Antonov AN 124 Rusian

How about a "dolly " for take off?

paul d
A take off dolly would certainly solve one problem but it would preclude any flight from my local rough grass field. Even with big 'Tundra' size wheels there would be insufficient thrust to get the likely take off speed.
So far all I have built can be flown (and the maiden!) from there.

The most bizarre has been the DH Albatross which was hand launched on its maiden with it retractable U/C down and using the wheel wells as a finger holds and belly landed with the wheels up! :lol:

Same solutionmaybe???

OT
Yes hand launched retracts would be solution but the Albatross uses proper 6" 2 blade props which give sufficient thrust to handle the additional weight.
The AN124 U/C layout will need both retracts and flaps so would need evenl more thrust to handle the weight yet its 3" EDF props will generate no more than half that of the Albatross!

So far the only solution appears to be some form of hand launching cradle, what ever that might look like.

catapult ramp launch?

Thanks Klippy? for the mod to the title.

My thinking so far is based on the Albatross hand launch method but do away with the actual undercarriage legs (there are 12 in total on the AN124 :woohoo:) and use simple spring loaded (or servo powered?) doors to cover the necessary hand launch finger holds.

There are 10 main doors to choose from so it should be possible to select a pair close to the CofG!

Slightly forward of would be better - then it would launch like a dart instead of trying to loop over your head.

I have bought motors, ESCs and props to build this but the heating element and thermocouple unit required to repair my 3D printer have still to arrived. Getting one nacelle right and printing it has got to be the first task.
Despite its size I still favour a one piece wing as with the batteries, ESCs and rx carried within it there would only be 2 servo connections (elevator and rudder) required to assemble the plane.

The only question would whether having 'batteries in the wing' would allow a suitable CofG to be achieved - ballast not allowed! :woohoo:

Ahem - point of order - -
First line of first post read - First I have no intention of building one in Depron or anything else.:woohoo:

No?? :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: [badass] [badass]

That statement was quite correct. At the time I had no intention of building one!
A further point of order - did my earlier post today actually state that I was?
It only says i had assembled a set of motors, ESCs and props!

Now my printer is back working I did some!
An all printed 'test' nacelle and pylon for the A124.


Of similar overall size to the A350 nacelle and built up the same way from 3 pieces along with the same drone motor and 3x3.5 4 blade prop.
It is however significantly heavier at 91 g compared to 70 g for the Depron clad nacelle of the A350.
Obviously it is simpler to make, you simply watch the printer , but it takes 8¹/₂ hours to print the 3 pieces and there will be four to do = 34 hours! :woohoo:

Needs a bit more "thinking".

Superb design and print Q.

Thanks Ralph.

Left to right a bit more development of the motor mount and pylon component.

Together nearly 9 hours printing and about the same 'fiddling' with both CAD and CURA! :woohoo:
Left weighs 21.6 g where as the right just 17.5 g. A 20% saving and it is significantly more rigid and stronger.
The 'killer' bit is the nacelle itself. It currently weighs a couple of grams more than the motor and prop. As most of its weight comes from the inner and outer skins there is not much I can do about it.

Although the AN124 will have a slightly larger span than the A350 it will have significantly more wing area, but then it will need to with 4 of all the electrics rather than 2!

Still thinking!

Could you make two of the motors dummies,
So instead of printing 6 [badass]
Ha its the little one

BB
Yes the A350 flies well enough on 2 but it is a very 'clean' air frame so it manages with a thrust at just 25% of its weight.
On the other hand the fuselage of the AN124 is for the same span considerably 'fatter', thus a bit heavier and rather less well streamlined. Add the drag of two dummy nacelles and I expect it would just not perform on a 25% thrust to weight ratio.

Even with 4 fans I expect I will struggle to achieve sufficient thrust to overcome the extra drag and weight of its 'portly' fuselage, hence my 'paranoia' about weight!