P3RIPPERFW

My Feedback: (5)

yeah i was pretty happy with what i saw from the plane when i wasnt sweating bullets trying to fight the radio issues i started having. I am having some serious radio issues im trying alleviate. One question. How did you run your antenna and did you use extensions to get to the back of the plane of hardwire them together? oh also I think the reverser i used is giving me some of the problems with the glitching. Ever heard of such a problem or experienced it with yours?

pecker18

Did you mount you K&B the recommended 120 mm from the firewall?

Not24

My Feedback: (1)

I did nothing at all to secure my wires in the tail. They just lay there on the bottom, unless I'm upside down, of course. My antenna is running down the outside of the fuse, on the bottom and is secured to the tailwheel with a rubberband.

Never had a glitch with this radio and setup.

Not24

My Feedback: (1)

I don't recall deviating from the instructions in any way, so I would say that it is per plan. I may have set the distance more so by setting the gap behind the engine for running the fuel lines. I honestly don't remember. Sorry.

P3RIPPERFW

My Feedback: (5)

I set mine at the recommended 120 mm. I tried putting a como .51 in the plane first but the distance from the firewall to the 120mm mark was almost unobtainable because the engine had a very short case. It actually set at the very end of the motor mounts and was still a mm or two short.

Not24 did you use a reverser in the plane for your elevators or does your reciever allow multiple elevator plug ins?

Not24

My Feedback: (1)

I used a reversing y harness. Works great. No issues at all with it.

Dyehard

I finally got around to balancing my Harrier by putting a ply tray in the next bay behind the radio compartment and then building a battery box against the rear former in that bay. I also changed from a 600 mil pack to a 1400 mil pack. Even with all that weight moved back eight inches, it still required some solder wrapped around the tail wheel wire to balance at 150 MM behind the wing leading edge. I really didn't care for the results, as the airplane started feeling squirrely and picked up some wing rock in a harrier. I removed the solder from the tail for the next flight, moving the CG to around 140MM. Much better, most of the squirrelyness was gone and the harriers became soled again. With this CG on high rates you can do full elevator loop and it still doesn't snap. The walls have improved, downwind one are really pretty, it looks like it slides for fifty feet after the verticle pull. Everything else it just as good at this CG. Knife edge is the one thing that sucks on this plane, the rudder really has a lot of roll coupling. Maybe with a little more practice it will become easier. After the last flight Sunday, as I was dissasembling the Harrier, I found the rear wing tube slid well over to the left. The small wood block that centers the tube had broke loose inside the left wing. That will be a pain to reglue in place, I may just put pin through the center of the cardboard tube in the fusalage to capture it. I don't thing a 1/16 hole should hurt the integrity of either the cardboard tube or the aluminum tube. I was at the local hobby shop the other day and saw some Ultracote that had a red and yellow two inch square checkerboard. If the Harrier survives the summer, I may replace the bottom wing covering with that. Even though niether my son or my self is have a great deal of trouble seeing the Harrier at this time, the checkerboard will make it easier to see and make it look a little different.

Not24

My Feedback: (1)

By the sound of it, your plane is much heavier than mine. Mine is right at 6 lbs and flies like it's 5 lbs. I get no skidding in a wall unless I use spoilerons. It just stops right now. My throws are all I could get while keeping the deflections even from side to side. No way can I do a full elevator loop and expect it to fly through it. I suppose I could do one from a hover, which would be a waterfall. It does those really well. Mine settles in for a landing tail low with a little power with an empty tank. It doesn't seem to pitch up more as it slows down, like the Funtana does. I don't think the knife edge thing will ever be figured out on this plane. I suspect it's due to the flat bottom fuse and rounded top. With no speepback, it should have no roll coupling, but it does. Go figure.

airborneSGT

My Feedback: (15)

Would smoke be out of the question on this plane? I have a Magnum .70 four stroke in need of a home. I am trying to keep my collection to under ten. I have 3 28-33% planes (had four but just sold one I had two of!) and so far now only two glow engines:
1. Saito .72 in a DP ultimate
2. Magnum .70fs

Is the .70 enough to haul it around you all think? I would apreciate any feedback.

Not24

My Feedback: (1)

First of all, the 70 should be perfect. Especially if it's lighter than a Saito 82. If I had one, that's what I would put on it. As for smoke, theres no room for a tank, and the model really wouldn't like the added weight. The 90 size may be a different story, but no way on the 46 size.

Dyehard

Not24, I just weighed my Harrier and it weighs 6 pounds 5.7 ounces. I have a set of Ohous lab balances, so the weight is accurate to a couple of grams. There a little fuel left in the tank, about a fifth of a tank, a couple of onces could probably be subtracted for that (I really need to redo the tank so that I can drain out unused fuel). So figure 6 pound 4 ounces. When I say it skids in a wall, that is only when there is a breeze and you do them downwind. I almost always have spoilerons turned on when I do a wall, walls done upwind or in still air look just like the name, like it hit a brick wall. We tried several times Sunday and it will do a full elevator loop with out snapping, on high rates. I also have high rate throws maxed as far as the surfaces will allow. Landings are pretty with the Harrier. With out flaps they are just as you say, tail low and easy. With flaps, the airplane come out of the sky at a real steep angle but with no speed buildup, followed by a touchdown at walking speed. Works great if the wind isn't blowing but it's real easy to ballon if there is any substantial amount of wind.

airborneSGT, the Magnum 70 should fly the Harrier 46 well as a sport plane, but you may find if lacking in a hover or any manuever requiring a lot of power. I just checked on Towers site and they give the weight of the Magnum 70 as 21.2 onces. The Saito manual gives the weight of he 82 as 16.3 onces. That is five more onces to haul around with a lot less power. The weight of the Saito 82 and 72 are almost identicle, so I would use the Saito 72 given a choise.

Not24

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks for the clarification on your flight performance. Sounds exactly like mine. I have tried the flaps for landing, I think their dialed in at about 50%. I don't get a dramatic slowdown from flaps up, but rather just a nose down approach vs. a nose up approach. I find the nose up approaches more to my liking. What speed and power setting do you use going into that super tight loop? I'd like to see if I can duplicate that. I have a feeling that I can't use full up elevator, which would mean that either I can get more than you, or there is a cg or weight difference between the two. I will get a more exact weight before I fly again, so I know what I'm talking about.

EYB

Dyehard

Throttle setting was wide open, at whatever speed the 14x4 prop pulls the plane at full throttle in level flight. I made a custom balance stand to balance the plane at the bottom of the fusalage. I measured back from the leading edge of the wing and made two marks with an erasible marker at 140 and 150mm, then extended those marks to the bottom of the fusalage with a speed square. The CG as it's being flown is at the 140mm mark. The landing approaches with flap are done at the same approach speed as without flap, but the approach angle is about three times steeper. It's only when the nose comes up that the speed drops, it then touches down much slower than without flaps. Cool looking, but if the wind is gusty, it can slam the airplane down when in that nose down attitude and when flared the wind will make it ballon easily. After a couple of close calls we now save the flaps for calm air.
For reference, I measured some travels on my Harrier. My elevator travels up and down 3 1/8 inches measured at the farthest point to the rear. My ailerons and spoilerons travel 2 1/8 inches. My landing flaps go down 1 3/4 inchs, so I am using much more than 50% flaps.

greg1232

Hiya i just bought myself a harrier 3d .46 and i was told that a 60 engine would be to bid for it since it jumps in size from 53 - 60 so i bought a .53 engine for it aps one. will this be powerful enough to prop hang and blender and stuff like that.
Also i just put standard S3003 servos in everything including to ailerons will these be strong enough and will they give me any trouble? thanks greg

xoon

My Feedback: (3)

i'm Planning to buy a Harrier 90 and put a Super tiger 90 in it... but would this thing take a 90? if it does i will reconsider buying the harrier 90

3dman523

My Feedback: (1)

If you beef up the firewall you might be able to do it. But you would probaly hovering at idol[X(][X(][X(][X(][X(]

Not24

My Feedback: (1)

It'll do just fine. The key to good performance is the right prop. Standard servos on mine work great, just as long as you don't fly too fast.

Not24

My Feedback: (1)

No way in the world! Not a chance! Never! Forget that! Why would you want to? Don't even think about it. Good! Glad you understand.

Dyehard

xoon, you've already seen what is being said in the Harrier 60 thread, that the tigre 90 is marginal at best, powerwise. I consider requiring 85% throttle to hover to be barely capable of hoving. My H46 only needs around 1/3 throttle to hover. The H60 would still fly with the Super Tigre 90, it just wouln't have great verticle performance.
greg 1232, same answer. The 53 won't have any more power than a good 45. With the right prop you might get it to hover, but their won't be a lot of power left. Luckily, to have fun with this plane, you don't have to have gobs of excess power. Blenders (a straight down roll followed by an emmediate flat inverted spin don't take power, just lots of altitude and large surface throws. Same for harriers, tic tocs and a lot of other manuevers. You can still have fun with the Harrier 46 powered by a 53, just don't expect outstanding verticle performance.

3dman523

My Feedback: (1)

If you do this you have to make a video i would love to see it.

motodude11

My Feedback: (1)

if you guys want to really learn 3d i'd get one of the new foamy e's that are out now they are the best 3d tranier ever!! i fly one and the things will hover with ease, walking the dog is cake, and all the rest is effort less!! Plus you dont have to worry about breaking a nice plane that wood and would just smash to pieces you can make any mistake and still (for the most part) repair it, i hover mine and can do tail touches with ease. i've moved up from one of the e foamies to a mini 3d and the mini is not half as forgiving as a foamie, dont get me wrong its amazing at 3d but its just not a foamie. I dont have enough confidence with it to tail touch yet, lets just put it that way, and i worry about smashing it up since its wood. JM2C though so do what you guys want. In my opinion its the most cost effective way to learn 3d.

Josh

airborneSGT

My Feedback: (15)

Thanks for all the clarification everyone. I think I might just do this as an E-conversion. Working at hobby shop/ sponsorship rocks

oldbloke

Had the stock aileron linkage rod strip a thread to the clevis in flight. Only indication was a lazy aileron response. No sweat though landing was a breeze this sucker flies well on one aileron !!!

3dman523

My Feedback: (1)

On my harrier 90 the servo crapped out and I flew around for a while, landed, and then found out I only had one ailoron. I didn't even notice.

Super D

I have one on the way. I'm gonna put a saito 82, futaba 9001's(6volts), probably 3in foam wheels.

Hows the tail wheel? should I just get a sullivan?
Thanks I'm excited about this plane.