You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • 100KM
    @ michel
    Its all about the air gap between rotor and stator, in an out runner the total air gap is larger. the air gap produces a large "voltage" drop .
  • Morli,
    wow, thank for taking the time to elaborate. I agree with every point you made. The main reason for my previous post was to be sure that people were not deterred from attempting to duplicate/replicate Wayne and the Tube Plane team's work in their own way and I hope that I did not come across as anything else. Which is another point you hit upon, how great it is that they have chosen to share the images with us as it has certainly inspired many people. Granted it would be difficult for most of us with out access to that kind of equipment to even come close to the achieving that level of fit, finish and economy of design.
    Can't wait to see it finished!
  • Hi Isobot,
    That is pretty good looking bird. I have taken the same route as you except I am not using standard glider wings but some thing stronger but with high lift capacity at slightly faster Vno. The glider wing I had did not take too well to not so high G stunt I tried to pull. So I am modifying 3 different ready made wings ( Piper Cub , Cessna agwagon, standard trainer wings) for dual tail boom for pusher config going to marry fuselage from different model. Hope to complete the fuselage in this decade. I found this great site with scale plans for free, though some one might find the site interesting and useful for scratch built model, Good luck with your build.

    PS : The link you sent is gr8 , wish I had seen this few month earlier
  • isobot,

    very cool but as I am new to this seeing these planes has my mind chunning and thinking overtime.

  • Hi Isobot,
    Let me start by saying I meant no disrespect to the model rocket shop tubes,materials & idea, I am sure they are much better than what i can/am contemplating to use( 2' long, 4" dia pvc pipe used in plumbing pipe with pusher nitro config), what I meant is it would be far easier and faster to roll such tube in work shop like that even if it might cost few dollars more for prototype than order it on-line and wait for the delivery, as I see some deadlines in this project and time is money for Prototype or proof of concept design(after looking at the customer/client list, product list etc of the company which owns this workshop) as in this case( i am guessing it loud) looks to me IMHO in close source project, person in charge will not mind few extra dollars but certainly mind any delay in delivery deadlines. there seems lot more miles to be covered before this beauty will be handed to the client.for evaluation ... Again , I am thinking loud and taking wild guess.
    I do fully agree and see your point about tubular fuselage in cases like strength, good availability in off shelf products, less resistance/drag to cross wind and simplicity in DIY projects, however I failed to see as to how volume economics in this tubular shape unless your payload is liquid or gaseous ( I do know that best shape arrangement for any given volume is a spear was what i learnt long time back),

    but I notice that most of successful UAV in production today use box fuselage more often then not and there has to be some good reason( IMHO) for they/UAV cost 100s thousand $ and few in range of Mil $ from aero companies who can afford very expensive R & D facilities). , in this case I was hoping to see a oval or semi circular cross sectional fuselage , so as to see less un-used volume inside fuselage. Almost nothing inside this fuselage( AP, batteries, other electronics etc will snug fit inside without wasting any space around it self inside a tube, so what will be next question, by using oval fuselage some if not all the wasted space can be and if consolidated( by stacking/optimization pay load objects arrangements) in front equals to moving the main payload back(assuming the forward section contains it) towards the CG point which in turn means we can put heavier payload( camera inside the nose dome) IMHO. or putting it another way for layman like me , using a simple eg. find a bucket and regular cardboard box of same volume , now try to find 10 common object found in any house and try to stack them first inside the bucket and then inside cardboard box, see which one could take/fit more objects( therefore less wasted volume, you see my point of saying volume economics of normal solid objects( payload in our case). I learnt that simplest of answers are most often the best too.
    Having said all that , I concur with you and others on usage of tubes ( my fuselages too. :))are mostly tubes for reasons below.
    1. tube off the self are simple, easy to find, play with different sizes, replaceable with other similar tubes depending on budget
    2. they take the abuse better most often.
    3. I don't have any setup/facility to roll or mold FG or FRP or composites let alone any CNC etc,
    4. I can afford wasted space inside fuselage at the cost of pain to mold/fabricate custom fuselage. or any thing :) which will cost time and money.
    I too did not think Craig was trying to minimize the design/engineering effort, I sure appreciate the rocket shop products idea , did i not say there are some very great minds in this forum who will figure out the design and idea,:) !!
    4. I appreciate the fact that some one( i am sure there are many more are here, it is just I am almost one of the late comer to this great forum) with a such a great/state of art( not a DIY)company facility( I get carried away with tools and workshops) choose to reveal a close source project (if for no other reason but to motivate UAV newbies like me) in a forum filled with guys who will figure out/duplicate the whole setup sooner or later. so I was cheering and hoping to see a possibly of little more complex fuselage design from some one who has means to do so. No pun or disrespect was/is intended towards any one or any idea. Thanks once again for sharing the second sets of photos, apologies for any typo. Good luck.
    Polly Pusher S400 foamie
    An E-bird with attitude!
  • Craig,
    I am using a modifid version of the polly pusher found here:

    the fuse can be made as large as you need or out of alternative materials (tubes)
    the beauty is the fact that the wings start out as walmart gliders ($3) and by adding spruce spars and nice trailing edges you get a really nice clark Y airfoil. I used carbon tubing for one of my wings, not sure how much of a difference it made. here's an example from rcgroups.

    Polly Pusher S400 foamie
    An E-bird with attitude!
  • Correct,Just trying to do the same .I have no shop never will . But I could build something LIKE this.Matter of fact I am going looking for a wing I like Thursday.I like the easy star drones but I do have a problem with all the expensive stuff hanging on the outside.A tube plane would solve that.
  • Moril,
    I concur on the title but I disagree on the "model rocket shop" statement on two grounds, first there are some very exotic materials/designs in the highpower rocketry shops and second, I don't think Craig was trying to minimize the design/engineering, just giving an example of how some of us without that type of facility might be able to produce something similar to their design. My take on the tube is that I like it, very simple in a less is more type of way. It has a very good strength/volume ratio and will allow for a modular payload capacity with quick change out due to the fact of the wing saddle/tail boom design ( with simplified CG optimization). all of this IMHO of course. Beautiful plane, can't wait to see it with the wing tips in place.
  • There seems to be little more tube in this one that I digged up some time back, had to read hard as to understand why does this thing fly , seems to be there is a potential here . Any way someone here might want to have a look at it. here is the link. BTW I don't know its payload capacity , it seems it can barely take off its own weight let alone with additional power systems and AP.

    The reason I am posting this link here is coz after seeing photos of wayne's model AC/sleek airframe , the heading/header of this topic seems not doing justice(IMHO) to his cool looking flying prototype just because bit of fuselage is tubular and cause some disrespect to hard work and thought/ideas put into it. I bet wayne used it( tubular fuselage) to keep the development or POC period short and would probably go for different looking/ better accommodating, usable volume conscious fuselage design later or there is better reason for it.With setup like that he surely doesn't source the fusalage from model rocket shop. Good luck Wayne and thanks once again for sharing photos of great setup like that. Hope you might throw in some video feed/ test flying video etc later or down the road once this one starts flying, But I will understand if you can't due the nature of project.Thanks
This reply was deleted.