New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
10-31-2004, 12:17 PM
#27
My Feedback: (551)
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
Skypilot:
You're right. The Hanger 9 33% Edge flys very well with it's wing loading of 30.1 oz/sq. ft. But then it has a wing area of 1760 sq. in.
On the other hand, Great Planes uses custom designed Selig airfoils for their high end models, and they work very well.
As you say, we'll see.
Jim
You're right. The Hanger 9 33% Edge flys very well with it's wing loading of 30.1 oz/sq. ft. But then it has a wing area of 1760 sq. in.
On the other hand, Great Planes uses custom designed Selig airfoils for their high end models, and they work very well.
As you say, we'll see.
Jim
10-31-2004, 10:21 PM
#28
Senior Member
My Feedback: (54)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Va Beach, VA
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
I too was eyeing this new GP Chipmunk,I am a big fan of glass fuses & I love the bigger size.I too love the attractive looks of the Chipmunks.I had two World Models Chipmunks(retract version) Hands down the best flying planes I have had to date .The first one I lost on the 5th flight due to battery failure.I sold the second one after many many easy/successful flights.The plane was extremely easy to fly as mentioned on post #24 with absolutely no bad habits whatsoever .I dont know what it was about the WM Chipmunks,both of the ones I had tracked straight as an arrow down the runway & required very very little rudder input-certainly made me look like a very highly accomplished pilot(i'm an average pilot).If they only knew the plane just seems to do it by it's self & made me look good 
Knife edge flight was another amazing detail-the plane again required very little stick input to maintain perfect level knife edges the whole entire length of the flying site.It would do them all day long with ease
I hope this GP Chipmunk flies just as great.We will see,I look forward to the first flight reports.I may just have to get me one of these babies!
Steve
Knife edge flight was another amazing detail-the plane again required very little stick input to maintain perfect level knife edges the whole entire length of the flying site.It would do them all day long with easeI hope this GP Chipmunk flies just as great.We will see,I look forward to the first flight reports.I may just have to get me one of these babies!
Steve
11-01-2004, 09:31 AM
#29
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
jrf,
The Chipmunk does not have the flying surfaces to do 3-D, it's wing loading is about right for normal aerobatic flight not 3-D. The lightest it could have come in at would have been 12 lbs, which is the weight of the Ohio R/C Chipmunk built with a 1.20 size engine, monokote covering and the minimum amount of glue. Many of the Ohio Kits with glassed fuselages build out to 15-17 lbs. with a G-38 but still land like a trainer. They have a varing airfoil wing with a fair amount of washout just as the full scale plane did. The GP Chip may be able to weigh less of the battery is moved as far forward as possible along with a Higley heavy hub to remove some of the lead.
Steve,
The Goldgerg and WM Chipmunks when properly trimmed and balanced require zero roll/pitch input in knife edge! Most Giant scale planes, even Extras can't do that without a computer radio and mixes. Dave Patrick did a great job designing the Goldberg. Looks like his 540 edge designs are winners also. I had called his business last year to see if they had interest in doing a large Chipmunk but they directed me to the Edge and Extra and then came out with a 1/4 scale Super Cub. Seems like there are enough 1/4 scale cubs out already.
I tell you I would like to see Great Planes do the Chipmunk in the Harold Krier paint scheme, it would be a nice tribute. It is very similar to the GP Ryan STA scheme on the fuselage and underside of the wing. The top of his wing had a sunburst effect.
Harold Krier was the first person to make a Super Chipmunk, Art Scholl copied most of the ideas and reportedly called them his own.
The Chipmunk does not have the flying surfaces to do 3-D, it's wing loading is about right for normal aerobatic flight not 3-D. The lightest it could have come in at would have been 12 lbs, which is the weight of the Ohio R/C Chipmunk built with a 1.20 size engine, monokote covering and the minimum amount of glue. Many of the Ohio Kits with glassed fuselages build out to 15-17 lbs. with a G-38 but still land like a trainer. They have a varing airfoil wing with a fair amount of washout just as the full scale plane did. The GP Chip may be able to weigh less of the battery is moved as far forward as possible along with a Higley heavy hub to remove some of the lead.
Steve,
The Goldgerg and WM Chipmunks when properly trimmed and balanced require zero roll/pitch input in knife edge! Most Giant scale planes, even Extras can't do that without a computer radio and mixes. Dave Patrick did a great job designing the Goldberg. Looks like his 540 edge designs are winners also. I had called his business last year to see if they had interest in doing a large Chipmunk but they directed me to the Edge and Extra and then came out with a 1/4 scale Super Cub. Seems like there are enough 1/4 scale cubs out already.
I tell you I would like to see Great Planes do the Chipmunk in the Harold Krier paint scheme, it would be a nice tribute. It is very similar to the GP Ryan STA scheme on the fuselage and underside of the wing. The top of his wing had a sunburst effect.
Harold Krier was the first person to make a Super Chipmunk, Art Scholl copied most of the ideas and reportedly called them his own.
11-01-2004, 09:49 AM
#30
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
jrf,
On second thought your right. The plane will be a flying pig that won't 3-D, will fall out of manuevers, land too fast, and will just plain suck to own. I think I will ask my girlfriend to cancel her order.
Yeh right.
On second thought your right. The plane will be a flying pig that won't 3-D, will fall out of manuevers, land too fast, and will just plain suck to own. I think I will ask my girlfriend to cancel her order.
Yeh right.
11-05-2004, 11:51 AM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
Posts: 10,489
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
Sky ... I have been having so much fun with my WM one ... knife edges are so easy to do! Still I would not mind a big scaled Chipmunk.
11-05-2004, 01:10 PM
#35
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Coffs Harbour NSW, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
Hi tIANci,
If you are interested in a Chipmunk this size, check out the ones from Apache Aviation.
I have two now (both Super Chipmunk and Pepsi Chipmunk) and they are fantastic.
These are kits but the build is easy.
One has a Moki 1.8 and the other has a G38
If you are interested in a Chipmunk this size, check out the ones from Apache Aviation.
I have two now (both Super Chipmunk and Pepsi Chipmunk) and they are fantastic.
These are kits but the build is easy.
One has a Moki 1.8 and the other has a G38
11-05-2004, 11:54 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
Posts: 10,489
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
apalson - thanks for the info, sadly I got a few problems ... one is I have too many planes for my liking also in Malaysia choice is VERY limited. I am very pleased with the WM Chippie powered by my ST G90. Soon my Funtana 90 will be here!!! And my PacAero Laer 200 (72") and my ... and my ... and my ... THIS HOBBY IS EVIL!!! Its a LHS conspiracy!!!
11-11-2004, 04:53 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rural,
TX
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
I know your being sarcastic...and it may be a great aerobatic performer.
But even with the lightest weight and biggest engine I just can't see it doing ANY 3-D.
Look at it. It just doesn't have the control surfaces to do 3-D. The ailerons are only on the outboard of the wing - just like the real one. Your not gonna 3-D with control surfaces that aren't in the prop blast at the least...nevermind the size and lack of deflection.
But even with the lightest weight and biggest engine I just can't see it doing ANY 3-D.
Look at it. It just doesn't have the control surfaces to do 3-D. The ailerons are only on the outboard of the wing - just like the real one. Your not gonna 3-D with control surfaces that aren't in the prop blast at the least...nevermind the size and lack of deflection.
11-11-2004, 07:05 PM
#39
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
bob,
You are absolutely right. This plane is designed to look and perform like the full scale aerobatic plane but probably better.
It is not designed to 3-D. It will probably knife edge better than the full scale plane and land at a slower scale speed.
WOW, a scale plane that flys like a scale plane, should be nice for people that like to try to emulate thier full scale heros. Many new planes have stretched fuselages, huge ailerons and cartoon rudders.
If someone wants to 3-D they need to buy a plane other than a Chipmunk, any Chipmunk.
I am looking forward to seeing this plane in person to see the quality and the scale detail. It looks as good or beter than the Christian Eagle in the photos. Than is probably another plane not meant for 3-D.
You are absolutely right. This plane is designed to look and perform like the full scale aerobatic plane but probably better.
It is not designed to 3-D. It will probably knife edge better than the full scale plane and land at a slower scale speed.
WOW, a scale plane that flys like a scale plane, should be nice for people that like to try to emulate thier full scale heros. Many new planes have stretched fuselages, huge ailerons and cartoon rudders.
If someone wants to 3-D they need to buy a plane other than a Chipmunk, any Chipmunk.
I am looking forward to seeing this plane in person to see the quality and the scale detail. It looks as good or beter than the Christian Eagle in the photos. Than is probably another plane not meant for 3-D.
11-16-2004, 05:08 PM
#46
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
I just received the kit today. The covering and paint are flawless! The tail surfaces are airfoiled. The fuselage is fairly light weight with no extra resin and the cowl is reinforced with carbon fiber. The control surfaces are large enough to be effective at low air speed. It looks like it will go together very easily and my Enya 1.55 will fit completely inside the cowl mounted inverted with a 1/4" prop washer spacer installed behind the prop.
The only thing funny is you can tell where the fuselage formers are. It would have been better to install them on the panel lines if possible. Then they would have blended in better.
I think this is an excellent value.
I have to get permission to assemble it before Xmas. Back in the box for now.
The only thing funny is you can tell where the fuselage formers are. It would have been better to install them on the panel lines if possible. Then they would have blended in better.
I think this is an excellent value.
I have to get permission to assemble it before Xmas. Back in the box for now.
11-16-2004, 11:03 PM
#49
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
The shape of the cowl makes it hard to get an engine completely enclosed. The only other 4 stroke engine that would fit completely would be a Laser 150. With the limited space for a muffler I would just use a 4 stroke, the cowl is too nice to cut up.
A gas engine with 1.20 4-stroke power would be a Roto 25, MVVS 160 with Bisson muffler or G-26. If I went gas I would mount the engine inverted and see if I could get a longer prop driver so the whole head won't be sticking out. If I had 600 euro I'd get the SM 30cc gas engine. It is light, compact and powerful with rear exhaust. The muffler could go right out the angled tunnel.
I forgot to mention that the plane was packed with a outer box custom fit to the inner box with foam in the ends to prevent shipping damage. They really packed this one well.
A gas engine with 1.20 4-stroke power would be a Roto 25, MVVS 160 with Bisson muffler or G-26. If I went gas I would mount the engine inverted and see if I could get a longer prop driver so the whole head won't be sticking out. If I had 600 euro I'd get the SM 30cc gas engine. It is light, compact and powerful with rear exhaust. The muffler could go right out the angled tunnel.
I forgot to mention that the plane was packed with a outer box custom fit to the inner box with foam in the ends to prevent shipping damage. They really packed this one well.