kdunlap

My Feedback: (12)

Mike,
As you know, I don't compete, but I always hope that I will someday. That being said, I really like how this airplane flies. It does a very nice and clean snap and tracks very well. Rolls are very nice and knife edge is nice too. My big advice is that the key to selling this airplane is going to be getting out information on where the CG needs to be, the incidence you need to set all around -motor to tail, and other setup hints and tricks. I've spent what I think is an inordinate amount of time trying to get the basics down. This thread has been a big help, but I think you need a page on your website that sets out reference settings. There is a lot of experimentation and emails flying about trying to get settings in the ball park. Note, I am not saying that we need to be told to the one hundredth of a degree where things need to be, but just get us close. That could be a setup guide in the box for that matter. I think that the first bunch of airplanes you are going to sell will be to people like me who appreciate the price point and don't have a lot of experience in setting up for competition. The closer you can get us to having it fly good out of the box will be great. By way of disclosure this is the 14th pattern plane that I have setup and frankly it has been a real chore.
Ken

luckymacy

the tube carries all the way through the fuse on mine. on one side there is white paint, as you can see, and if you don't look closely it may look like the carbon fiber tube does not carry all the way out but it does.

my biggest complaint is that the T-can doesn't fit well at all. Not only do I think the mold is set for it to be too negative but it fits very poorly stock even if you don't shim it up as it doesn't mate to the fuselage very well at all. That needs to be fixed before the next batch. However, the canalyzer issue does not prevent from recommending the plane to anyone.

Anthony-RCU

My Feedback: (2)

Great work on this Mike. Making my living in manufacturing I know how hard it is to get the final product to look like the drawings that you created. The wing tube socket is not structural. It really just serves to align the tube during field assembly. The early Wist Models Vivat didn't have this and a friend cut a servo lead one morning at Muncie while putting his plane together. We have all certainly seen much worse construction issues from planes costing much more.
A flying buddy has about 50 flights on one and it looks really solid. A couple of issues that have been mentioned but he is considering getting a second one as a back up. I haven't gotten a ride yet but I have seen a very accomplish pilot put it through some of the FAI unknown catalog and it was quite impressive. Looking forward to what else you guys can develop.

kdunlap

My Feedback: (12)

The wing tube is what transmits the lifting force of the wing to the fuselage. So, I would err on the side of saying it is structural. Further, you want to have the force distributed evenly from the tube to the fuselage sidewall. That's why I would say socket construction is critical. Ideally you want that force to go through more than the sides of the fuselage immediately around the hole. One last thing, the center point of the wing tube is the point where the greatest flexing will occur, yes, even if it is CF. So, a well anchored and tight fitting wing tube will distribute any force caused by bending. In a perfect world, we would have cf wing tubes that had thick walls, cost very little, and were wound properly. Unfortunately, we have wing tubes that snap in half and wing tubes that pull through the sides of fuselages. If you don't believe me look at you tube and search for rc airplanes landing with one wing.

cjweimer

Guys, think about this, all the tube in the fuselage is for is to guide the wing tube through the fuselage when it is pushed in place. The wing is held in place by the fuselage sides, the plywood former, the locating pins, and the bolts. Even if the tube in the fuselage is not there the wing will stay on. I have had wings come off but only because I did not attach it properly. I am 71years old and my first pattern contest was in Omaha NE in 1989.

Dave Harmon

That's right.
I remember back years ago when we were all using aluminum wing tubes.....my Eclipse did not have a fuselage tube.
I made a hard landing at Mile Square and nothing broke but I couldn't get the tube out of the fuselage because the tube was bent up just outside the fuselage on each side.
I had to cut the tube in the center of the fuselage to get it outta there.

I don't think any airplane needs the center fuselage tube but in the Caelus.....I think Top R/C should carry the tube completely through on both sides instead of having a horrible goober of epoxy holding the other end of the tube in mid-air.
In this case....I would be more concerned about the hole in the fuse being larger than the main tube.
If the glob of epoxy fails or cracks away...the main tube is now riding in an oversized hole and would likely cause some weird trim problems until it could be landed.....maybe.

On several occasions I have seen wing tubes blow out the bottom of a wing due to faulty construction and on another occasion a guy forgot to put the capture bolts in....but never a carbon fiber tube breaking in the center of the fuselage.
After all....this same main tube is sticking out into the wing and it is more than obvious that the main tube is plenty strong enough to withstand any flight load we could put on it.

A possible fix for this airplane could be to cut the tube on the good side leaving about 1/2" stub still attached to the fuse.
Cut the tube on the bad side too and leave a stub embedded in the original epoxy.
Then cut a stub from the now removed tube and relieve the hole on the bad side enough to fit a new stub through the fuse side.
Then insert the main tube all the way through the fuselage and position the new stub (on the bad side) and epoxy in place.
Then remove the main tube and knock out the bad side original stub and remove the epoxy goober.
Then trim up the other side and make it look good.
If done this way....the alignment will be the same and a mistake can be corrected.

cjweimer

I can only speak about the Caelus I have. The wing tube hole on the side referred to as bad, is the same size as the ID of the center tube. The side that the center tube is flush with the fuselage side is the side with the large gob of epoxy. I think the way the wing was aligned is different than you or I would have done it. I was only building one at a time and they were probably building many. By the way, my wing alignment is really good, which is the first thing I check when I buy an airplane. I think the Caelus is fine and I am going to fly it like it is and enjoy the fact that it only cost $1000.00 and I didn't have to build it. There seems to be a lot of nitpicking the Caelus and if anyone is unhappy with the plane Mike has some real nice ones for around $4,500.00 he would be happy to fix you up with.

Dave Harmon

No thanks....I already have 2 of the "$4,500.00" airplanes from Mike that you mention.
I HAVE had close contact with the Caleus...previous to Mike handling them and am familiar with it.

I was just trying to be helpful......Mike is very good with his customer service and will go to any length to help out.
I have had recent experience with that too....can't say enough good about Mike Mueller and F3A-Unlimited.

n233w

Mike, further to your comment for feedback from "fence sitters"; from what I see on this thread, this plane sounds like a great choice for someone like me who has an interest in stepping into a 2M plane. I don't love the color scheme, but you can't please everybody there no matter what! Not sure when I'll have the surplus $ to pull the trigger, but I haven't seen this much positive feedback about an entry level plane.

For curiosity/comparison, what other models are you competing against @ $1,200/per that have anything like this level of flying & design/construction credibility?

Thanks, Bill

Dave Harmon

[QUOTE=n233w;12115103
For curiosity/comparison, what other models are you competing against @ $1,200/per that have anything like this level of flying & design/construction credibility?

Thanks, Bill[/QUOTE]

Are you directing your snarky comment towards me?
If you are.....money never enters the equation....I just buy or build whatever I think I like and that I think I can fly properly.
However....I do a lot of homework beforehand.

n233w

Sorry, Dave, for being clueless about why my comment hit you as snarky. No snark intended to you or others.

Bill

big_G

Ok...checking the incidences, I find the right stab is about .4-.5 degrees positive in relation to the left stab. Some of the error may be in the taped elevators...I don't see an easy solution. Maybe I'll fly it before I over-think a solution to a non-problem..The T-can will need shimming. That will be easy.

mups53

My Feedback: (41)

Hey guys I've been lurking in the background on the thread seeing what develops.
I asked for the good and the bad and I 100% appreciate the feedback. I can assure you that TopRCModel is monitoring this thread and they are trying very hard to make the best models for all of us.
I really think for a first attempt at Pattern they have done a really good job. They are a proactive company and they have incredible resources so I'm optimistic that the future looks very bright.
Recently they sent me a sample of the new Caelus which we are calling the "V2 Lite"
Below is the original weights reported by Chris Bond:

OLD!!!! WEiGHTS


[TABLE="class: cms_table_MsoNormalTable, width: 191"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Starboard wing panel[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Starboard aileron inc hinges[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Port wing panel[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Port wing panel inc hinges[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Starboard tailplane[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Starbard elevator inc hinges[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Port tailplane[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Port elevator[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Rudder[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Caneliser[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Canopy[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]Fuselage[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
New:
I'm going thru the plane now and I am really happy to report that the fuse is 882 grams with the canopy attached.
Compare this to the 1137 from before and the savings in weight is a wooping 255 grams.
So what is the reason? Well stiffness is certainly different as this fuse has a little squish to it versus your V2 plane. Not bad by industry standards just not solid as before. The material used is lighter again not a bad thing.
225 grams or 7.93 ounces is remarkable and shows that TopRCModel has the capability to make changes and improve their product.
One noticeable difference is the canopy latch. Gone is the push button for a conventional center pull latch.
The weight on the new wing panel with aileron and hinges is 10.86 oz or 308 grams. Remarkable weigh reduction of 61 grams. X 2 that makes 122 grams less.
So just the wing panels and fuse equal a reduced weight of 13.2 ounces or 377 grams.
I've got a big smile on my face!!!!
I'm working on a deal to get the next shipment in.
The price will be be $1100 on the V2 Lite version.
If you are interested in getting on the list for one let me know.
Thanks for your support, thanks for working thru this with us. We do! appreciate it all.
Mike Mueller

big_G

Maidened the Caelus yesterday...(insert yawn)...,flew excellent with a few clicks here and there of trim. Feels very locked in, but does pull to canopy on knife edge. I will say the rudder is extremely powerful...even on low rates only a touch of rudder was needed to maintain a half-power knife edge. I will see if moving the C/G back a bit helps with the pull. Also, the elevator seems a bit much even on recommended travel on low rates...but on landing I didn't feel like it was enough to produce a nice flair. That may remedy itself when I move the C/G aft. Is 190mm the sweet spot for C/G as recommended by Top R/C, or have you guys found a better starting point?...


P.S. I have the batteries (HK 5,000ma yellow light packs) just at the rear edge of the supplied battery tray.
Gary

luckymacy

Hi,
by no means is mine trimmed out yet but so far so good with it balancing on the canopy release pins.

I think some of this is going to be dictated by what incidences you are carrying and the biggest wild card might be did you raise the T-canalyzer or leave it 'stock'.

how are your elevators biased in neutral? ie, are the slightly lowered, centered or raised relative to the HS?

big_G

I have the stab. set at 0 degrees, wing set at .7 degrees positive, and the canalizer set at .3 degrees positive. No noticeable elevator trim evident. The canalizer platform is not a reliable mount. I had to add washers under the front mount screws, raising the right side about 3/32 inch, and the left side 1/16 inch, to get it level with the wings and at the proper incidence. I'll get the C/G where it needs to be to eliminate the pull to canopy, and readjust the wing incidence to eliminate any elevator trim.

Zippi

My Feedback: (10)

Haven't flown a pattern plane in a while and I've been looking at the Caelus. Boy have things changed. The last Pattern plane I built was the Focus Sport with a Saito 125 in 2007. I've been looking at the EF 2M Vanquish but I'd really like to have an all composite plane one time. I see there is a firewall available so how would one go about installing the firewall in the fuse? Any videos or instructions on how this is done?

jetmech43

My Feedback: (9)

I made my on firewall then mounted the motor to it, then sanded and sanded till the motor was aligned to the nose, when I was satisfied with the fit, I mounted the spinner back plate and spaced it out a 1/16 of inch all around the epoxied it into place, then used some carbon fiber cloth for strength.

big_G

Basically what I did, but didn't use any carbon cloth. Used 3M 8115 epoxy on both sides of the mount. I've used this product for years, and have full confidence in it. A little fillet of epoxy is enough, imo
.

Zippi

My Feedback: (10)

There seems to be a varity of the 3M 8115 epoxy available. Have a pic of the bottle? How about a good 30 min epoxy?

big_G

I prefer the 8115, it flows better and has a 90 minute set time. 30 minute epoxy starts thickening at about 5 minutes, not allowing it to seep into small crevices.Plus it is almost black, so you can see where you have coverage.
https://www.emisupply.com/catalog/08...Q#.Vjln9Su1Xtk

Zippi

My Feedback: (10)

Ok. Thanks for the info. I think I have all I need about the new style Pattern planes. Now I just need to sell my AJ 93" Lazer 230 (My last Gasser) and buy the Caelus (-:

Zippi

My Feedback: (10)

Ok guys I gotta ask. What is the difference in the $1,100.00 2m Caelus which look great and one that cost $5,600.00 ?

big_G

A good question to ask the guys making the $5,600 plane. Obviously, the fit and finish and the materials will be better. But, $4,500 worth?

jetmech43

My Feedback: (9)

The difference is people will pay 5600 plus, if they didnt, they wouldnt be sold out all the time. I have seen the Oxai airplanes up close, and yes they are as perfect as you can get, do they fly any better? I think probably not, Caelus just for us who wants a nice airplane for way less the cost.