Embryo Streak (oz3430)

 

Do you have a photo you'd like to submit for this page? Then email admin@outerzone.co.uk

User comments

Hi, It is an invalid address.... ??? Friendly,
Olivier - 02/10/2021
I take it you mean the link in the Datafile to the Awaitik forum? Yes, that is now a dead link. At some point in the last 9 years, it died. This is not something that we need to do anything about. Here at Outerzone we are an archive. Link rot happens constantly and slowly, over time, as old sites die. There are many dead links here. But we are not in the business of policing or removing dead links. Apart from anything, dead links help inquisitive users to find useful info on, say, the Waybackmachine. So. That's where we are. If you simply want the plan, then use the Download Files section button. If you want to investigate the historical posting from the Datafile, then use the Waybackmachine, like this: http://web.archive.org/web/20160306191634...
SteveWMD - 02/10/2021
I'm starting back into rubber power models, and I noticed this plan. The photos show it to be a very sleek looking ship! And I'm definitely planning to build it! To print its plan out full size I'd have to go to the print center. Instead, after downloading it, I uploaded it into my CAD. I did some checks to see if this design met the Embryo Endurance AMA contest rules. I found that at quoted 18 in. WS, the wing area exceeded the 50 sq. in. requirement. I tried scaling first to 16 in. WS and then 17 in. WS. 17 in. WS was perfect. The wing area comes in at 49.3 sq. in. At that WS, the design also meets all the other rules for fuselage volume and stab max allowed area. I plan to build it at 17 in. WS and hope to send you pics! Thanks for all your work!
Dave Lentz - 05/12/2021
The original plan is fine. Each wing panel is ~8.5", and they join together on the centerline of the fuselage. The wing sits atop the "V" supports that are mounted at fuselage stations 3,4 and 5. There is no "centersection" per se, the wing panels form a simple "V" dihedral. Were you adding the fuselage width to the sum of the two panels to get a longer (incorrect) span?
D A - 16/12/2021
Steve/Mary Sorry to add this second comment--the model in the photo was built with a wing centersection, and not according to the plan. It is very misleading to show that image without a note to this effect.
D A - 16/12/2021
Ah, fair point. Does anyone have a nice photo of an un-modified model, that we can use for the main pic? Thanks.
SteveWMD - 16/12/2021
Have changed the wingspan listed here, from 18 to 17 in. Agreed, that makes sense. My mistake, I must have arrived at 18 by adding the fuse width.
SteveWMD - 16/12/2021
Have removed the photos of Maciej's model, at his request. That's a shame.
SteveWMD - 16/12/2021
It is indeed a great pity that the pics of Maciej's splendid model are lost to us. Many model pics show their builder's interpretations of the original, and OZ can hardly be expected to point out every variation.
JB - 16/12/2021
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SihQbkzidVE Youtube link.
Olivier - 16/12/2021
I agree with JB.
RC Yeager - 16/12/2021
Wow, I just watched the above video! I would never be brave enough to fly that close to trees!
Awesome!
Dave Lentz - 20/12/2021
Hi everybody, I'm trying this one to experiment some motor but I don't get "top 34 & 5" piece. Are wings supposed to be angled and those are top stabilizers?
Barlafuzzy - 19/12/2022
Not 34 & 5... 3, 4 & 5... meaning that one of these would go on the "top" of formers #3, #4 and #5, to match the wing dihedral.
RC Yeager - 19/12/2022
Actually it would be stations #3, #4 and #5, not formers.
RC Yeager - 19/12/2022
Hi RC, thanks for your answer. Sorry for the typo, I meant 3, 4 & 5. Do you mean those are supports for wings? Drawings are not that clear…
Barlafuzzy - 20/12/2022
Barlafuzzy... If you still have doubt, read the past comment by D A (fourth comment from the top), specifically the third sentence. Fairly straightforward. You do three copies of that piece and place one copy each on top at stations 3, 4 & 5, for the wing to rest on. Good luck with your build.
RC Yeager - 21/12/2022
Instead of using square "sticks," parts 3,4 and 5 are the upper "cross-members" of the fuselage box, under the wing. In the fuselage side view they are depicted as the dark/shaded items under the wing. Thus, the top of the fuselage has a shallow "V" area that the wing sits on. It's kind of like a "crease" on top of the cabin area that corresponds to the wing dihedral. Hope that helps!
D A - 21/12/2022
As expected.
Thanks a lot!
Barlafuzzy - 21/12/2022
Hi all, this comment has been a long time coming but I felt I needed to complete this model and send in my photos [main pic, 003-006]. Yes, I am a slow builder. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the only people who build slower than me are the people who don’t build at all.
I would like to apologize to Maciej because my first comment seemed to trigger some other comments making Maciej feel like he needed to remove his photos. That was completely unintended on my part, and I apologize. My comment about “fixing” the drawing meant that when I compared my CAD drawing to the original hand drawing, obviously there would be minor differences, duh!
The fact that Maciej deviated from the plan should be no big deal, otherwise there wouldn’t be tons of photos in here of old time IC free flight models that were converted to electric RC. I hope Maciej will reconsider and repost his photos (in front of mine because he built his first).
Did I deviate from the original plan? Heck yeah! I used an adjustable nose button (Gizmo Geezer) to try it out. This year I read a couple of notes and watched a couple of YouTube videos about using doculam to cover our models. This was the model “in-build” so, I had to try it. I also rubber banded on the horiz./vert. stabilizer assembly so I could make easier “shim/trim” adjustments. At least in my mind. I modified the horiz. Stabilizer center structure to match the top of the fuselage to minimize distortion by the rubber bands (hopefully). Finally, the front end of the fuselage made me think of Pilatus Turbo Porter. So, I made “turboprop” type exhausts. I call mine the Embryo “Turbo” Streak!
The all up weight (with out rubber motor) came in at 19 grams. Someone will have to tell me if that is competitive or not. No matter. I would be disqualified from any official FAC Embryo event because the rules say the wings and tails surfaces must be covered with Japanese Tissue or similar. I am a fun/sport flyer anyway and do not compete. I think using the doculam covering will make the model more durable when landing on wet, freshly cut grass. My search for the mythical endless field of tall grass with no trees continues…
Does anybody know who Florent Baecke is?
Dave Lentz - 30/07/2024
Can't find very much about Florent Baecke online. We can see he had several plans published in MB and FAC in the 80s and 90s. There is mention that he was from Texas. That led me to this obit page, which I guess is him: https://www.legacy.com/funeral-homes/obituaries/name/florent-baecke-obituary?pid=183075853&v=batesville&view=guestbook&page=2
SteveWMD - 31/07/2024
something more:
https://www.mysanantonio.com/sa-obituaries/article/Baecke-was-well-known-painter-farmer-in-the-10801766.php
pit - 31/07/2024
Thank you for that.
Dave Lentz - 01/08/2024
Add a comment