Mig-35 Update. This one is the real deal!!

I wanted to update you on the latest skunkworks prototype from RTMS.  Scott and I have been working really hard and building like crazy to finalize this plane.  I took Scott's latest mods, drawings (see his prior posts for details) and plugged them into my drawing program and put some Roll Tide mojo on his mods.  Our plane has slowly morphed from a Mig-29 to the Mig-35.  So I took some designer liberties with Scott's mods and further morphed our hybrid Mig-29 the final step.  I also tweaked the RCP Mig-29v4 here there as I saw needed for fit.

This latest iteration clearly deserves to christened the Mig-35 NAMC.  I have used this naming on previous planes but this plane is truly worthy.   It is the culmination of 7 months of thinking, designing, testing and validating between Scott and I.  The key has been are ability to reproduce flight results on various mods, good or bad.  No fluff here, just hundreds of test flights with quantitative flight data.  Hence our creed:

Puto, Consilium, Test et Convalidandum

Here is the real deal and inspiration of our latest design:

Here is the Mig-29M2 (renamed Mig-35) plans I used as a template in adding the final scale mods:

I'll go over some of the design major changes.  The tail section is where you can see the biggest differences.  The vert stabs now extend all the way to the KFs for a scale appearance.  I also angled the back bottom of the back of the side plate to give a more streamlined scale look.  There still should be plenty of clearance for the elevons at landing.  I am not expecting a change in high alpha flight with loss of surface area of the side plates which act as bottom side vert stabs.  This will be tested of course by Scott and I both.  I had hoped to have this plane finished today, but I ran out of FoamTac, carbon, motors....  Here is a picture of it dry fitted for build verification:

When fitting the canopy, I found that the bottom were it meets the fuselage had a tendency to get moved in creating a coke bottle look--I don't like that look.  Scott and I have also shortened and given the nose a less pointy appearance.   When forming the nose, I start by taping the top to the sides front back to front and tack weld in-between the tape.  I then fill the gaps with strips for strength.  Here is the new nose and the piece I designed to fit insure the canopy doesn't get narrowed:

Here is a picture of the new NAMCv4 nose vs the RCP Mig-29v4:

Here is a picture of the new NAMCv4 nose vs the NAMCv3:

Here are some views, of the tail where I deKardashianed it even further from our last design:

For those of you that have read of my quest for straight line knife edge flight, you may noticed I went with simple full length rudders on this latest build.  Lately, I been having more fun with stall maneuvers which are much easier since my polar moment epiphany (Scott inspired this with his moving the motor forward) and tightening up the center of mass.

I  changed to bottom mounted motor mount reinforcements.  I glue the wing plate to the fuselage.  Then I glue the motor mount to the wing plate only.  I then lift the bottom fuselage piece and glue in the motor reinforcements.  Note: the top photo is a dry fit demonstration of how they fit.  Additionally, these reinforcements make it easier to give the tapered appearance that I like:

The last major change I made was to extend the bottom side LERX along the engine nacelle. This really is an appearance mod and OCD me going crazy with the drawing software.  Here is picture of the extended KF:

Obviously you can tell the weather hasn't been good for me to log in a lot flights.  I've blogged, been drawing and designing modifications, and building.  So no recent crashes and I now have a Mig squadron.  I am running out of parts, that slow boat from China needs to hurry up!  From left to right, Mig-29v4, Mig-35v2 (built for speed with smaller LERX and wing), Mig-35 NAMCv3, and the latest Mig-35 NAMCv4:

Many thanks to my Canuck buddy and fellow aviator veteran Scott for being such a great partner!   I also want to thank Dave Powers and Scott Lott from for allowing us to work on the Mig-29, truly what I believe is the ultimate foamie park jet ever designed.  If you haven't already, visit http://www.rcpowers.com/community/pages/home/ and buy the v4 package.  Stay tuned for more about the RCP Mig-35 NAMC.

Stephan

Mig-35 NAMCv4 Preview

Now that I have figured out my vector drawing software, the modifications are limitless!

After maidening the v3 today, I went straight to Staples to print out the v4.  I'll detail the mods later, but I wanted to post the new vertical stabilizers. I gave them a scale profile and trimmed down the bottom edge of the side plate.  Bonus, the fit was perfect.

The quest continues for the ultimate Mig!

Stephan

Mig-35 NAMCv3 Maiden and Flight report

Nothing like the anticipation of tossing a new plane in the air and hoping for the best.
I have a spreadsheet in which for all my planes I have entered servo travel, dual rates, control surface throw, and even which hole the control rods go in the servo and control horns.  This really helps control the anxiety and preventing thumbing when into the ground from too much throw.

Back to the Mig-35.  Wow.  A brief flight report.  All of the changes had positive benefits in the full flight envelope.  In the past, some of my changes (symmetric foil, downsized LERX and wing for example) benefited only one part of the envelope.

The biggest and most beneficial change on this plane is the lower polar moment of inertia as a result of moving the motor forward an inch.  Bringing the tail plate closer to the wing trailing edge also improved rotation.  With a lower polar moment, I found the plane was easier to rotate in pitch and yaw.  Rudder stall turns were smoother and easier to accomplish.  The plane was also very crisp in the pitch axis.  Perhaps the best way to describe it is that the time from stick input to attitude change in the plane was shorter, i.e. more responsive.

Another maneuver that I have been working on is the climb to a stall and then into a tail slide.  This is easier to accomplish with a tail heavy plane, but not worth the detrimental effect to the rest of the flight envelope--in my opinion.  With this plane I was able to do a couple of slides with much less effort.

I am not a hovering kind of flyer (I prefer to do a prolonged stall and hang it there briefly),  but for a plane to hover it must be well balanced.  Kiko12 on the RCP forum has mastered hovering with a plane of his design.  Dave Powers and I talked last night about plane balance.  Until I had my "polar moment epiphany" after reading Scott's flight report on the Mig-35, I had not given it much thought outside of EPPE.  When I've been revisiting polar moment and its effect, I have been tunneled visioned.  I was addressing ESC and battery placement in the horizontal plane.  Dave was telling me how kiko12 balances his planes in the vertical plane as well.  Dave has been experimenting with platforms to elevate the battery in the fuselage.  The battery bay in the Mig is below the wing plate.  Thinking back on it, the battery in my pattern plane was mounted  even with the center of the wing.

As you guessed, RTMS skunkworks has a new mission.  I am going to optimize battery and ESC positioning both in the horizontal and vertical axes and see how this affects all aspects of the flight envelope.  Goal 1 is shortest possible distance from the front of the battery to the motor mount.  Goal 2 is center the battery with the wing plate.

Stephan

See comment below about this picture

RTMS "Roll Tide Mig Shop" Mig-35 NAMCv3 Build is Complete

Down here at the RTMS I have been watching enviously Scott's flight reports on the latest 'n greatest NAMC evolution of the RCP Mig-29v4.  My build is complete, now I'm waiting on the weather to cooperate.  To summarize the modifications:

1. Motor mount moved 1 inch forward to decrease the polar moment of inertia
2. Trailing edge of wing straightened at root to look more like the Mig-35
3. Side plate shortened 1 inch to bring horizontal stabilizer closer to wing trailing edge
4. Fuselage nose cone shortened to make appearance less "pointy"
5. Inboard vertical rudders in my quest for straight line knife edge flight
6. Downsized elevons to decrease TVAWT and EPPE
7. Shortened ailerons to decrease wing tip stalls

What is that paint scheme?  Well that's what I end up with when I have a bunch of half empty spray paint cans.  Next build will be a base coat of spray paint with a camouflage scheme topcoat.  Acrylic paint is water based like the glue I use for glassing, so the spray paint makes for a nice barrier and doesn't dissolve the glue.

Build & Setup:
1. Carbon 4mm wing main and 3mm leading edges
2. Glassed hinges, vert stabs, side plates, tail plate, elevons and all leading edges
3. TowerPro carbon 9g servos on rudders and ailerons
4. Hitech 82MG servos for the elevons (I have a stock pile of these from when I thought these were necessary, Scott has shown plastic gear servos are fine)
5. Dealmax 2700 motor with Turnigy Plush 40 amp ESC
6. Spoilerons, Flaperons, Rudder brakes, and my favorite mix-ailerons off for high alpha, take off and landing, and high speed grass mowing flybys
7.  16 5/8 oz/471 gms dry and 23 1/4/662 with 2200 battery

Here she is:

Here is a nose to nose comparison:

Here is top view to see the differences in lengths overall and side plate, and motor mount. The plane on the right is stock build Mig-29v4:

The camo Mig-35 NAMCv2 has downsized LERX and wing leading edges which are more scale:

Maiden and flight report to follow as soon as wind and weather breaks.

Stephan

Some thoughts about flying in cooler weather

Hi everyone -

Frost on the field, temperature -2 C/28 F...check

Two Russian park jets ready to rip up the skies...check

Fire lit in the clubhouse wood stove so pilot can get warm...check

So you might be wondering why someone would be crazy enough to fly when the temperature is below freezing... :/?  Well, sometimes I ask myself that, but this time of year where I live it can be some of the best flying weather we have as the winds are calm and the nice cool, dense air helps give good lift and great air for the prop to bite into.

Like very hot weather that some folks are experiencing in the southern hemisphere now and which I wrote a few thoughts on here http://migsrus.blogspot.ca/2014/07/motoresc-performance-in-hot-weather.html , colder weather can also present it's challenges to park jet flying.  I have found that when temperatures are between 5 C/40 F and 25 C/77 F, I don't worry too much about things getting too cool or too hot, but once the temperatures get outside that range, experience has taught me to adjust my flying accordingly.

Now cooler weather flying is probably a bit more of a challenge as not only does the plane have to be treated with care, but the pilot is normally affected more by cold than heat as well... :/

Obviously we don't need to worry too much about ESCs or motors getting too warm, but batteries are another story in my experience.  What I have found is that as the temperature drops below 5C/40F, batteries tend to discharge a little faster and if they are a bit older can have a tendency to discharge more unevenly.  My personal rule of thumb is to not run my batteries down below 3.7 volts per cell.  So to be on the safe side, I shorten my flight times by about 30 seconds to help extend the life of my batteries.

I also try to keep my batteries warm by keeping them in my pocket inside my coat until I am ready to use them or if I have a bunch, I leave them in the little clubhouse where they can stay warmer after I get the fire lit in the wood stove.  Then when I expend them, I also keep them warm so that they don't get too cold as I am continuing to fly, again I am lucky to have a warm clubhouse in which to leave them.  Then when I get them home, I ensure they have warmed up to about room temperature before I put them on the charger.  By following these rules of thumb, I have had good experience now going into my third winter of flying.

Another area to keep an eye on is servos.  I store my planes in the garage, so they are "cold soaked" when I put them in my car and don't get warmed up much on the short drive to the field.  Anytime I have ever stripped a nylon gear servo, it has been cold and I have been too aggressive too soon.  I find that by taking it a bit easy during the first part of the first flight with a plane allows some current to run though the servo and get things warmed up and worked in so that gears, etc are not so brittle and less likely to break/strip.

I think it is also a good idea to give the plane a quick inspection as well, especially if it has been stored in the cold for awhile to ensure all the glue joints are good.  I have found that Foam Tac is a bit more resilient to cold than hot glue.  Sometimes hot glue will pull away from the foam as it gets really cold (ask me how I know this... :/), so it is a good idea just to check all the important joints are still in good shape before flying.  

So what about the pilot?  Well obviously dressing for conditions is important, I find that with all the standing around while flying, my feet can be most susceptible to get cold, so I have good winter boots with thick duffle sock liners that keep my feet toasty.

Hands (ie thumbs) are another story, I guess some of it depends on a person's tolerance to cold and the conditions.  Fortunately when I was flying yesterday, the sun was out and that helped keep my hands warm enough that I had pretty good dexterity for my flights, and then I just put gloves on in between to keep my hands warm. 

 There are lots of options.  I have seen other guys use one of these radio muffs at my field, but since we hand launch our park jets, it might be tough to get your hand back in there quickly enough.  Or even tougher to find someone to come stand in the cold and launch your planes for you... :/

I am a "thumb" flier as opposed to being a "pinch" flier, so having good feel between my thumb and the end of the transmitter sticks is important to me.  I have found using different sticks on my radio has been helpful in the past although the ones I use now have pretty good "sharp" points on the top, so I continue to get good feel even as my thumbs get a little cold. http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__23762__Alloy_Anti_Slip_TX_Control_Sticks_Short_Futaba_TX_Red_.html

I have also used these big "Turbo Thumb" http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__12996__TurboThumbs_Super_Big_Futaba_Rocker_1pair_Red.html sticks in cold weather with good success, but don't find them quite as precise a feel as the ones above, but then they have "Turbo" in the name, so they do have that going for them... ;)

In conditions when the sun isn't out and my hands do get cold a little faster, I have flown using military issue flying gloves that I was lucky enough to be able to keep after I retired from the Air Force.

These gloves fit pretty snug and still allow me decent dexterity.  I have also seen folks with cheap wool gloves cut just an inch off the end of the thumb and index finger of the glove so they can still have good dexterity to fly and work switches with bare thumb and finger tip.  I have also seen folks use the glove/mitten combo below, that way you can just flip the mitten part back over your fingers and thumbs between flights to warm them back up.

Of course I am pretty blessed to be able to go into a nice warm clubhouse and warm up every few flights or so if I need to.  Many folks in the northern hemisphere are finished flying (other than those who can fly something indoors) for the year right now and focusing on building, but like I said if you can, it is normally a great time to get out and sneak in a few flights if you take care of your gear and yourself... :)  I always feel a bit more motivated to build something after I have been out on a cool, crisp day ripping up the skies with my plane... :)

Cheers,

Scott

Motor spreadsheet and component weight table link

Hi everyone -

I have been trying to educate myself on Google Drive, so I created a folder accessible through this link https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7TFxGixs_w3a1Z2R2RkUnliVkE&usp=sharing

It contains the spread sheet with the most up to date test data I have compiled on park jet motors and a document that indicates the weights of all the components I used in building my park jets.  On both the spread sheet and the weight document I have included links to all the items should you want to research them more or want to purchase them.

Hope this might be of help to you.  As I am still figuring this all out, if you have problems accessing it, please let me know either by leaving a comment on the blog or sending me an e-mail at migsrus@outlook.com ... :)

Cheers,

Scott

RCP Mig29 V4 NAMCV3 high alpha gone wild...literally!

Hi everyone -

Had just a beautiful day at the field today, tried my hand at some high alpha with my NAMCV3 Mig.  Hopefully you can see when I concentrated on flying rather than yakking or wasn't distracted by the deer that showed up, it flies some pretty amazing high alpha I think... :)

A little extra entertainment when the deer showed up on the runway at 3:15, then I tried my hand at the fancy "behind the back" pass at 3:35, then almost hit myself in the head at 4:44 along with a couple close calls with the ground scattered through the video.  All in all a very fun day, I feel very blessed to live where I do and get a chance to see wildlife in such a beautiful setting and have such great fun with my park jets!  Please enjoy the video... :)

Cheers,

Scott

RCP Mig29 V4 NAMCV2 elevons only

Hi everyone -

Great day of flying at the field today with two awesome planes... :)

I also had a little company towards the end of my flying, a deer family, the doe is giving me the evil eye as the buck walks away keeping a close eye on the fawn which unfortunately is hard to see in the dead grass.  I was probably about 50 ft from them when I took this picture as they walked along the edge of the runway.  Awesome to see, all very healthy and in good shape... :)

Before discussing the NAMCV2 on elevons only, I also reached some pretty neat milestones today -

• 50 total flights now on the NAMCV3;
• 100 flights (102 and counting) on the NAMCV2; and
• 500 total flights (505 and counting) with all my RCP Mig29 V4 variants in total.

So the other day I was at the field and there were a couple of new folks there flying trainer type planes, one had an E-Flite Apprentice S http://www.e-fliterc.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=EFL3100 the other fellow had a Flyzone Sensei http://www.flyzoneplanes.com/airplanes/flza3010/

So in between flights we spent some time shooting the breeze and checking out each other's airplanes as RC pilots will do when one of the guys asked me if a relatively new pilot could fly one of the Migs.  I said yes, a very simple setup with elevons only is a great way to start.  Then I realized, I had never flown any of my NAMC Migs elevons only to see how the smaller elevons managed.

So when I went to the field today, I turned off the rudders and ailerons on my NAMCV2 (the all blue one in the picture above), cranked the aileron input up to 100% in my elevon mix and off I went.  I wanted to fly the Mig elevons only from a standpoint of how it would handle if I was a beginner (which I still feel like depending on the day... :/)

I flew seven full flights with elevons only and was very impressed with how it handled.  It turns very easily and without hesitation, not as much control input actually required as with other elevons only planes I have flown because the surfaces are more efficient and cause less drag and turbulence when deflected than larger stock surfaces.  Rolls were a bit more lethargic than I am used to with elevons and ailerons working together, but still very good rates for where a beginner would want to be.

So as I was flying, I tried to remember back to my first park jet, an elevons only RCP F35 V2.  Not the best picture in the world, but hopefully you can see that those elevons are pretty huge... :/  One of the first things Stephan and I both wanted to look at with our park jets when we got together was how scaling down the control surfaces, primarily ailerons and elevons would help with our plane's handling as we both found that the "control surface creep" that was happening in a few park jets was impacting how they flew.

So back to when I first started flying this F35.  I remember often getting into trouble being too slow in a turn, cranking on too much control (something I think almost all beginners do at some point) and my plane would just park itself in the air as those big elevons acted like air brakes, made the plane stall, do funky things, all of which caused me to try and over control even further, leading to...well not the best of situations.

So I got looking at the trainer planes these two fellows were flying as they are good basic trainers for learning how to fly.  Granted they are a scale high wing type plane, but their control surfaces are not huge, rather more in line with what they would be on a real version of a plane.  Enough that a person can fly them around fairly gently, or have some fun with basic aerobatics as skills progress, something any beginner plane should have I think.  So why would we not use the same thing on park jets?  Smaller, more scale size elevons for elevons only that allow for precise control without as much tendency to TV stall makes a lot of sense to me.  

I remember many a time having my heart race when I watched planes park themselves in the air because of very large control surfaces that suddenly acted as "un-control surfaces" making my life very difficult and often leading to my day being shortened due to a crash.

Obviously Stephan and I are big fans of downsized, more scale like elevons and ailerons, we like our rudders big, but prefer smaller more efficient elevons and ailerons as they are more efficient and allow for more precise control of our planes.  We both are huge fans of the fixed horizontal stabilizer and hinged elevons on the Mig29 V4 which is also on the RCP trainer the Su34 V4.  I am very happy to see this on the trainer.  I think this fixed horizontal stabilizer setup is the biggest breakthrough yet on the two of the V4 planes.  I have also tried it on an FRC Su35 MK2 and will use it on every plane I build from now on.  The stability it adds coupled with how it reduces the size of the moving surface thereby reducing drag and turbulence associated with the moving surface is a simple yet amazing improvement in the world of park jets.

So yes, we do push our planes hard and are not beginners, but I think the philosophy of having enough control so that you don't over control is very beneficial when learning.  I think smaller, more scale size elevons on an elevons only plane is a very good way to go.  Just my humble opinion backed up by what I saw today with the best elevons only flying experience I have had.

So I guess my message is, stop "control surface creep", like everything in life, moderation is a good thing and bigger is not always better when it comes to control surfaces... :)

Cheers,

Scott

RCP Mig29 V4 NAMCV3 Dialed in

Hi everyone -

Another great day of testing and "dialing in" at the field yesterday.

I had my oldest plane, the RCP F18 V3 out to field test another motor, the YUSHOP66 2212/6 2700 Kv motor from a vendor on eBay http://www.ebay.com/itm/321227178111  You can read more about this motor and the test results both at the field and on the bench here http://migsrus.blogspot.ca/2014/11/yushop66-a22126s-2700-kv-park-jet-motor.html

It was a good day to do some final "dialing in" on my RCP Mig29 V4 NAMCV3 (which I will call the V3 for the rest of this post for simplicity's sake).  I had a myriad of conditions from dead calm to the odd bit of swirling wind up to about 10 mph.

This plane handles amazing in the wind.  Of course it is about 15% heavier than the other Migs that I fly which does help, but the wind had almost no impact whatsoever on it's handling and stability.  I was very impressed, no wobbles, tail wagging, just solid and true tracking through the wind, especially in turns.

I managed as well to better assess it's slow speed handling and high alpha performance.  Normally I have had real challenges getting planes with the NTM Prop Drive setup to stay consistently stable in high alpha.  The bigger heavier motor and extra torque roll affect of this setup can make high alpha a bit more of a challenge for me than with lighter setups.  This plane is very stable in high alpha, although it is more susceptible to wanting to pull left due to prop wash and torque roll.  There is some very detailed information in this post http://migsrus.blogspot.ca/2014/08/mig29-v4m3e3-hi-alpha-testing.html about prop wash, prop torque and P factor and their impact on a plane's high alpha performance.

Probably due to the volume of air and the aggressive bite inherent with the 6x4 APC prop compared to the 6x3 EMP prop, in order to fly in a straight line with a high AOA (angle of attack), constant right rudder input is required, otherwise the nose will just continue to drift left.

I also found that because the center of mass on this plane is so much closer to the center of gravity and it is a larger quantity of mass (3.2 oz more than most of my Migs), rudder response is much greater, so I softened up the rudder with more expo and also really focussed on keeping rudder input as smooth as possible.

So again, this was very interesting to me as normal rule of thumb from previous experience was that for good high alpha stability on most planes, the largest percentage of mass (the battery) needed to be fairly far forward of CG for good stability in high alpha.  This plane with it's centers of mass, gravity and thrust all being much closer together seems to go against that theory.

Granted, the battery is ahead of the CG, but when I compare it to my F18 V3 with which I have flown considerable high alpha, the battery on this Mig is much closer to the CG than on the F18 and remains very stable.  I won't get into another round of measurements as I have in previous posts, suffice to say that other than the increased effects of prop wash and more sensitive rudder, this plane does high alpha very well even with a heavy, higher torque motor like the NTM Prop Drive.

As I have written in a previous post when I did a fly off between the NAMCV2 and V3 http://migsrus.blogspot.ca/2014/10/rcp-mig29-v4-namcv2-and-v3-flyoff.html, the V3 requires less control input to generate the same rate of roll, pitch and yaw.

So now that I have 41 flights on the V3 and have it dialed in where I like it, I got out the ruler and did some comparison.  I will only compare the throws on the ailerons and elevons, I keep the throws at 100% on the rudders on all my planes just because due to phenomena discussed in the link above about high alpha testing, I like to have maximum throws on my rudders.

I will express my settings in inches of travel rather than percentage of throws for the ailerons and elevons as your servos and transmitter are probably different than mine.  I have also posted the travel for my NAMCV2 Mig for comparison purposes.  I should caveat that I prefer to fly my planes a bit more scale, so keep my throws fairly low as I don't need my planes to tumble loop or do rifle bullet type rolls.  I do however like to have a bit of extra "emergency throw" in the elevator to help avoid sudden impact with immovable objects... :/

NAMCV2

Elevator travel -  2.5" in each direction for a total of 5" travel.

 Aileron travel - 5/8" in each direction for a total of 1 and 1/4" travel.

Spoileron deflection for high alpha - 5/8".

NAMCV3

Elevator travel - 2" in each direction for a total of 4" travel.

Aileron travel - 1/2" in each direction for a total of 1" travel.

Spoileron deflection for high alpha - 1/2".

So I am very pleased with these settings and the results when compared to the V2.  By having much better balance with the V3 and the centers of mass, thrust and gravity so much closer together, I get the same handling performance with 25% less control surface travel.  So why is this important to me?  Well as I have said many times throughout all of the experiments that Stephan and I have done in downsizing control surfaces from stock, smaller surfaces travelling less distance make for a much smoother flying and more stable and precise plane.  

With the laws of physics working much harder in our favor, it means the surfaces don't have to work as hard.  Anytime I can have less deflection on a control surface to do the same job I will take it as it means less drag and therefore less turbulence.  This makes the control surfaces perform more efficiently and makes for a smoother and "quieter" flying plane from a standpoint of stability.

So I continue to be very excited by how well this latest NAMC version of the Mig flies.  Stephan hopefully should have his built and flying shortly, so I'm very excited to hear what he thinks and what his findings are.  It is through repeatable results and thorough, consistent testing that we have found the best information and validation of our modifications.

In a previous post I mentioned I was thinking of going back to the lighter Focal Price setup on this plane, but I have decided to "man up" and keep this big motor in this plane as it pushes my skills a little harder than the lighter setup.  Instead I will build another Mig (big surprise there...hello, my name is Scott and I am a Migaholic... :/) with a lighter setup, less reinforcement, etc.  I will probably wait until after Stephan has built and tested his in the event there might be other mods we could test/try, but I have a feeling that although the work is never done, this V3 is the culmination of a lot of great ideas and testing that we have worked towards over the last six months since this plane was released, so I'm not sure what else could be done.

Cheers,

Scott

RCP Mig29 V4 NAMCV3 Speed fun... :)

Hi everyone -

Back out at the field yesterday with my two favorite Russian park jets.

Since making the repair on the motor mount on the Mig, I also took a look through my motor bin and found an NTM with smoother bearings than the first motor and also put on a brand new balanced prop, so I wanted to do another round of speed trials on both 3S and 4S.

So here is some video footage of it.

Oops, sorry, wrong video...but thought that would get you in the mood for some speed... ;)

Here is the real video, first part is on 3S, second on 4S.  I apologize that due to the speed, the fact it needs a lot more room in which to fly because it is so fast and the bright sky that it washes out occasionally, but hopefully you get a sense of darn fast this little beauty is... :)

So with a good solid motor mount, smoother running motor and brand new balanced prop, I actually squeezed some more speed out of it... :) 

On 3S, I managed 4 good speed runs of 99/97/96 and 93 mph, about a 2 mph improvement in top speed over the first set of trials I did.

On 4S, I managed 4 speed runs of 117/111/105 and 102 mph, again about a 2 mph improvement in top speed over the first set of trials I did.

I am really so pleased with how well this plane flies, I haven't flown a plane with that much speed before, so it does take some serious concentration as you might see on the very last speed run on 4S, I twitched the stick just a bit to the left before making the right turn and it was headed for the trees at a rather rapid rate of knots!

Awhile back, Stephan and I had talked about building a plane light but strong that would still be able to take the NTM Prop Drive motor, but also fly well with the Focal Price motor.  I think that even though I increased the weight with more carbon reinforcement and one set of metal gear servos over how I normally build, because I reduced the size of the plane, the two balanced out.  That and experimenting with thinning my paint down helped me keep the weight of the paint job down.  

So this makes this plane pretty flexible being able to swap power systems and have the airframe easily handle either without sacrificing overall performance.  In all honesty I will probably go back to the lighter FP setup as I am so used to that, it is a bit more relaxing flying.  But it is nice to know that if I am really feeling feisty I can do a 10 minute motor and ESC change and really tear up the sky... :)

So next up is another FRC Su35 MK2 with a fairly ambitious modification plan, then we shall see where we go from there.  Maybe I'll do something different and build another Mig... :/

Cheers,

Scott

YUSHOP66 A2212/6S 2700 Kv Park Jet motor updated with new results 10 Nov

Hi everyone -

A couple months ago when I was searching around for alternatives to the Focal Price 2700 Kv motor http://www.focalprice.com/YO090X/A2212_2200KV_Outrunner_Brushless_Motor_for_Airplane.html which at the writing of this post is still out of stock (been that way for about three months now), Rob Davis one of our followers told me about this motor from an ebay vendor in China http://www.ebay.com/itm/321227178111

Here is a picture of it with the bullet connectors, X motor mount and prop installed.

The dimensions and weight of this motor are exactly the same as the Focal Price and Deal Extreme 2700 Kv motors I have already tested.  It weighs 66 gr/2.3 oz with all connectors and prop installed.

Just like the FP and DX motors, you need to provide your own bullet connectors and a prop collet, the one that comes with it is the same quality as the one that comes with the Focal Price motor so I replaced it with a better one.  Shipping with this vendor is free, but it was slower than with Deal Extreme, the package was shipped 08 Oct 2014 and I received it 07 Nov 2014 on the west coast of Canada.  It may very well take longer depending on where you live.

At $10.99 it is a bit cheaper ($1.30 cheaper) than the FP or DX motors, but if you buy 3 motors from DX, the price is the same per unit $10.99 per motor.  I think this vendor buys up 25-30 motors at a time from somewhere and then resells them.

After a break in period, I retested the motor and received more realistic results, updated on 10 Nov.

This test was done with a 6x3 EMP prop, Turnigy plush 40A ESC, 2200 3S 40C discharge battery.

At 50% throttle, the motor drew 12.7 amps and produced 150.1 watts and 517 gr/18.2 oz of thrust.

At 100% throttle, the motor drew 35.7 amps and produced 421.8 watts and 1033 gr/36.4 oz of thrust.

So definitely a 40A ESC is needed with this motor like it is with the FP and DX motors.  Here is a video of some field testing I did with this motor in my RCP F18 V3

Thanks again to Rob Davis for finding the motor for us, it is definitely the same motor as the Focal Price and Deal Extreme 2212/6 2700 Kv motors and another source to purchase from depending on availability.

Cheers,

Scott

FRC Su35 MK2 NAMCV3 build - initial thoughts

Hi everyone -

While I had two of my favorite Russian park jets at the field yesterday, I got busy with the ruler again and made a few more measurements to make some comparisons.  I know it has only been a month since I built the last FRC Su35 MK2 NAMCV2, but with what I have experienced with the Mig29 V4 NAMCV3, I am excited to transfer some of those ideas to another airframe once again... :)

As I have already written at length, the red, white and blue Mig29 V4 NAMCV3 has taught me a real lesson on the importance of concentrating as much mass as possible around the CG to allow physics to help my plane fly smoother and more precise as it rotates better and more efficiently (i.e. with less control input required) around all three axes, roll, pitch and yaw.

The current Mig is now heavier with the NTM power setup, but I was able to keep the weight within a pretty small span (11.25") on a 39" plane.  So not including pushrods, etc, the weight of the battery, ESC, Rx, six servos and the motor is 15.6 oz.  Total weight of the plane is 24.7 oz, so I have 63% of the plane's total weight located within 29% of the plane's total length.

So when I start to make some of the same measurements on my yellow, tan and brown Su35 in the picture above, things get interesting... :/  From the front of the battery to the rear of the motor when balanced on CG, the weight is spanned over 13.5" which on a 35" long plane is 38%.

So using the same criteria to factor the weight of the battery, ESC, Rx, servos and motor on the Su35, the weight is 13.2 oz, total weight of the plane is 21.5 oz, so 61% of the plane's weight is spanned over a much longer portion of the plane, making that "lever" much longer that the plane has to move to rotate around CG.  The back of the battery which is 32% of the plane's total weight is at 2.75" ahead of the CG.  On the Mig, this weight starts only 1" ahead of CG.

So although I don't plan or shortening or lengthening the Su35, I don't know if the center of lift will get moved as much when I move the center of thrust and center of mass, but my main goal here is to get the motor forward considerably to allow me to pull back the battery and other components closer to CG and also see how moving the motor forward helps slow flight and possible high alpha which it did with the NAMCV3.  

So I looked at a couple measurements on both planes.  The motor mount on the Mig29 NAMCV3 is 61% from the nose, on the Su35, this same measurement is 71%.  To have the motor the same percentage from the nose on the Su as I have it on the Mig, I would have to move the motor mount 3.4" forward which I honestly think is a bit drastic and would really affect some structural integrity.  So I looked at where the motor mount is in relation to the CG on the Mig, it is 3" behind.  So if I go with that measurement and scale it down as the Su is 89% the size of the Mig, I end up with about 2 and 5/8" which I think is far more manageable and realistic.  This puts my motor about 63% away from the nose, so still very close to the Mig setup.

To prevent a huge gaping hole in the middle of the plane, I will also move the back edge of the prop slot forward by about 2".  Comparing ratios of size of the back plate on the Mig NAMCV3 this should still be small enough so that I should not have too much problem with elevon polar pitch effect or wind vaning in cross wind turns.

Also, I will move my aileron and elevon servos forward about an inch or so so that they are also concentrated more closely to the CG as they are on the Mig NAMCV3.  Other than that all the mods I have made to this point WRT elevons, vert stabs, ailerons, KFs will remain the same, but this will be another ambitious round of mods with that much adjustment to where the motor and other airplane weight is located.  Hopefully it will only be for the best... :)

So lots of measuring and adjusting of the plans still to do, but I am excited to see if it will further expand the Su35's flying envelope to suit my flying style.

Cheers,

Scott

Polar Moment Epiphany

I was going to add this comment to my original "dissertation" on Cg and polar moment of interia.  But after my epiphany at the flying field, I thought I would start a new post.

Scott really got my brain churning with his new NAMCv3.  I started reading and realized I had ignored the importance of the polar moment.  Simply put, the less torque needed to rotate the pitch/roll/yaw axis around the the Cg, the plane will rotate easier, faster, and more efficiently requiring less control surface deflection.  I can't believe I have ignored this basic law of physics.

So today at the flying field, I tested the plane with the same Cg but with different polar moments.  How did I do this?  I usually placed the ESC wherever it would fit and "looked" right.  This usually meant as forward as possible. Today, after a couple of flights, I moved the ESC as far back as possible which then allowed me to bring the battery aft and closer to the Cg.  I could feel a difference and the plane was more responsive in all 3 vectors of rotation.  The bigger the ESC, the more noticeable the difference will be.

After "centralizing" as much as possible the battery and the ESC, I then started to play with Cg.  As mentioned in a prior post, I test the Cg by flying at 40-50% throttle nose up at 30 degrees and cut the throttle.  I want to see the plane continue to climb and then slowly and gently drop the nose completing a nice arc.  Note: I read about this but can't remember the citation.  So I did this today and kept moving the battery aft.  A tail plane is a crashfest, so I stopped before it got tail heavy.  Wow, what a difference.  The plane in pitch, yaw, and roll is so much smoother and looks more scale like. Induced spins and recovery were better as well.  I used to like nose heavy for high alpha, but today it was much easier and wing top rock onset was more gentle and not so violent.  Best way I can describe it is that as speed bleeds off in a tight turn or climb out the plane appears to be sliding through the air as the lift decreases.  Make sense because as lift decreases, you are not adding more control surface input to counter act a forward Cg.

I really felt like I saw the "light" today flying.  Gasser RC day habits of nose heavy planes is a hard habit to break.

My Cg is now 22 3/8 inches from the nose, 2 1/8 forward of the spar,  which is about 3/4 aft of stock.  Remember this plane does have a higher wing load than stock with a downsized LERX and leading edge.

Video will come, one day, I promise.

Thanks you Scott for my epiphany today!  Song of the day from Archie Bell & the Drells "Tighten Up".  For us that means your battery and ESC!

Stephan

RCP Mig29 V4 NAMCV3 is amazingly fast!

Hi everyone -

Had my two favorite Russian park jets at the field today, my new red, white and blue Mig29 V4 NAMCV3 on the left and my yellow, tan and brown FRC Su35 MK2 NAMCV2 on the right.

It was a very exciting day at the field to say the least... :/  I have the NTM Prop Drive 2700 motor in the Mig29 V4 NAMCV3 now (I took it off for the picture below to make the repairs a little easier).  I had done three flights on 3S (more on that later) and one flight on 4S (more on that later too... :) ) and was just getting ready to shoot some video, when I noticed that the foam behind the glue joint on my motor mount was cracked :( !  The glue joint held up just fine, but the foam cracked all the way across.  I guess the serious stress the NTM on 4S put on it pushed it beyond it's structural limit, but no fear, plane otherwise is fine.  I have marked where the fault line is below with black magic marker to make it easier to see in the picture.  So anyway, video will have to wait for another day  :(.

So as I continued to fly my Su35, I started wondering how to repair and strengthen this weak area.  So once again the dollar store came to the rescue as I had some popsicle sticks laying around and I cut some lengths of that, laid in a good coat of epoxy and so far, it is super strong...only field testing will prove if the repair is solid, but I'm pretty sure it will hold... :)

I will also swap out the prop I have on the motor, it was balanced, but has had some use, so time for a new one to ensure I am not still sending any vibration into the motor mount.  Anyway, a small setback and fortunately no loss of aircraft and a 10 minute repair and I think we are once again ready for some more serious speed... :)

So here is the really good news for us speed demons... :)

On 3S, I clocked four solid speed runs of 97, 92, 90 and 90 with this setup... :)  

On 4S, I clocked four runs of 115, 111, 102 and 100...wow!  

The speeds diminish as the battery loses it's punch from being fully charged, but four runs of 100+ mph on 4S is crazy!  The first two runs are faster than the top speed I got with the Mig29 M3e3, so this is a pretty quick little plane.  

I just looked back through my flight log, the top speed on 3S I achieved with the Mig29 M3e3 was 94 mph.  On 4S, my speeds were 109/108/104/102.  

So this is the first time I have broken 110 mph with a plane built with relatively stock setup...gets your heart rate up seeing something you built from foam and glue go by you that fast... :) 

So onto overall performance with the higher weight and heavier power system.

My CG ended up moving forward by about another 1/8", so it is now about 1/4" ahead of the stock CG marked on the plans.  The battery is moved forward about 1/2" over the FP setup, so this makes some sense to counter balance the heavier motor and the "average of mass" has been moved somewhat which will slightly affect the location of the CG based on the info at this link from NASA http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rotations.html

In flight, any aircraft will rotate about its center of gravity, a point which is the average location of the mass of the aircraft.

It has been awhile since I flew an NTM equipped plane, so perhaps some of what I am about to say is because I am a bit rusty on managing this kind of power, but since I also have the weight concentrated around CG much better than on any other NTM plane I have built, some of this makes sense besides my lack of skill... ;).

Everything happens faster with this plane with the higher wing loading and more powerful, higher torque motor and I don't mean just from a stand point of speed.  It is more responsive in all three axes without feeling heavier than it was with the Focal Price motor setup.  It does take a little more room in which to turn and fly as even at half throttle it is going fast, but "on the sticks" it didn't really feel like the wing loading had gone up a huge amount even though the overall weight went up by 15% with painting and the bigger power system.

So I actually toned down the throws in the pitch and roll by 10% and increased the expo by another 10% so that I didn't over control it.  At speed, it is rock solid stable and it almost seems like the faster it gets, the more stable it gets, it just screams ahead with no hesitation or bad habits.

So still more testing and another round of speed trials to come.  I'm not sure actually when the foam behind the motor mount cracked, if it was loose most of the time, I'm sure some of the speed could have been lost from that.  I hope to get back out again Friday, the forecast for the next two days is not good.  Very pleased with how well this plane flies at medium weight/power or heavy weight/power... :)

Oh yeah, did I mention it is fast?!  :)

Cheers,

Scott

Lessons learned from two years of park jets

Hi everyone -

It has been two years since I seriously started my journey to where I am now WRT park jet building and flying.  Although I still have much to learn and keep learning more with every build and every trip to the field, there are some general "big picture" things I might have done differently if I had to start over again.  So perhaps this post would be aimed more at a beginner in the hobby or in park jets for sure, but hopefully there is a little something for everyone.

I had actually dabbled a bit in RC flying about 5 yrs ago, I made the mistake of thinking I could learn to fly building 3D foamies from plans I got from RC groups made of "indestructible" EPP foam.  Well, nothing is indestructible and 3D planes are not good trainers in my experience... :/  Then I had a couple years off as I dealt with a bunch of life stuff.  So when I was able to properly commit to my dream of building and flying park jets two years ago, I kind of started all over again.  I still had my Spektrum Dx6i radio, some batteries and a couple receivers, but not really anything else.

So my first task was to learn to fly RC planes properly.  It was around this time that Dave Powers released a video on the Bixler 2 from Hobby King.  At the time, it was kind of the latest version of the Hawk Sky type planes and the price was right at $70, all I needed to do was supply a battery, radio and receiver, all of which I had.  So off I went.  It was about the best $70 I had spent in the RC hobby to that point.  I just kept taking that plane to the field and flying it over and over, practicing all the basics, it turned out to be an awesome training platform for me.  Even after I built my first park jet, the RC Powers F35 V2, I kept flying the Bixler til I had about 70 flights on it and I am very glad I was patient in doing that.

So here was my first park jet the RCP F35 V2 (which was free), elevons only, KF2, built way too heavy, but it flew and held up for about 60 flights before it just got too heavy to fly anymore.  Ugly as it was, it filled it's role in my park jet process.

So I progressed pretty quickly from there with my building, but not necessarily my flying... :/ building a total of 4 F35 V2s, the Mig29 V2 (my absolute nemesis, I built and wrote off three of these and got less than 50 flights among the three of them... :/)  My heavy building continued and pretty quickly as my control setups and mixing became more complex, I outgrew the capabilities of the Dx6i.  By the time I built my F18 V2, I had over an ounce of extra stuff (three mixers and three Y harnesses) in my F18 to get it to do what I wanted it to.  I was still doing a lot of what the "herd" on the forums was doing, chiseled leading edges on my KF4 wings, linked ailerons and elevons (2 servos running 4 surfaces or 2x4).  I was using uneven KFs, 6mm on tip and 3mm on bottom.

So enough rambling about how I got started, here are some of the things I would do different now right from the beginning if I could.  It would be a bit easier for me to commit to some of what I am going to discuss because I knew I wanted to build and fly park jets, perhaps this might not apply to other folks, park jets are a bit of a unique aspect of the RC hobby.

Choice of beginner plane

If I was learning to fly all over again, I would probably scratch build right from the start using free plans from Flite Test http://www.flitetest.com/articles?grid=true#/textSearch=FTScratchBuild  I think their power pod concept where you build one Power Pod that can be swapped among several airplanes makes a lot of sense for a beginner.  Inexpensive and easy to build planes from dollar store foam and hot glue is a simple, inexpensive way to get started.  You can learn scratch building at a very basic level, don't need to buy a whole bunch of gear, most of your build materials can be purchased at the dollar store or other inexpensive places like Walmart.  

Their beginner planes like the Nutball, FT Flyer and FT Delta are super simple to build and fly, you can build a few of them and then just swap your power pod between them or to your next one when you crash the first beyond repair.  A lot of planes can be built for the $70 I spent on my Bixler 2 and you get to start learning some basics of scratch building at a very easy level and their instructions and build videos are excellent.

Choice of transmitter

Knowing what I know now, I would have purchased a transmitter that I could grow into or could be easily and inexpensively upgraded as my experience and skills grew.  The Dx6i is an excellent radio for park and general flying, but the unique control setups on intermediate to advanced park jets max out it's mixing capabilities very quickly which led me to add weight and gear to my planes to get the mixing I wanted/needed.

After considerable research and a tight budget, I decided to buy another radio, the Turnigy 9x with the er9x firmware upgrade.  By the time this radio and parts were shipped to me, it cost me about the same as my Dx6i did from my LHS, but it's mixing and fine tuning capabilities are exponentially better than the Dx6i.  If you go to this post, I put links to all the goodies needed to have the Turnigy 9x with the er9x firmware upgrade http://migsrus.blogspot.ca/2014/10/my-park-jet-workshop-video.html  

This is certainly not the only radio available, the number of highly capable, easily programmable radios just gets better all the time.  I found You Tube an excellent source of information, lots of folks have taken the time to do reviews and comparisons of many of the popular transmitters.  RCmodelreviews has done many reviews on inexpensive Hobby King transmitters on his You Tube channel as well https://www.youtube.com/user/RCModelReviews

My main point here is if I could, I would have outlaid the cash required to buy a transmitter I can could grow into or was easy and inexpensive to upgrade rather than having to buy a second transmitter which in the long run was not only more expensive, but required I learn a whole new programming setup.

Choice of first park jet

If I had to do it over again, I would have started off with a profile park jet like the RCP Mig29 V1.  The Mig29 V1 was a real turning point plane for me in my park jet career, unfortunately I didn't build one until I had already written off about a dozen score and fold RCP V2 type planes.

The Mig29 V1 is super simple to build, one sheet of depron or it is even an excellent candidate for dollar store foam.  It flies amazing with elevons only, can be built in about a half a day and is super simple to repair because everything is a flat surface.  Even if you get a little "glue happy" and build a bit heavy, you can still use the D2826/6 motor from HK and have a lot of fun.  This was a real confidence builder for me after having a real run of bad luck crashing a bunch of V2 planes, so if I had to start over again, I would have built this first and just flew the wings off it before moving on to a score and fold plane.

Learning to build lighter sooner

I have joked many times about being a card carrying member of "overbuilder's anonymous", but this mentality of over building I'm sure cost me many planes early in my park jet career.  Of course my skills were not then what they are now, but my planes rarely survived serious impact like they do now because I failed to learn quickly enough that heavier is worse, not better.  Again, it is basic physics, more weight coming to a sudden stop causes more damage than less weight doing the same thing.  

Fortunately, I made another big turning point in my park jet career when the V3s were released by RC Powers as these planes were smaller, designed to be strong but light and didn't need big power setups like many of the V2s did to have any decent performance.  With all the flying and testing I have done in the past year I have found an overall ideal weight for the V3 size planes to be about 20-22 oz as this allows for best stability and wind penetration and when using the Focal Price type motor still gives great speed and aerobatic performance.  

Breaking from the "herd" sooner

This is probably a tough thing to do, many of us when first starting off see what the "hot shots" on the forums and You Tube are doing and fall into the trap of trying to follow that same path.  Now there is nothing wrong with that, but if it is not what you really want to do, it can lead to a lot of disappointment and frustration in my experience.  I know when you are first starting off it is tough to answer the question "what do I want my plane to do", but I think that if I had to do it over again I would ask myself that question much sooner as well as "how do I want to build and fly?" and then stuck to my guns as I moved ahead rather than trying to keep up with the pack.

  

Even though many of the things like 2x4 linked elevons and ailerons, uneven KF4 airfoils (thicker on top, thinner on the bottom) and chiseled leading edges on wings and elevons didn't make sense to me aerodynamically, I kept following that path because that was what was what the "herd" was doing.  So what happened?  I was building and flying my planes like other people did because I thought that was what I needed to do to become a good park jet pilot, not what made sense to me or fit in with how I wanted to build and fly.  How does that old saying go?  "Insanity is continually repeating the same behavior expecting a different outcome".

It took me awhile (probably a lot longer than it should... :/) to come to the realization that my building and flying should be measured by what gives me the most fun and satisfaction, not what others are doing.  Even if it is completely opposite what the "herd" is doing, if it means I am excited to build a new plane, go to the field and fly it and leave satisfied, that is what is important.  If I could give a new RC pilot any advice at all, it would be exactly that, don't worry about what others are doing, just do what gives you pleasure and satisfaction, no matter what that might be.

Fortunately since Stephan and I have been sharing ideas, I have broken free from that "pack mentality" and the fun and satisfaction I have from this hobby has taken another huge turn for the better.  With Stephan's help and encouragement, I have broken from many of the old paradigms of building and flying and the overall performance of my planes has instantly leaped to a whole new level of performance as has my flying fun and satisfaction.  

So while I think it is a good idea to experiment with new things, if something makes absolutely no sense to you, don't be scared to do it your own way.  One of the greatest things about building and flying scratch built park jets is each build is like a new artist's canvas waiting for you to experiment with a modification or a change that you want to test and evaluate, even if others haven't tried it before.  You just never know what might happen until you try.  Fear and common sense are sometimes highly over-rated... ;)

Another aspect of this "go your own way" (not the Fleetwood Mac song... ;) ) is not to be scared to try out new gear once in awhile.  Maybe it is a different power setup or even testing a different prop.  You don't have to go to the trouble of testing 10 different park jet motors like I have over the last year to find something very simple to breathe new life into your plane or your power system.  

Let's look at something as simple as changing a prop.  The 6x4 APC prop is without doubt the most popular park jet prop around and is an excellent overall prop.  Even though I knew people were using the 6x3 EMP prop, again I was worried about trying something new until I saw how a lot of motors perform with that prop.  I realized after trying out this different prop that I had been cheating myself of some real fun because I was scared to try something new for too long.

While with most of the motors I probably lost some top end speed, the increase in pop and acceleration for all round flying and aerobatics was truly eye opening for me, and that was a very easy and affordable change to make my plane fly differently.  The other good news is that my motors ran cooler and more efficiently with the 6x3 EMP prop.  So my point here is don't be scared to try out some different gear once in awhile, you never know when you will stumble on something simple that will better suit your building and flying style and your pocket book.

The research is never over nor should it come from one source

I know that Stephan and I get a lot deeper into research of aerodynamics and other things than you might be interested in and our testing is maybe beyond what you might care about, but I think always keeping an open mind in what you read or what you see your planes do is key to continually evolving your building and your flying.

The internet with Google, You Tube, the many RC forums and blogs like this one have an overwhelming amount of information.  Sometimes it feels like you might be trying to drink from a fire hose until you find good reliable sources of information.  But even then I think it is important not to "sole source" yourself to one person or one site.  I have always found collecting from many sources and then filtering through it from a standpoint of what suits how I like to build and fly always works best for me.

Even though Flite Test http://www.flitetest.com/ doesn't really do park jets, they make their living designing scratch built foam planes and I have picked up lots of little build tips from watching their build videos.  I have also learned several technical things from listening to some of their podcasts, so I do check their website quite often to see what is going on there, I never know when I might find a new nugget of info.  

Google and wikipedia are also good sources for theoretical research on aerodynamics, propeller performance, etc.  For gear research, including different people's testing and assessments or comparisons between other components, You Tube is a great source as lots of folks have taken the time to shoot videos of their findings.

Anyway, enough of my rambling... :/.  I guess of all the big picture lessons I learned from above that made the biggest difference in my park jet career was to do things my own way.  I try to measure my success by the fun and satisfaction I have when standing at the side of the field watching my plane fly around, not by how my build or my flying skills match up with what others have done or are doing.  It doesn't matter what I do, or what others on the forums or You Tube does, it should be about what you do... :)

Cheers,

Scott