R/C Airplane with the most payload capacity

Aerial photography forums:

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:

One of the Telemaster series of planes ought to work then...hope you LOVE lots of wood.

Some candidates:

Senior Telemaster Kit

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:

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

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

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

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?

The wing loading statements are entirely personal opinion . . just something you have to experience for yourself.

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

total weight about 24 pounds.

Hugh

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:

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.

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:

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.

rcgroups,

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a commercial aircraft that might show what can be done with state-of-the-art design:

Marty

"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.

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..