rcten

sseward, that is the October 2008 issue of Model Aviation.

sseward

My Feedback: (1)

rcten,
Thanks! 9 inches should be a lot better than 8 inches! Do you think the Ft-160 will fit in ok? Guess I should keep my old issues of Model aviation!

Steve

maukaonyx

Hi! This is a truly beautiful plane that I'm tempted to get. I like to fly aerobatics and wonder if anyone who owns this plane could offer some comments on how much coupling there is when rudder is applied for knife edge? Thank you very much. (I've got good aerobatic planes, just looking for a different looking plane to do nice aerobatics with.) Jon

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

The rudder is VERY powerful. At high throttle using high rates, you can do a snap-roll using just the rudder. On the other hand, it will do a decent knife edge with just a small amount of rudder. Not much rudder coupling at those low deflections, but it is a high wing airplane. That means lots of proverse aileron to balance the weight of the landing gear.

Jim

maukaonyx

Thank you Jim for your response. It helps push me closer to this plane, haha.

I have another question for the guys who have this plane already. Like some others, I would prefer to put a glow engine in just due to personal preferences. Mainly I am thinking that keeps the power to weight ratio up, and I want to do some aerobatics. Would the new OS 200 four stroke be good for this plane? Would it be a gas guzzler like someone said the Saito 180 is? How about the Magnum XL 180? Your input is appreciated. Thanks. Jon

TooLow

My Feedback: (5)

Just my 2 centsbut save yourself some greif and money and go gas. I have 2 of the Coupes and have g26's in each one. Little or no cleanup after an evening of flying20min flights=16oz fuel and a kleenex to clean off the oil. Perfect fit and no added weight to get it to balance and using 2.4 for control not a glitch in over 200 flights! My second Coupe is in the process of being stripped and recovered in the "Lil Butch" colors red and white insted of the red and yellow.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

I do not have experience with the 200, but the 180 is definitely a gas guzzler. The Magnum makes less power and uses less fuel. One thing for sure though, the Saito 180 gives the Clip Wing a lot more zip than the G-26. With the optional front or rear mounted elevator servos, it will balance pretty close with either engine.

You might also think about the OS 160 or Moki/Mark 180 two-strokes. Power equal to the 180 and 200 using a lot less fuel.


Jim

maukaonyx

Thank you Jim. I have an OS 160FX in my Giles 202, and I agree about the power and gas sipping, but geez it doesn't sound like a nice 4 stroker! And that classic Monocoupe is beckoning for a sweet 4-stroke sound. Jon

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

I can't argue with that! Well, look at it this way; the OS 200 can't possibly use more fuel than the Saito 180!

Jim

GaGeeBees

My Feedback: (23)

While I agree with Too Low's comments regarding the virtues of gas engines, I just can't stand the sound. Give me a choice and I'll go four stroke glow every time. Mine balanced without having to add ballast of any kind. Elevator servos are in the tail and the battery packs are toward the back of the cockpit. The Saito radial is an absolute jewel. Prime it, turn on the onboard glow and one flip starts it every time. My other Monocoupe is powered by an OS 1.60 Gemini, another fine engine. The OS 2.00 is a powerhouse and ought to really haul. The only negative that I'd worry about would be vibration. Good Luck!

sseward

My Feedback: (1)

Do you have the OS Gemini in the Pac Aeromodel monocoupe? I have that engine and I was waiting to buy this plane until I knew how it works in this aircraft.

Steve

GaGeeBees

My Feedback: (23)

Hi Steve,

I have the 1.60 Gemini in an Ikon N'west Monocoupe. It is not a clipped wing (wingspan is 96"). It flies it fine. The Gemini is very similar in power to the 1.70 radial.

extra-nut

Has anyone tried to shoehorn a Saito 325 radial into one of these? [X(]

MormonMike

My Feedback: (2)

Gads, you guys, A Saito 1.50 is plenty of power but, of course, you have your own choices. This one kinda like's to veer off about 45 degrees half way through the take-off roll. Anybody else have that problem ? Absoulutly a beautiful plane, flys great but you do need to use a little throttle to bring it in or it can [ and in my case, will tip-stall ] Sheeshsters, that was close ! But a little power and it settled right down almost three-pointer. JUST LOVE THIS GOLDEN-AGE STUFF !! MM

MormonMike

My Feedback: (2)

Tom, My "Mono" is balanced as per instructions but it's showing about 1/8 inch past the main spar. Guess I could bring it forward to right on the spar. I do have quite a bit of lead screwed onto the firewall. I'll be flying it Thursday as it is but this will probably be the last good flying day for quite a while. There may not be time to experiment with this for now. One thing for sure, you don't try to turn this plane on the tarmac as it's finishing it's roll-out. You go straight until it stops or those sponge tires will grab asphalt as you turn and there it goes, nose over. [ good thing I install "chin-guards'' on the bottom of the cowl.] Seeya, MM

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Mike:

Those two ground handling problems you mentioned lead me to believe that you need more clearance between the wheel and the bottom edges of the wheel pant. Under side loads, the tires can flex sideways and if they rub the edge of the wheel pant opening, it is like putting on the brake on that side.

As for tip stalling, I have flown two Pacific Clipwings (Saito 180 and G26) and I couldn't get either one to tip-stall, with or without flaperons. Have you checked your lateral balance? Looked for a warped wing? Did the wing struts fit easily or did you have to force one side? Or maybe it was a strong crosswind gust?

"Quite a bit of lead screwed to the firewall"? The 180 weighs the same as the 150 and mine balanced with no lead at all. Did you put the elevator servos in the rear instead of in the cabin? Your Monocoupe sounds like a different airplane than the ones I flew. [sm=what_smile.gif]

Jim

MormonMike

My Feedback: (2)

Hello Jim, That's an excellent thought on the wheel pants. I never figured the tire rubbing against the inside of the pant rim and causing it to act like a brake on a turn. Hmm, A Dremel will take care of that. I don't have a tip-stall problem with it, might be someone else your thinking of, however, the lead issue, my servos are in the cabin up front and though I can't recall off the top of my head how much lead is in on the firewall, it's what it took to balance it out. There's a good possibility that there may be too much so I'll check that out. It's strange, two identical layouts in our planes yet one takes a lot of lead in the nose to make it work. I'm open for more suggestions because my PAC Gee Bee Y has the very same problem. Appreciate the advice, Seeya, MM

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

You mentioned a tip-stall in post #214, but if you don't have a real problem, that's good.

Of course, different examples of the same airplane can have different wood densities in the tail and balance differently, but it shouldn't be very much different. Maybe your balancing technique is different than mine? I balanced the Monocoupe right side up, (GBY inverted) in level flight attitude, using a Great Planes balance stand. If you are trying to balance it nose down on the stand, your CG is actually more noseheavy than the instructions call for.

BTW, that approach stall you mentioned above is an indication that your Monocoupe may be nose-heavy.

Jim

MormonMike

My Feedback: (2)

Hello again Jim, I see what I did. The tip stall I'm refering to is my piloting skills [ or lack of..... ] Coming in too slow, I'm putting it on the verge of a stall. That would indicate possible nose heavy. It's balanced pretty much on the metal spar or just an 1/8 inch behind it. I'll take out an ounce from the firewall and try that first and proceed from there. Can't figure out how our planes are so different on balance, wood density could be a factor but that much ?. More than once I've looked at the Gee Bee and said '' nah, I don't want to fly that one today ''. Kinda takes the fun out of flying. Oh well, time to take the grand kids out for Halloween night, Seeya later, MM

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Mike: Hope you and the grandkids had a fun time trick-or-treating.

One other thing to consider. The landing gear is so long on those old racers that there is a tendancy to over-flare trying to get into a three point attitude. Chop the throttle and let it fly down almost to the ground in a level attitude, then flare at the last possible moment. (That's why they call it a "full-stall" three-point landing.) There is a good example in the Monocoupe video on the Pacific website. www.pacaeromodel.com

Jim

opencourse

If anyone is considering a purchase of this Clipwing Monocoupe, I have one for sale. Please take a look at the classifieds of RCU. I loved the articles, heard nothing but great things about the plane, bought one, then my personal situation changed. This is still NIB, with parts still sealed in polybags. I'm not giving it away, but you can save some money with this one. Also have a NIB Saito 1.80 that I purchased for this plane.
I hope someone can make use of this.
Howard

mobyal

Sent you a PM.
Al

Loopman

My Feedback: (195)

Okay, I bit and got one of these planes. It arrived in good order and there was no apparent damage from shipping. HOWEVER, there were a couple of observations that I made as I was getting into the build.
a. The firewall did not appear to be sufficiently glued to the front of the fuse.
b. The cowl had chips and spider line cracks
c. The servo area in the fuse was loose
d. Once glued together, there are bare balsa areas around the vertical stab, where it glues to the horizontal stab.
e. The covering melted, AT LOW TEMP! around the window areas.

I contacted Pacific Aero and they apologized for the issues and did send me a couple of feet of the covering. They stated that the firewall IS well secured and I should have no problem with it. I've dealt with ARF's many times before and most of the above issues are not a big deal. I just expected something better for my money as this is not an inexpensive ARF!

As I got to the part where you mount the wing struts, guess what!? The struts do not even come close to matching up with the holes in the wing! AND, there's no way to make them as it would entail either moving the internal screw holes in the wings or making a new set of struts. Since I am not about to do either, I have e-mailed Pacific Aero to see what they want to do. I also sent them the below 2 pics so they can see for themselves that I am not jerking their chain. Has anyone else had any of the above issues?

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

It looks like you have the aluminum dihedral brace/wing joiner installed upside down. I'd check that first.

Jim

Loopman

My Feedback: (195)

jrf,
You were correct! I did make a mistake and install the brace upside down. However, in order to get everything to come together you have to tighten the wing bolts last. If you try to do it any other way the struts will still appear to be a bad fit. I have no other issues now. The plane weighs a little over 15 lbs but I do have a smoke system installed and I am using a Brisson 2.4 up front. This plane should be awesome with smoke!

Happy Flying!

Loopman