foodstick

Well here it is I found the footage of flight 4, we never got any of flight 3 ..and there was no bad incident to record.. Maybe the camera is the curse !


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6o-C6rD7bo

Jimmy Bananas

My Feedback: (13)

OK foodstick...I'm a believer.....



Nanas

NorfolkSouthern

After watching that video, I just had to start a new thread on the beginner's forum, just to show what a really difficult to fly plane looks like!

NorfolkSouthern

sir crashallot

am i right in saying hes got the third engine up there in the nose. if so i do remember seing somewhere that its best off having a free wheeling prop and relying on the 2 outer engines. the engine in the center causes problems on glow models. i dont no why im racking my brains trying to remember where iv heard or seen or read this. but it was that very plane. but if it was me id be removing the engine from the nose and leting a free wheeling system take its place.
All in all well done for actualy geting the thing up in the air. though it looked like my future motherinlaw flying round after a few pints of strong beer, keep us posted on its next attempt to be nice and fly nice.

Live Wire

All engines rotating in the same direction is not good[:@] He did a great job for what he had to fly.

sir crashallot

yeah i thought so too. that fully explains why on certain turns it looked like it wanted to trhow itself over into the turn.

daveopam

My Feedback: (9)

The CG range on that thing must be the size of a pin. The last video it looked tail heavy. Now it looks nose heavy. No wonder the Italians needed our help to win the war.

David

Adibac

Italians lost the war, WWII I mean......
I agree 3 props turning the same direcction is too much torque...

sir crashallot

so im not the only one that noticed every time it turned a certain direction it would literaly jump and force itself over.

foodstick

I laugh everytime I think of how many hours my friend and I have stared at, talked about, worked on,and tried to guesstimate the next move on this thing ! I am glad he finally got it in the air.

I know this is the longest flight with proof of this model ,and I have NEVER seen anyone actually make it to a landing approach before ! its kind of a shame, if it was slightly bigger with a lower wing loading the test and trimming flights wouldn't be so devastating. I was just sick when it hit that levy, the weeds saved it though ! only broke one aluminum wing spar.

sir crashallot

makes you wonder though dosnt it with the artfs, how they can get away wth producing such a model that has poor flight performance and yet still sell it some time later dispite the bad parts about it. looking at the superb repair work thats gone into it you cant tell its been beaten up by the ground so many times, the model looks imaculate. so that alone tells me hes very experianced, the take off was superb a very long straigth run and it was off it didnt want to stay on the ground, is there anything else you guys might have overlooked on the model thats causing it to fly badly. like a servo buckelling under pressure when its flying, it obviously wants to fly just dosnt look like it likes doing what the pilot tells it to do, needs teaching a few lessons and mannors

foodstick

You know whats funny ..this arf had way to much wood in it.. Everytime it gets broken in a new place my friend would remove any extra wood he didn't figure it needed in the basic crutch of the plane. I honestly think he has made it lighter each repair.


If you had seen some of his other projects he has rebuilt and repaired you would be amazed. here is another plane he rebuilt, its still has a heavy wingloading but he does alright, I think this one was piled in by two previous owners, he just buys the pieces at auctions and starts diagnosing the problems then fixs them..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teIqVn1Jvws

sir crashallot

thats a nice huricane, what kit is it or what plan is it. it really does look the buisness. you missed all over a secomnd with the landing you could tell it was goping to be a nice landing anyway, but yeah hes like me buys scrap airframes then trys to breath life back into them its a great feeling too when you suceed

foodstick

Yeah for some reason I got real nervous filming the landing and decided to peek around the lense to be safe !

I am not sure what kit or plan it is ,,but i will ask next time I see him.. For some reason I think it was designed by someone in England..I think the wingspan is in the mid 80's, and that plane is heavy, I think its over thirty pounds...

Its funny how painful it is to fix your own crash damage, but saving a cool crash of someone elses can be a real good time. It always makes me cringe to see a rebuildable plane, or wing, or fuse, get just destroyed...lean them against the wall or put them in the rafters for awhile...someday it might just be the project you are looking for.

sir crashallot

hmmm i asked because it does look familier, it is possible it could be a DB sport and scale one, but then again mick reeves has a huricane out at 80 inch span 1/6 scale. the kits been around for more than 30 years. heres a pic of micks version

foodstick

I don't know which kit it is, But I do remember one distinguishing characteristic of the plane, I believe the rudder is not parallel to the fuse, it was built a few degrees off to the left I think to offset torque, kind of a help to the thrust angle needed on takeoff. Its the only non control line plane I think I have been around with a rudder off that way. I am pretty sure it isn't faulty construction as my friend chased down some plans or info that showed it was designed in. Now take in to account this is a memory ten years old or so..so I could be wrong ...

sir crashallot

no worrys, would be nice to find out as it did look a picture when it was in the air, have to also say the person flying flew it very well indeed, takes skill to fly a big scale plane like he did.

foodstick

He is the same pilot on the Italian bomber, except for the first crash video, .. he is a good friend to have when you are trimming planes with ISSUES He also was the guy in charge of the Japanese squadron the last few years of Byron Aviation Expo... I am lucky to have him as a friend because then the hobby is never boring ..between his crazy ideas and mine ...we don't get in any ruts !

Villa

The implication is that this plane may be difficult to fly. I have seen the video a few times and I do not see an inherent problem. I have had two multi engine planes with .28 engines. The pucker factor is much, much greater with more than one engine. The reason is that the plane is more complex and we all know about the dreaded engine out situation. A twin is very difficult to control when one engine is out, but even that can me mastered; one engine out, all engines out, land where you can. You can also learn to fly on one engine like I did. Very exiting. I see a three engine plane as easier than a two engine plane in an engine out situation. I believe the controls on this plane are too fast. Slowing that would make the plane a lot smoother. The engine idle speeds may be too high as judged by the very high landing speed. That is a very short field plus the pilot did not touch down near the beginning of the runway. After 3-4 flights with these changes I believe that plane will be a pleasure to fly. I see no insurmountable problem with all props turning in one direction.

foodstick

Well I don't think the number of engines is the critical point now.. Nobody as of yet knows the best possible cg on this plane. With almost every known flight crashing... its hard to perfect a plane that maybe only sold 10-12 kits? As far as I have learned watching and talking to others I have only heard of 3 others that have even attempted flight yet. As for the difficulty of a twin compared to a triple engine, some people argue that the center engine needs to be bigger than the outboards , That the air flows differently down the fuse and over the control surfaces when you have the outboard motors throwing some propwash inwards ? I am unsure of the details about that....

my personal feeling is.
1. the arf has to high of a wingloading
2. cg still not a perfected issue
3. poor airfoil choice, it just looks too much like a thick 3D airfoil, it shouldn't be symetrical in my opinion.
4. not enough tail surface (mainly the stabilizer), and the leading edge of the stabilizer is WAY to blunt
5. needs flaps

I wish a few more people were experimenting with this kit, I'd love to see more of them out there being DEBUGGED!

sir crashallot

if i had money i would buy one and bash it for the hell of it dfoing all the adjustments possible that you mention. would be very intresting to try

cosmospho

Hey, been keeping up with your italian plane, looks much better than the last time you crashed.... In my view its still a little tail heavy... Whenever engine was throttled down tail would drop and also on the turns it was dropping tail... I have built many spads and know all about bad aerodynamics .... Either your wing to tail incidence is messed or you still need to have a little more nose weight..... But kudos to getting in the air, and if the field was longer touching down would be great aswell.... I know what you mean about trimming or perfecting something you can't get to ground in one piece.... When you rebuild you need to re-align servos, etc.... Everything changes.... I had a bipe built TLAR and after 5 complete rebuilds and much tweaking it finally flew....

Great effort, will keep watching....

outacntrl

hey ur the man...anybody that goes thru all that w/ a plane and keeps comming back w/ the same plane all rebuilt imo is a real pilot.. a true test flier.. kinda like the chuck yager of rc... that thing looks like its a handfull..that was cool..thanks. now burn it in the woodstove (i did that w/ 1 of my nightmares ... it was sweet [>:]

Adui

ROTFLMAO!! I had to laugh at that! Cant say I wouldn't have already done it either, very big kudos to the OP for sticking with it, you and your friends just might get that thing tweaked enough to be a good flyer yet! (Actually it looked almost there, too bad the end of the runway jumped out and smacked it!)

foodstick

You know whats funny? Last time it went in HARD I was almost relieved because I thought my buddy would finish some of his other cool planes, and forget about this beast...I shoulda KNOWN BETTER!