Or, since the wing indeed is flat, just lay it on a tabletop, press the right wingtip onto the table, then look at the left wingtip and see if it is not perfectly parallel to the tabletop.

If he wing is warped, you will either have to do something to adjust the warp, or make some other adjustment to the truing trim (like weight on one wingtip to oppose the banking turn caused by a warp, or warping one of the rudders in the other direction).

For trying to detect a tendency to spiral, and adjust trim so it will not, I like to do this:

Bank the model to the left a bit and throw it level (in pitch), and see if it seems like the left turn will increase, stay about the same, or decrease. Then bank it the same amount to the right and throw it the same in pitch, and see if the right turn gets worse, stays the same, or decreases. If it decreases both times, it should be fine. If it tends to hold either the left turn or the right turn, then it might tend to spiral in that direction. If it increases the turn, it is almost certainly going to spiral in that direction.

Another thing. Try adding a bit of weight to the tail, and do some throws. Add weight until you are SURE it is stalling for real, and not just stalling due to the throw, then remove a bit of the weight and keep throwing and adjusting until you are pretty sure it is more on the verge of a stall then being on the verge of “too fast”. Now you might wonder what does the pitch trim have to do with a spiral turn. Well, a trim for turning a little that works fine at low speed can become an ever-tightening spiral turn at a higher speed.

I say add weight to the tail since with the fixed engine pods, this kind of model tend to be a little bit nose-heavy. Well, mine was anyway, as I did not paint it, with yours perhaps the paint on the wings and tail surfaces on the back make it a bit more heavy in the back than mine (also, paint tends to make wings warp, though usually over a period of time and not days)

BTW - a Glider Technical Report written by Tom Beach, on the Estes Educator Website:

http://www.esteseducator.com/Pdf_files/2266.pdf

A lot of interesting info there, the most relevant for you at the moment is part IX, “Flying Boost Gliders”, near the end of page 12.

- George Gassaway

[mycrofte]

Yeah, it did a large, flat spiral to the left. I would say about 8 - 10 foot diameter loop. Like it was trying to fly that way. And it went out, roughly, 60 feet away from the launcher. So, it did about 3 complete loops.

I had considered it being one of the vertical stabilizers not being glued on perfectly straight and acting like a rudder. Even after cleaning off the mud, I could throw it into the wind and it would glide straight about 25 feet and land perfectly flat.

Then again, there is no guarantee I got the engine tube on 100% straight. Even though I put a pencil line on it and treated the pylon like a fin for alignment.

This was on a 1/2A3-2T just as suggested.

[mycrofte]

After going through that report on gliders, it would seem to be a CG problem. From what it said, glider rockets, being a little of both do neither very well. Which makes the balance point even more critical.

So, I'll play with some nose weights and see. If this weather clears up enough to launch before June...

[georgegassaway]

So, I'll play with some nose weights and see. If this weather clears up enough to launch before June...
Considering that it spiraled in, are you sure you need nose weight, and not tail-weight?

And still, there had to be something that made it turn tightly, which needs to be fixed. Either a wing warp, or one tip heavier than the other. On "flat-wing" gliders like these, with no dihedral, they rely on the leading edge sweepback for "dihedral effect". But that sweepback dihedral effect is not very much compared to real dihedral.

Is there some very steep hillside you could go to to toss the glider straight ahead and see if it would start to develop into a spiral, or at least what direction it turns so you know which direction you have to adjust is BACK from? If it turns left, then you will have to do something to "tweak" it right to widen that left turn. As I said before, also bank it slightly left, and see, then slightly right, and see which one of those either never tries to straighten up, or best indicator of all of a spiral, if one of those directions becomes a tighter turn.

You could also try tossing it from the second floor of a building, but in that case do not do the bank test, only straight, as a bad spiral problem might cause the glider to circle back into the building (and do not even think of trying it with any wind, as the airflow around a building is very turbulent). Ah, this takes me back to some of my early boost glider days, with a back porch about 6-7 feet above the ground, a decent sized back yard, and some pretty calm late afternoons.......

- George Gassaway

[mycrofte]

From what it said about front engine type, the weight needs to go more forward.

During the boost phase, according to the picture, the CG still needs to be on the rocket part. Right now, with an engine installed, the CG is mid fuselage. Which it says is bad.

[Mikus]

BTW - a Glider Technical Report written by Tom Beach, on the Estes Educator Website:

http://www.esteseducator.com/Pdf_files/2266.pdf

A lot of interesting info there, the most relevant for you at the moment is part IX, “Flying Boost Gliders”, near the end of page 12.

- George Gassaway


Thanks George, that was some good stuff. :)

[mycrofte]

Yeah, that's the same one I've been reading over and over to see if I missed something. Still not sure though. It glides fine when I toss it like the report says. I'm still looking into CG for now.

[georgegassaway]

From what it said about front engine type, the weight needs to go more forward.

During the boost phase, according to the picture, the CG still needs to be on the rocket part. Right now, with an engine installed, the CG is mid fuselage. Which it says is bad.
[after-post edit note: I re-read an earlier message and realized he may not have been attacking a glide spiral but a boost spiral. So I posted another reply right after this one. I am leaving this original message intact below]

The Tinee is a Canard design. With the engine in it, it is VERY nose heavy to begin with. Even if the glide CG is "mid fuselage', it is VERY far in front of the main wing (in back).

Since the engine ejects out if you add any weight to the nose to try to affect the boost, you are ruining the glide trim terribly.

So tell me again, what is it you are actually trying to fix? If it is a boost straightness issue, you will never fix that on an ejecting engine B/G by adding noseweight, at least not unless the glider is also stalling, but this one is spiraling in so the last thing you want to do is add noseweight. If this was a POP-POD model, then yes, a heavier pod would help, and you get rid of the pod so it has no affect on the glide. But you did not want a pop-pod model, and the nature of ejecting front-engine models like this is they do not tend to boost arrow-straight.

But I thought what you were trying to fix was the spiraling-in glide?????????

- George Gassaway

[georgegassaway]

I re-read this:Yeah, it did a large, flat spiral to the left. I would say about 8 - 10 foot diameter loop. Like it was trying to fly that way. And it went out, roughly, 60 feet away from the launcher. So, it did about 3 complete loops.
OK, so it seems this was not a "glide spiral" as your earlier message indicated. Seems like you are talking about the boost, not the glide.

So, describe this in more detail what happened from liftoff. At launch the model pitched up? Pitched down? Did not pitch any at launch (but maybe did later?)
By "spiral" do you mean a barrel-roll type of boost, where the model was rolling as it tried to pitch?

Need better info on what you mean by "loop". To me, a glider looping is one that is pitching nose-up (or nose down), but I cannot imagine the Tinee would be capable of nose-up 10 foot "loops" in pitch. I am wondering if you mean that the diameter of a barrel-roll type upward spiral was about 10 feet diameter.

And by went out about 60 feet from the launcher, what does that mean? It weathercocked or pitched over, end was doing what at 60 feet away from the launcher? Was it 100 feet UP and 60 feet horizontal, 30 feet up and 60 feet horizontal, or what? Some of that would be normal, some would be extreme.

And it would ALSO depend greatly on what direction the wind was coming from when it happened, and how strong the wind was.

- George Gassaway

[mycrofte]

OK, it's not easy to describe, but I'll try.

The spiral was in the upright position as if it were still on the launch pad. Just like a normal glide path but standing up and going away from me (roughly 60 feet). All this while the engine was burning. So, I could see the Tinee from a 'top' view the whole time. As if it had a pre-set hard left rudder at take off.

If you remember your old TV shows. It was like looking into the Time Tunnel...

There isn't much in the Tech Report on that. Most of it is for glide turning or up and down pitch while in boost mode. I'm thinking it was like a regular rocket that is not properly balanced on CG. I noticed in RockSim my own designs tend to tumble a lot because of that.

[Kidagain]

My question involves the Orbital Transport. I think the glider elevons are pulling the whole stack across the sky. It leaves the pad and heads upside down and slowly cork skews to the right in slight incline about 400 to 600 feet at most. Once the coast phase starts is stabilizes. I don’t know if it’s CG. I rebuilt the glider from scratch per the directions. It flies perfect. I was thinking of launching the booster by itself and see what happens. I used a C6-3 last week and a C6-5 this week. I am lucky I got the whole thing back in one piece today. :confused:

Here is the YouTube Link to see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AlT43JeEYs

[mycrofte]

Best I can figure, CG was my problem. Haven't been able to launch in a while to find out.

Have you tried balancing them side by side to find out if there is a difference?