Air Powered Plane V2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 кві 2018
- Last weeks video: goo.gl/8v27BX
Plane specifications:
Wingspan: 120cm
Wing chord: 20cm (tip & root)
Sweep angle 20 degrees
All up weight: 290g (with engine and bottle)
Compressed Air Powered Plane V1: goo.gl/q3xiB4
Sponsored by 3D Printz UK:
3dprintz.co.uk/
Patreon: / tomstanton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huge thanks to the following $5 tier Patrons for supporting me:
Anthony Losego
Robert Kozak
Colin Riordan
Justin Carroll
mcfets
Zohaib Rauf
samson
Will Dale
Ben Thomas
Vladimir Kononov
Colin Wright
Richard Walker
YCSWYD
Raj Devan
Sergio Di Ventura
Jacques Winter
samyakkapoor
Daniel Barrera
Jim Carroll
Seppo Syrjänen
Calvin Goring
Jared Clark
Callan Schebella
Douglas
Timour Chomilier
Dwayne Myers
Burak Can
Gary H. Baker
Lee Dormon
Nicolas Lagas
Martin Drake
Bruce Carrick
Master of Hexagons
Shane Neubauer
Fiid Williams
Lucas Cauthen
Raido Kalbre
paulja
MickWah
Dave Wray
Elias Toft Hansen
Andrew Ebling
Robbie Mackie
Rasmus Backman
James Walkinton
Brandin Link
U.S. Water Rockets
Michelle Powell
Jay Rothwell
Mike Close
Michel EDIGHOFFER
KJ
Alper Bahçeliler
Pierre Retief
International Schools Database
Marc Urben
lakshay anand
Jens Schwoon
Anders Wangensteen
Ted Blue Courage
greg cordray
Peter Sripol
Mark Muir
craig rasch
Dave Joubert
Bernard Gauweiler
William Miller
Zoltán Vér
3D Printer filament sponsored by 3D Printz UK: 3dprintz.co.uk/
My Other Equipment:
Main camera - amzn.to/2vlvlC6
Main lens - amzn.to/2gMrhru
Main tripod - amzn.to/2tqRjBt
Secondary Tripod - amzn.to/2t1NkMh
Microphone - amzn.to/2uuv9n0
Audio recorder - amzn.to/2v3mjcG
Banggood affiliate: www.banggood.com/?p=LT0710618...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Наука та технологія
*How fast was the propeller spinning you may ask?* Using the audio of the video, I was able to calculate how fast the propeller was spinning in the test!
I first downloaded the clip in the beginning of the test. I cropped and slowed the audio down to 10% speed, and listened. I could hear each time the valve opened! I measured the time in between each cycle of the valve opening, which was about 0.4 seconds per revolution (in 10% speed). BUT we have to multiply that number by 0.1 because the clip was slowed down to 10% speed, which gives us how long it takes for the propeller to complete ONE full rotation:
0.04 seconds!!
Then, I divided 1 by that number to get how many revolutions per second it was spinning at, which was 25 revolutions/sec, which multiplied by 60 should give us our RPM, which is... (drumroll please)
*1500 RPM!!!*
poppet pala well you did the math so I will give you a thumbs up
ᗰIᑎᗪ ᗷᒪOᗯᑎ
A+
I know I'm late, but I got aprox. 375-500 RPM by counting frames. (a hundred rpm for every month after you posted this comment.)
The reason is the video is only 25 FPS
Back to the bigger slower prop? If you aren't limited so much by engine torque, a bigger prop could potentially make better use of the available torque to give more thrust. I always thought bigger slower props were more efficient, anyway.
If you've got a static thrust testing rig (or some kitchen scales) you could experiment with different prop/cam combinations to characterise what gives you the best thrust output.
PKMartin I was thinking the same thing.
And what if he used a tri-blade or quad-blade?
I agree. Instead of gearing the motor to spin faster just use a bigger prop. Simple.
Yeah, I would definitely try a much bigger prop before going for a geared system. Like 12 inch for a start. A note on the cam: Have you tried a profile that doesn't open the valve quite so long?(but longer than the first profile) I'm thinking that perhaps having the valve open too long could mean there's a slightly higher pressure left in the cylinder when the piston closes the exhaust ports, causing a little power to be wasted on the up stroke.
Definitely. That small prop is now very poorly matched to the engine torque-speed characteristics. Bigger prop will make better use of the torque and will give a longer flight time. Certainly not worth abandoning this plane, just get it properly matched.
I think the Plane design was not suitable for this engine. Make something like the previous one.
i'm German and i like things called V2
Kieran 514 underrated comment
Perhaps he should start working on a pulsejet powered plane, and name it v0.1, v0.2, ect untill V1 is the version that works
noooooo
Reich V2
Uh oh
You need regulated pressure. If you had a small carbon fibre paintball tank that has a consistent output of 60-100psi. That would give you a consistent flight. The 2 litre bottle has a power curve going from a high to low pressure which is not enough to maintain flight.
Your engine does work it's the bottle that is the issue. The bottle isn't using the air efficiently enough. It's the same reason paintball players use air instead of co2 for their markers. The power output of co2 is not consistent like regulated compressed air.
Power is not always the answer! Consistent power is the answer!
He could used an eight gram co2 or nitrous cartridge and something to tap it within the bottle as a fuel tank
I love this series! You're making great progress. I think you might have some luck putting the plane on a diet, because it looks to be quite a bit heavier than the original Air Hogs plane. I imagine that the ceramic bearings add some weight to the engine and the engine is a bit overbuilt. The air hogs engine has no bearings and feels quite lightweight. I'm not an expert on planes by any stretch of the imagination but I can tell you from playing with these Air Hogs that they glide unpowered for about as long as your plane flies under power. I am guessing but I think that means they have a higher lift to weight ratio and that would translate into less thrust needed to keep them in the air. Keep making these videos, because this stuff is fascinating.
I think it's more due to the short chord of the wings and lack of tailplane. a higher A/R wing will give better glide characteristics.
the video was posted an hour ago...
HOW THE FUCK WAS THIS COMMENT POSTED 16 HOURS AGO??
Epics105 YT I assume patreons get early access to videos?
Testing it with the pump attached you have the indicated pressure. When disconnecting the bike valve you can lose a bit of pressure.
Yeah I think the plane could use smaller bearings and maybe a larger air canister
"These things are dangerous guys." Instantly goes back to start it
Even though it doesn't spin as fast as it needs to (at this stage) I loved the video series. Showing failures along with successes helps people realize that things don't just magically happen. It takes a lot of planning and prototyping. Great series and honestly can't wait to see what you're up to next :D
The V1 plane cold be better with this new engine.
I think the same too
Indeed, he has a delta wing on this design, which increases drag but brings no real benefit untill you get to near trans-sonic speeds
The plane is not balanced, it's head heavy, try another layout, and also make the valve open earlier, like 2-5 degrees earlier, it should give more trust
Yea, he got more time out of this version with a longer delay on the valve partially because the engine was putting out less thrust, thus using less energy
Just realized I had an "Airhogz" air powered plane when I was a kid!! Very cool project.
I want to see this on the V1 glider-type plane with a giant prop!
I think that when using the larger cam, pushing the timing back will give you a power advantage, because the way that you are explaining the timing. The exaust and intake valves are open at the same time. Or very close.
The other problem that I can think of, is that the cylinder is reaching max pressure at the bottom of the piston's stroke rather than the middle where the crankshaft has the most leverage.
Basically the first part of the stroke is not receiving any pressure, this looks like waisted energy to me.
Great video this is a very inspiring project, Pushing what can be done with a 3d printer. :)
Agreed, the way it seems to have become louder with the retarded timing suggests pressure is higher as the exhaust ports open.
I thought this design had only one port
When my son was young, we had an air powered plane called an Airhog. It was a lot of fun. Stay your course on this project, you'll get it. Just looking at your test flights, I'd say your wing isn't offering enough lift or the plane itself is too heavy for the amount of thrust the prop is delivering. Maybe the solution is as easy as a bigger prop. Good Luck, I'll keep checking back.
That toy is what this project is based off of
Then he could have just copied the working design, or look at it - I think the way is more pressure (thicker plastic bottle) and most efficient Prop for the Plane (determined per math or testing)
wow! that ran for 54 seconds at 60 psi, that's almost a second per psi! This a massive improvement over the last one which only ran for 17 seconds on 60 psi.
From the first videos I watched of yours I didn't think you knew.much regarding engineering but this series has completely proved me wrong. Love the videos and this series, keep it up.
1) Use finger protection
2) Transmitter on a neck strap
3) Dump valve on the bottle
4) First aid kit ...
Great fun, thanks for the entertainment!
David Piper I'm not sure why he doesn't just press on the pin of the bike valve instead of waiting for the prop to spin down :p
Rafael Dos Santos Because that's not as fun!
5) try an electric Brushless motor plane, that 's very effectiv you know.
-fabien
You missed the point of the video/channel completely.
6) move the centre of gravity back by around half a centimetre
I would try a different wing design, like a rectangular wing, because it takes more power to keep a swept wing flying.
Have you thought of trying to fill the bottle with dry ice? I've been meaning to try this for a while now. Not sure if it would be too heavy, but I figure you could get much more thrust cause of the large amount of gas production. Just be careful not to overfill it or it may explode. I would do some testing first to make sure the dry ice doesn't cause the bottle to get too brittle and fail.
Brandon Berchtold this is a genius idea
Dry ice in the UK is rare
I have some experience with dry ice in pressure chambers. I fish off the coast of Texas and I use a steel tank for an air cannon to fire my line into the ocean. You need a safety valve (which mine gets used pretty regularly) for sure. Mine is set for 250psi. The pressure ceiling for dry ice is around 2,000 psi, so it's substantial. The rate of pressure increase is highly variable depending on the speed of sublimation, which is directly affected by temperature and thermal transition components (like water). I think the problem you would have is the pressure increase is not very linear, and it's not extremely quick. If you were to use dry ice combined with water on a warm day, you may get some sustainable pressure. But again, it's very unpredictable and I'm not sure if I would try it in a pressure vessel light enough to be useful in a plane.
you only need a couple of small pellets of driy ice
The engine will get frozen
I know there’s lots of different variables to look at, but with my experience with aerodynamics, it looks like your bird has too much weight to counter. If you look at the lift equation, the main two aspects the pilot can change are velocity and angle of attack. So as you loose thrust, you loose lift. Naturally, you pull back to preserve lift...doing so adds induced drag, further slowing you down and compounding the problem...eventually you run out of angle of attack and stall, reducing lift; which you need lift to oppose weight. The key may lie with an efficient wing and light weight. I’d look at high aspect ratios, as their lift to drag is better. You can tweak the engine all you want and try every prop in the book, but if the darn thing weights a lot with an inefficient wing, it won’t fly well.
Just my two cents, this has been awesome to watch and I wish you clear skies and tailwinds with your project!
Looks like its was just too nose heavy !!
Bigger prop and better wings. The weight is too much for the wings. I would build a different wing with motor and see at what rpm the plane flies. I would use that to calculate. Prop size etc
I would suggest to experiment a bit more with the phase angle. Because I suspect that the 60 degrees spins longer because it uses less air but also gives it less power.
Really awesome work, dude! Looking forward to the next one! 😀 BTW, your face was like "what can I do while this thing doesn't stop spinning?" 😂
This is a perfect example of a perfectly executed engineering work! Not giving in to half-satisfying solutions, and come up with new solutions again and again to improve existing systems. Great work, great series. I think what you need is a test bench for engines to measure not only rpm, but also force generated. With that, you could quickly check feasability for a new design, without building a plane around it. Could also be a nice project that I think many people would enjoy seeing you build. Keep up the good work, don't give up, we are waiting for the next versions of this engine :)
I've been watching your progress lately... I gotta say from one innovator to another, keep up the good work. I believe you're right there on a breakthrough.
The engine sounds like an a-10 warthog when firing
Tom, when you got higher torque, why didn't you switch back to the bigger prop?
I love watching him run with his planes as if he couldn't just throw it standing still
I've really enjoyed watching this series, don't give up! I used to play with an Airhogs back in the day and they where tiny and would fly for ages
Make a 6 cylinder air engine
No point. Just adds more friction and you still have to power them from the same air tank so you either use air faster or you make less torque
How about a Stanton Heavy, with 3 bottles?
Flashback Stanton BFP - next off the block.
Have it use up all the air from the first two so they fall off and then continue using the middle. :D
I've gotta give you "props" Tom, (yes, I like my puns intended) for your continued efforts into the fascinating world of aerial flight. Your videos are always worth the watch and I find myself always rooting for you! Good luck to you brother and keep up the great work! You are clearly on the "cutting edge"! (Again, love those intended puns!)
I like your channel, there's no BS, it's just straight to the point interesting fun!
19:23 it is a bear
You need a glider type design, and two bottles like last time.
Tom you're doing such a great job making this design better and better, its unbelievable that you got it to run for so long!!!!!! Keep up the good work :)
DUAL ENGINE!!! Thank you for making these awesome videos! Your making great progress!
Wow, what a difference!
wow indeed ...and im only 2 minutes into the video!
Yup... pretty much peaked at the 2 minute mark.... a lot of potential still
and thats why you don't comment until the end of the video ;)
you should fill the bottle with dry ice and warm water
That... actually sounds like a good idea.
Also if he does that, fly it in summer and paint the bottle black so it keeps beibg heated and the temperature differential is sustained better meaning more pressure.
Keep the good inventive spirit. We need more people like you.
Love the way you are determined to try and try.. Big LIKE...
bahog bilat means big like to yoy
Seems the front is too heavy.
Being front heavy is actually a good thing fore a plane, if the centre of lift is behind the centre of mass of a plane it will have a natural tendency to reorientate itself so that it flies tail first (which point its thrust will be facing in reverse and it will turn around and want to flip again), so it's best to have the centre of mass slightly in front of the centre of lift that's only true to a certain degree though because the aircraft will want to nosedive if the difference is too much, meaning it constantly has to pull up by using elevators, which means a lot of drag
@@d.thieud.1056 Yeah, but not -that- front-heavy. You want the CoM ever so slightly in front of the CoL. That looked like to me, like you said at the end, like it was far enough forward that significant pitch authority was required to maintain level flight, which decreases lift and increases drag. On a super-light plane like that, really the two should be practically co-located, if maybe a few millimeters forward of the CoL. It would make it difficult to fly, basically very stall-happy, and likely you would lose dynamic stability past a certain AoA, but it would be much more efficient through the air. Also, those wings, though lightweight, are very thick at the leading and trailing edges. 3D printed wings may be more efficient, even if they're a little heavier.
@@barefootalien Slanted wings aren't really a good choice here either, they proform optimally at high air speeds (if I'm not mistaken they where invented to prevent trans-sonic aircraft from breaking up from Mach effects). A straight wing would produce less drag for the same amount of lift here. A delta-wing-only setup isn't helping either, if he added canards he could move the COL forward and get better responsiveness.
@@barefootalien Perhaps he should also do some math on the angle of attack and diameter of his propellor blades too.
Like he said he has torque to spare, but said torque isn't being efficiently converted into thrust. Long blades will move far faster at the edges but require a lot of torque, small blades need less torque but higher RPMs, and it seems his engine is far better at providing torque than RPMs.
It also looks like he's using very shallow props, I think those are meant to provide max thrust at near 0 air speed (like on hovering helicopters). I think he may be better off with slightly higher AoA props though don't quote me on this.
You get a thumbs-up for perseverance.
I don't know if anyone made this comment, but one other variable is your wingspan. Im thinking that you can increase your wingspan without a proportional increase in weight by redesigning your wing as a membrane, versus a 3d airfoil. I think you're on the right track with this concept. Air is lighter and cheaper than other fuels. All the best!
Your ideas and experiments, along with their excellent presentation, are a great source of pleasure for us all.
While this air(squared)craft didn't quite work out, we can all see just how close you came to success with it :) .
Keep up the good work.
This is stupid good wow what an improvement from v1
bigger wings bigger prop?
to gear it up for higher rpm is a big mistake. overall efficiency in this application comes with bigger props and lower rpm. whats the problem of mounting a bigger prop? all the highly efficient electric model planes, F5J competition specifically, use even a gear reduction to be able to use a larger prop!! even though you lose some efficiency with a gear the overall efficiency increases due to a more efficient prop. so dont use a gear at all, just use a bigger prop!
Not a bigger prop, but a prop with more blades. A four bladed one would use the torque, and give the extra efficiency.
sorry but more than 2 bladed props are inefficient as well. the following blades are in the wake of the preceeding blade.. and a 1 bladed design is just impractical if not impossible.
1 bladed props were made and shown to be more efficient. You need a weight for balance.
yes it can be done. absolutely. but its just too easy to buy a twin blade $3 / €3 prop from the next best rc shop ;-)
Maybe you should try a non-symmetrical cam so its open the valve progressively and close it instantly so you would keep that piston acceleration and waste less air.
Great video man ! Loving what you are doing.
love your combination of engineering expertise and playfulness.
maybe the longer runtime came at the cost of thrust when tuning the stroke timing.
Redline I agree with that. Maybe the new timing is throwing it off
Maybe try a different airframe. The engine seems fine
Tom! I see you are on the bleeding edge of this air power! (sorry ;^)
Comedy. *insert laughing live audience*
respect 23 min of video and not even one ad in-between.
What you have managed to create with an FDM 3D printer is astonishing. I love watching your videos!
Great vid! Btw I think youshould make it in to aglider first before adding controls
What about using a co2 canister? You could probably do something with that so it can run longer and faster or something
problem is going to be pressure, most co2 cartridges is about 800 psi, he would need to make his engine out of iron or steel or somewhat thick aluminum to withstand that pressure, or design a gate that somehow lowers the pressure down to a safer level. both of which is going to be hard to do.
Regulators are heavy?
yes, seeing they're mostly made from steel, and with gliders you want it to be as light as possible, so making semi powered engine a really stupid fucking ideal that just cause's more problems than solve.
Poppet valve Co2 engines have been around for a long time, the high pressure isn't an issue because you only allow a small blip of CO2 through into the cylinder, ideally this should be liquid so it expands in the cylinder to drive the piston down.
W3ND311 ! Yup, do that ^^^
Keep going, this is really interesting stuff to watch!
Great work, It was interesting to see you try new things and learn from your failures.
You should try and put warm water in the bottle and after that drop a piece of dry ice in it. It will create a lot of pressure.
Thats fucking genius
Good idea
Water weighs a lot.
could also be liquid nitrogen
And if the engine stops, or crashes, the bottle builds up critical pressure, and goes off like a bomb, just as he gets to it to pick it up.
16:24 why does the timer start at almost 5 seconds instead of zero?
Cheating is fun?
@@jasmijnariel I guess? Let's just say it was an honest mistake :)
That little engine is a beautiful thing, thanks!
That is a heck of a lot more efficient, congrats!
I would love to see you use one of these engines with the disposable co2 cartridges. Tiny tanks with ridiculous psi you would have to regulate the pressure some how... But imagine the fly time!
Imagine a slim HPA tank for PCP pellet guns regulated. I tried to see if anybody has done it and they havent. Tank would be heavy but youd have an insane amount of power on tap compared to a 60 psi coke bottle
larger prop with higher pitch? will spin slower but give more thrust per rev.
This was super cool to watch happen. Keep it up!
Clever, love your experiments, can’t wait to see more
Dam this one is better and lasted longer
You spelled damn wrong
I have got an idea for increasing the capacity of compressed air: make wings be tank too (or ad other tank)
(Sorry,i don't speak english well)
You’re engrish is very gud
Yes yore englsh beri god
The compression has improved since the last video and she lasts longer too.. nice one mate
This is so cool, absolutely love your videos! Good luck with the plane. I want one!
I might be wrong here, but maybe it had more power in your previous video (which is maybe also why it didn't last as long), so maybe try realigning the cam the way it was before? And maybe turn the bottle around so the engine is behind the wing, the center of mass seems to maybe be a bit off. I've never flown an RC plane though, so I might be completely wrong.
The spring is a weakness to the original. With the cam he has much better control over airflow.
Air Hogs made a pusher prop air engine powered flying wing called "RFX Lazer" which looks like what you describe. They had several straight wing designs as well. In searching for samples of their engines I also came across references to air engine powered motorcycles, air engine powered onithopter, and even an air engine powered submarine. There are a lot of possibilities for this engine!
The engine in the last video was probably less efficient
Turning the engine around and mounting as a pusher is one way to move CG back which is one of the 3 problems I posted elsewhere
Need a gear. Enough powet. Not enough speed on prop. Try old cam with gear....... it only needs to move air. Not a load like a car with ground friction.
Instead of a gear just use a bigger prop, the effect is the same and they are more efficient anyways.
High RPM are only needed when you cant make the prop bigger.
Great effort! Difficult to find the right mix that will get the best results. Great fun!
"I think i might go straight to 100 psi." That Adam Savage grin on your face xD priceless
awesome project btw! And i know they say that one would bleed for doing what they love... but don't take it that litterary xDD
More cylinders!!!!!!!?????
you need a biwing or bigger wing
you need a bigger prop not smaller
you dont need more rpm, you need more air flow thru the prop.. a bigger prop is a square of the flow.. a little bigger wing, ,,,hell,, a lot more wing... and even 2 props..but a bigger prop or a 3 bladed bigger prop will make it fly
Thanks for sharing this. It's still quite interesting and enjoyable, even if it doesn't yet work as hoped.
I was quite into compressed air bottle rockets in highschool, it's worth investigating building longer bottles for more air volume, extra weight will be minimal. Or a twin prop with 2 bottles. Or a single prop, twin bottle like your bike motor design...
Put the bigger prop back on
One more 3d printed rc plane please! !!!!
LIKE IF YOU WANT THE SAME!
rst no I want more than one
Bob Dixon right better some planes than one😉
No
Please keep making these vids! They are so interesting and I would love to see some kind of gearing that could spin the prop faster then the engine rpm
Tom's such a trooper, great video BTW
Be careful in that sun my ginger friend...
I know of the danger myself, being a ginger too. :D SPF60 FTW.
Great one!
Two comments:
IC engines have valve overlapping to compensate for fluid inertia. Take a look at that.
Regarding the propeller: Why don't you try the larger propeller? It's not about rpms, you just want to increase thrust, and that will depend on the propeller thrust/rpm "rate" and the rpms. The larger the propeller, the higher that rate (assuming similar design). The speed may be limited by the fluid dynamics in the cylinder(torque will decrease as the rpms rise generally). More thrust/rpm on the larger propeller will force it to spin slower with more torque but the higher thrust/rpm rate of the bigger propeller will probably create more thrust.
Ideal would be to measure the torque-rpm distribution and use a propeller that gets the rpms of the maximum torque.
Just trying with different propellers would be a easier method.
Thanks for all your time on the projects! They are really interesting
Thank you for bleeding for us! we appreciate the hard work!
Melvin Olson haha I bled a lot for 14 views in one of my recent videos 😂
Sometimes I can hardly believe my eyes. I was stunned by how long the prop ran with just one pressurized plastic bottle of air. Amazing.
WOW! So cool, nice work!
Itd be cool to see you and the flight test guys get together!
Great work bro! Keep it up! Love it
Air powered finger slicer
Awesome invention dude!
Absolutely excellent young man very well done indeed what a great project kudos
There is such a thing as a fully threaded Schrader valve, and can confirm they're better for this application.
Great build! love your videos!! keep it up :)
welcome to i-vtec era :D great stuff
Loved watching your videos! Cool stuff.
Cool experiment !
*you finally got the damn idea to work, damn!*
Very impressive! be careful mate!
Well done
You rock. Cut the plane size by half and it should work.
You should try putting that on a biplane design. Let it catch more wind. Plus the tail will help keep it up. If you could make an air powered rear thrust type of system, your design would work better. Keep it up though man! Great stuff!
Good video series