sheko_2000

dredhea

My Feedback: (13)

I may be able to answer a couple of your questions.
1. A .60 size 2-stroke probably will not overpower it, but you may have difficulty getting it to balance properly due to more weight in the nose.
2. The correct size of prop will depend on the engine you purchase and the type of prop you use. Something in the 12-6 or 13-6 range will likely work. Follow the engine manufacturer instuctions and experiment to find the size that works best for the way you fly.
3. You should be learning to coordinate rudder into your turns with the trainer. It usually won't make a SpaceWalker stall if you don't use rudder, but the turns won't look lifelike. Failure to use rudder with something like a Cub could have devastating results.
4. Any time you go below stall speed with any plane, guess what happens: It stalls. Learn what the plane will do, practice recognizing the stall before it happens and how to recover from stalls. Don't make really tight turns down low if you don't know how the plane is going to react. Remember that altitude is your friend. Make wide turns when coming in on final or any time you're flying too low to recover from a stall.
Spacewalkers are floaters, but not like you're used to with the trainer. If you're landing by just bringing the throttle down to idle and gliding all the way in, you might want to spend some more time with an instructor to learn proper landing techniques.
A Spacewalker is an exellent choice for a second plane. You'll be able to build upon what you've already learned and should have a great time doing it. Have fun!

kerwin50

I think a thunder tiger pro 46 would be a better engine

jester_s1

Agreed on the engine. A hot .40-.51 will make the plane fly as it was designed to. Unless you're just wanting to snatch it straight up off the runway or hover it, a .60 is more power than you'll ever need.

sheko_2000

thank to all of you for the helpful tips

jetmech05

Some spacewalkers can be a handful on the ground

mike109

G'day

I have two Space Walkers. One is the 40 size and one is the quarter scale size. Both have four stroke engines and both fly really well.

I bought the smaller one first to see how the model would fly and I put a Saito 72 in it. The model flew OK but it was not as nice as I had hoped and also the 72 was very new and not happy in the Space Walker as it was mounted at 225 degrees (at about 8 o'clock if that makes sense). So I pulled the 72 out and put a Saito 62 in. The plane flew MUCH better with the smaller lighter engine. It is a real pleasure to fly. It takes off easily (though it does pull a little to the left and needs some attention to the rudder on take off) but once it has its tail up (which happens pretty quickly) it is up and away easily. It will do all the usual aerobatics but does not have infinite vertical performance but the real one did not either.

I also have the larger quarter scale version. It has a Laser 150 four stroke which is plenty for it. It is magnificent in the air but can be a beast to get into the air if you forget to watch the rudder on take off. If you ignore the rudder and bang on the power it starts to roll then suddenly turns left and takes off sideways across the strip. As it has plenty of power, this is not a real problem but it is far better to keep the power down initially and get the tail flying on lower power then gradually increase while watching the rudder to keep straight on the strip.

I would NOT put a 60 two stroke into the 40 size model. It will fly far better with a good 46 or a 62 four stroke. A friend has one with an OS 46 AX which flies it perfectly. But I think the 60 class four stroke does a better job.

One big disadvantage of over large engines is that they swing large props. This can make landing a floater like the Space Walker difficult as once it gets near the gound it will just want to float on in ground effect forever and not come down. Mine did this with the 72 but does not with the 62.

Have fun choosing.

Mike in Oz

RCVFR

My Feedback: (7)

The full scale Spacewalker is a very gentle flying plane. The model would also be a gentle flyer. A .60 engine is overpowered, especially for your second plane, and I would not recommend it. When you progress to the level of high performance aircraft, get something else to fly, not the Spacewalker. The model you are considering is not strictly speaking, true scale, but it does resemble a full scale plane. I would think part of the enjoyment of that plane will be in flying it "near scale" to take advantage of its good looks.

In all, it looks like a good choice for your second plane. Enjoy!

sheko_2000

actually spacewalker will be just a step to move to a larger plane i already have but never fly it "katana" 1.60
because i know that I’m not ready for it yet

so i preferred to have more hands on a low wing 1st with a wing like the walker's

I’ve read too much about this left drifting while taking off, lots of people mentioned the same issue, someone said that he solved it by adding more weight to the right side of the engine !!

another one said that trimming the rudder can help also

anyway i already have ASP .52 engine, i will try it, i guess that this size is a bit similar to the .46 so i guess from your reputable opinions that it will do the job properly

mudboger07

Personally I would not add any weight to the right side of an engine, I have never heard to do this, Most if not all tail draggers react like this on take of, some not as bad as others. If it would help practice taxing up and down the run way with actually taking off to get the feel for how much rudder input is needed to keep the plan straight. But be careful the space walker doesnt need much speed to be airborn.

dredhea

My Feedback: (13)

Might I suggest that you get a Stick (any _____stick will do) instead of the Spacewalker. It will perform more like the Katana you want to move up to, yet should be gentle enough for you to handle. Sticks also normally don't float like the Spacewalker.Even though they are usually top wing, I think the stick will better prepare you to move up to the Katana.
For simplicity's sake, let's say that the left turn on take off is caused by engine torque. There are other forces in play, but we can disregard them for now. Adding weight to the engine will not change the torque, and if you trim the rudder to counter it, after take off, you'll need to hold left rudder all the time you're in the air. What you need to do is just use the rudder to counter the torque during the take-off roll, then ease off after you're in the air. Mudboger07 was right. Practice is the cure for this.
The .52 is a better engine choice for either plane (SW or Stick). I personally don't think that a .60 is too much if you learn to manage the throttle, but as long as you already have the .52, I suggest you use it.

sheko_2000

could any explain to me what floater planes means
it refers to what behavior the plane can make ???

this is the beginners area so u might expect these questions

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

A floater like a 4* is exactly that, they like to float like a trainer, usually even more. For landing you just need to go to idle and it floats in, they just want to keep flying. It's just an RC slang term for light weight planes with a light wing loading. It's not a bad thing, just a term to identify how some planes act. A walker is a very nice plane and a good plane after you have flown the trainer enough. Easy to fly, easy to land, it performs stunts very well.

sheko_2000

well i got it, so that means it can glide in idle speed

thanks guys for the valuable tips

armody

My Feedback: (10)

ASP .46 and ASP 52 won't let you down, and I used ASP .46 and have .52 as well already broke in. I'd install .52 to my GP Revolver, as far as drifting to left is concerned, I have been using rudder to mitigate this issue, and as a matter of fact, for the last 6+ years I've been flying tail-draggers, and use of rudder helped me out a lot and it should work with you too.

Best wishes

sheko_2000

thanks,
could you please guide me for the proper break-in procedures i should follow with my ASP.52
or if any other subject here concerned by this process

armody

My Feedback: (10)

Sheko,

I broke in as per magnum's .46 XLS instruction manual as I was told by one of the senior member how to break in. Magnum & ASP are from the same manufacturer which is known as I think Sanye.

I used Master AirScrew Prop may be 10X6 to get the maximum RPM as well as ran on rich side. I'd recommend break in just like Magnum's .46 XLS

Here is the video of ASP.52 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj1HEb2A04Q


Also take a look at this

http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/asp52_review2.shtml

Good Luck,

raydar

Well believe it or not I have a magnum 91 four stroke in my seagull space walker. I bought a 61 asp four stroke for it and found that I had to add alot of weight to the nose to balance even with the battery strapped to the front underneath the engine bulkhead!, so I just stuck my 91 fs in it and it balanced no prob, battery just infront of the servos. Think your 60 engine would be fun in it and iftail heavy like mine will not cause any balance issues. A 46 will fly this plane no problem BTW but it will fly very scale like (boring).


As said the plane is a floater, in other words will fly really slow without stalling, mine still does with the 91 upfront. It is easy to handle second plane for a nearly newby pilot. Mine handles ok on ground,

This was my second plane also and I still fly her although it has been split in two twice and been stuffed into a tree, she has been repaired well.

Just reread the posts, I see you have a 52 to put in her, that would bebetter than a 46 in this plane for sure.

armody

My Feedback: (10)

Another great link for ASP .52

http://www.justengines.co.uk/acatalo...__.52__S_.html

I'm sure, by reading these 2 articles Sheko, You'd be Expert by now lol

Mody

mike109

G'day

The original Space Walker was an ultralite aircraft. So the Space Walker model you are talking about is a scale model. The guy that designed and built the first ultralite Spacewalker had also been a model aircraft builder and he, in effect, built a very large model aircraft that he could fly in. Later, people saw the aircraft and scaled it down to a model.

I suspect the real plane was built to be easy to fly, easy to build and easy to maintain. And as a result, the model too is a nice model to fly, build etc.

It was not designed to be a rocket ship. It was a nice gentle flyer to spend a weekend flying in.

If you want some thing to "poke holes in the sky" ie to go fast and all over the place, there are probably better models such as the Ugly Stick series (eg the Great Planes Big Stick 40 of which I have two for just this purpose), but the Spacewalker is meant to be a more gentle flier and so bunging a 60 two stroke in it will never show you what it was meant to be.

DIVERHERB

Ihave been flying the Space Walker now for about 3 months and really enjoy it. I have a S.T. 46 in mine and feel it is plenty of power for the plane to do anything it was designed to do.
The only "bad traits" it seems to have is veering to the left on take-offs. I have found that the only way to keep it in control on take-offs is to feed a little rudder in as soon as it starts to gain speed. I use very little rudder once it is in the air. It flies very well on airlerons and elavator only. Landing is sometimes a little bouncy as it does not seem to like to stay planted once the wheels hit. I consider 2 bounces a great landing . So far I have found nothing that I dislike about the engine/plane combination I have. And most at the field find the plane really cool looking.

mike109

G'day

My two Spacewalkers are like yours. They swing left on take off (which is normal for a tail dragger with an engine rotating the way most of our model engines do) but as you and many others have discovered, a small application of rudder wlll keep things in line for the take off. Your 45 size two stroke is just about right for the model and I suspect yours flies very similarly to mine with a 62 Saito four stroke. The one with the 150 Laser four stroke REALLY swings left. It is quite dramatic but needs only a touch of rudder to correct.

As for the landings, a bouncy landing is typical of tail draggers which touch down slightly too fast and on only the two front wheels. To really get them to land smoothly, they need to be "nose up" when they land and to land on all three wheels at once. This needs you to keep the plane level just off the ground while very gently increasing the up elevator until the nose rises without the model climbing. At this point you can then gently lower it onto its wheels for a "greaser" of a landing. I am still learning to do this but when I get it right the landing is quite pretty. When I don't, I get some bounces. I have a Four Star 60 which is similar in layout and it is a complete pig to get to land well. This is partly because I have too much engine/prop in it so that even at idle it wants to fly and so landing it well is an exercise in patience - waiting for it to wash off speed before trying to put the wheels on the ground. The very best landing I ever did with it was a deadstick. With the engine stopped, it was completely easy to land without the prop wash from the large prop. Why deadstick? The engine mount started to come loose from the firewall and the whole engine moved forward so that I only had from half to full throttle. I had to fly around on half power for about 20 minutes until the tank emptied. (Embarrassment all round ;-))

Mike in Oz

daisy shoot

I've had two of these models, great fliers! The first had an ax.46 in it and it perfect. The second got an ax.55 but was quickly replaced with a .46. The added power isn't all that noticeable. It didn't have unlimited vert, but it had more than enough. I wouldn't put a .60 on it. Keep it as light as possible and it'll be a sweet flier! A thunder tiger pro was mentioned above. I have a couple of these guys now and they are a great value. Good luck with whatever you decide on

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

What a novel idea, using the rudder. Most tail draggers are effected by the P-Factor and will pull left. So will a trike geared plane but because it is steered by the nose wheel you don't seem to think about the fact you are using rudder to hold the course. The Walker also makes a super plane for electric power. One friend I fly with has to of the 40 size ARFs, one with an OS .46 and one electric. Both fly about the same only one is quiet and requires no clean up at the end of the day.

sheko_2000

thanks guys for all this info
one last question please

CG position is  not mentioned in the manual !!
could any one please give me the correct CG mesurments ?