R/C Airplane with the most payload capacity

I'm planning on getting an R/C airplane to experiment with sensors and
video cameras, etc.. I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a .60 size
airplane with great payload handling capabilities, and what a realistic
upper limit on payload capacity might be (1lb? 5lbs? 10lbs?). I don't
want to go larger than .60 scale. Also, is there a way to estimate
payload handling capability based on wing surface area, and wing
loading specs? What is the wing loading spec anyway? Is it just the
weight of the airplane over the wing surface area? And is there some
upper limit on wing loading where there is no longer lift or something?
Asa
Reply to
acannell
Loading thread data ...
Aerial photography forums:
formatting link
It would be helpful to know the payload physical size, weight, and estimated flight elevation above sea level.
Reply to
aeropal
Thanks for the links. I don't have a certain payload in mind, I am trying to get an idea of what is feasible with a .60 size. I don't think I would ever go above 1500 feet above sea level.
Asa
aer> Aerial photography forums:
formatting link
Reply to
acannell
One of the Telemaster series of planes ought to work then...hope you LOVE lots of wood.
Reply to
Keith Schiffner
Some candidates:
Senior Telemaster Kit
formatting link
World Models Super Frontier Senior ARF (mostly constructed)
formatting link
Sig Kadet Senior ARF
formatting link
If this happens to be your first RC airplane, finding an experienced RC model pilot would be advisable. Flying Model Simulator will give you a feel for what RC model flying is like.
formatting link
Reply to
aeropal
Thanks for the suggestions aeropal. I had been considering a Hangar 9 Alpha .60 Trainer RTF. Whadda ya think? The RTF kit is $389 with engine and radio, and I can go buy it local. I had looked at the telemaster and it does seem more payload capable (its huge), but is it overkill? I have no idea how much payload any of these aircraft are realistically capable of, might you have any idea?
Asa
aer> Some candidates:
Reply to
acannell
A Sig Kadet Senior ARF will carry a pretty decent payload. I have one that has carried as one payload: A micro wireless transmitter, micro camera (standard servo mounted in the wing), 10 cell 12vAA nicad pack, 2"X3"X5" black box telemetry unit, 5 cell 6v AA nicad pack, several switches and all the wiring to hook the whole mess together. Standard servos, rx, power pack, plane is in the stock configuration. No mods other than hard points added for mounting the various bits. Powered with a Super Tigre .51 ringed engine.
formatting link
The top link is airborne video from the plane while carrying all the stuff. Altitude telemetry readout stops at 1000 feet while the plane is still climbing. Second link is airborne video (much higher altitude) but without telemetry unit and 6v power pack for it. I bet the plane would carry a small handycam without much trouble but I would keep the aerobatics down to a minimum.
Reply to
Fubar of The HillPeople
As you referenced in your first post, the ounces per square foot "wing loading" is a factor. At 7-8# and 911 Sq In wing area, the Alpha 60 calculates at 18-20 oz/sf. If the payload was around an additional 2 pounds, that would still only be around 25 oz/sf . . which is not excessive for the estimated 1500' elevation. The higher wing loading would require a slightly faster airspeed, however.
The $389 Hangar 9 Alpha .60 Trainer RTF is a good value for the money. One thought is that the 4-channel JR Quattro radio may not have enough channels to meet your needs (if remote payload equipment activation is necessary). One trick is to couple the ailerons and rudder together on the right stick through a Y-harness. This would open up 1 free channel that would be operated by the former left stick rudder channel. But a 5 or 6 channel radio may be more suitable.
formatting link
Reply to
aeropal
Thanks for the info aeropal. I'm interested in how you are using the wing loading to determine whats realistic given the atlitude. Would you be so kind as to explain what the relationship between oz/sf and maximum payload is? I.e., why is 25 oz/sf okay at 1500'? What is the most that is okay and how do you calculate that okay level for various altitudes?
Asa
aer> As you referenced in your first post, the ounces per square foot "wing
money.
enough
channel
formatting link
Reply to
acannell
Wow what were you doing a UAV project of some sort? Why did you have so much fuel? That engine is a gasoline one right?
Reply to
acannell
The wing loading statements are entirely personal opinion . . just something you have to experience for yourself.
Reply to
aeropal
Orig telmaster with ST 71 / perry pump and carb
Fuel two 1 gallon plastic jugs strapped to the fues sides and to wing. and a 24 oz internal fuel tank. Cross country at 45 MPH. Takeoff was long but stable. Flew nice once in the air.
total weight about 24 pounds.
Hugh
Reply to
Hugh Prescott
Uh, homeland security? Hello? Yes, I was on this site called rcgroups
and...
Maybe you could describe your application and intended payload a bi more before we go much further
-- Li-Pu Batterie ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Li-Pu Batteries's Profile:
formatting link
this thread:
formatting link
Reply to
Li-Pu Batteries
You should be able to lift about 15lb total weight, on a 60 at least. Maybe as much as 20Lb on a big wing area, slow, old fashioned sort of plane.
Senior telemaster is a plane I have heard of in the load carrying context.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Another approach may yield larger lifting capacities, but it would require considerably more time/skill to make work. Here's my thoughts on it:
get/make the largest flying wing you can: here is one possible candidate from:
formatting link
Ship 83" Span EPP/EPS Large Combat Flying Wing Area: 1440 sq.in. / 4 lb. EPS/EPP Full Kit: $90.00 / Econo Kit: $84.00 All EPP Full Kit: $130.00 / Econo Kit: $124.00
and mount a reverse rotation "pusher" engine to it. This will add a pound or so. You might want to consider an electric so you arent vibrating as much when taking pics, but this may degrade your lifting ability considerably. If this is for very short flights then you can use a lighter battery however and regain some capacity.
Install the camera pointing up. You'll have to fly inverted to take pics but it will be protected on landings.
Launch it with a bungee catapult or somesuch.
Whatever the design, experiment (test fly) with non-expensive weight (a camera sized cardboard box filled with rocks?) in small increments till you get to the desired weight and are confident that you can fly with the weight of the camera equipment.
It should have a lot more lifting capacity than a traditional plane design because it doesn't have to carry landing gear or even a fuselage, which means considerably less weight and drag. The flying wing design also only needs 3 channels so the fourth channel, if you have one, can control the camera.
Good luck, report back.
Reply to
Steve Banks
As I said, I don't have a specific payload yet, I am interested in experimenting with video, home-brew sensors, gps, etc.. and I'm trying to get an idea of whats realistic.
Li-Pu Batteries wrote:
rcgroups,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
formatting link
View this thread:
formatting link
Reply to
acannell
15lbs total weight, so thats including the 8 lb aircraft w/radio/servos/fuel right? So I am looking at around 7 lbs max payload then on a typical .60 size? That sounds pretty good, I think you can cram a whole lot of electronics and batteries into 7 lbs, especially if you are trying.
Reply to
acannell
Here's a commercial aircraft that might show what can be done with state-of-the-art design:
Marty
Reply to
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
Maybe not the first...I do recall seeing one at Boeings Museum of flight though.
Reply to
Keith Schiffner
payload
While you might be able to haul an additional 7lbs around on paper, the airplane's structure is probably not designed to do the same, especially if you're talking about an ARF.
ARFs are designed and built to handle a reasonable weight range, not haul around twice their own weight. You're going to have serious issues with wings folding in midair, landing gear collapsing, etc..
Reply to
mkirsch1

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.