BJ Craft Agenda
02-25-2016, 04:29 PM
#53
Also, if you are like me and you want to check your thrust after your drive is installed then just remove your front prop and check the incidence by placing your meter (I use Robart) flat against the front prop thrust washer. Assuming, of course, that your thrust is actually matching the nose ring at -1.0
02-27-2016, 03:02 PM
#54
I wanted to give you all my feedback after 11 flights. The first four flight were just disastrous, as i had the wrong wing incidence and CG. When i would roll the plane inverted it dived straight for the ground hard. After hearing all of the successful flights that everyone had been putting in, i knew it had to be my fault. I talked to Steve Hannah, and he kept pointing me in the right direction; set the nose up at -1 and the wings should be at least 1.75 to 2 degrees positive. I kept dialing in positive incidence on the wing and the plane kept flying better and better inverted. Knife edge i have 2%mix on left and right, and i need to re check, as i think i have enough positive incidence in the wing that i think, i should be able to take out the mix. 2% down line mix to go straight down. The plane has a really good pace, uplines and downlines are almost identical. Stall turns are a breeze and the plane presents really well in the air and it has a wide speed range, where you can fly slow or fast. One thing i did notice when running two different props 22x22 rear and 22x20 front, the plane has a tendency to want to pull to the left and that's why i think left trim is needed on the rudder, even though it is very slight, may be 2mm. I am going to experiment and make both props the same and see what happens, my guess is this will take out the left trim in the rudder. i did have 3 clicks of left aileron trim in the plane but i lowered the left wing(negative incidence) and raised the right (positive incidence) and that centered the trims. All in all, if you were sitting on the fence and trying to decide if this plane is for you, i would definitely recommend it. This is the first plane that i have bought in three years, that's not a Spark Evo, and i definitely made a great choice. Thank you BJ for making a great airplane and a big thanks as well to Steve Hannah for all your help with trimming this airplane. It's gonna be a fun season! By the way the new V4 Contra drive is amazing!!!! I will talk a little more about my experience with the V4 in the Contra thread.
Cheers
Cheers
Last edited by rgreen24; 02-27-2016 at 03:08 PM.
02-27-2016, 06:59 PM
#55
Hi Robert,
That's great to hear!
I had a great flying session today. It was very calm and almost 80 degrees!
I definitely notice the difference with the 22x20 front and rear. I felt the slight need for left thrust with the 22x18 and 22x20 combo. This thing really flies well with the identical pitch front and rear. It was fun taking off and not even touching the rudder stick. Kinda like the sport fliers at my field, except I didn't crash into the fence...
Anyway, Robert makes a good point about the wide speed range. I flew a few P17 sequences farther out, faster and bigger and it did very well. I learned a few things about my geometry by doing that. Closer and slower are really nice as well. I do feel that it does best on the horizontal rolling maneuvers with the throttle at least mid range or a bit higher.
I am extremely impressed with the plane overall. And, I love the Adverrun drive unit.
As for the incidence, I think 2 degrees is a good starting point. I am at 2% on my downline throttle/elev mix and could probably dial in a little more positive incidence, probably matching Kyuho Lee's +2.2 setting. Just give it what it needs as far as positive incidence goes. But, the way it is flying right now I am not worried about fine tuning too much on the incidence.
I also noticed that it is more sensitive on elevator than the Essence or BiSide, especially around neutral. So I have increased my expo on the elevator. I think I am 15% on up and 30% on down. Down is where I really notice the sensitivity. After bumping it up to 30% on down, it really felt very solid.
I'm happy to hear that Robert has had some success. I think this is a fantastic airplane and it's great to hear others chime in as well.
Steve
That's great to hear!
I had a great flying session today. It was very calm and almost 80 degrees!
I definitely notice the difference with the 22x20 front and rear. I felt the slight need for left thrust with the 22x18 and 22x20 combo. This thing really flies well with the identical pitch front and rear. It was fun taking off and not even touching the rudder stick. Kinda like the sport fliers at my field, except I didn't crash into the fence...
Anyway, Robert makes a good point about the wide speed range. I flew a few P17 sequences farther out, faster and bigger and it did very well. I learned a few things about my geometry by doing that. Closer and slower are really nice as well. I do feel that it does best on the horizontal rolling maneuvers with the throttle at least mid range or a bit higher.
I am extremely impressed with the plane overall. And, I love the Adverrun drive unit.
As for the incidence, I think 2 degrees is a good starting point. I am at 2% on my downline throttle/elev mix and could probably dial in a little more positive incidence, probably matching Kyuho Lee's +2.2 setting. Just give it what it needs as far as positive incidence goes. But, the way it is flying right now I am not worried about fine tuning too much on the incidence.
I also noticed that it is more sensitive on elevator than the Essence or BiSide, especially around neutral. So I have increased my expo on the elevator. I think I am 15% on up and 30% on down. Down is where I really notice the sensitivity. After bumping it up to 30% on down, it really felt very solid.
I'm happy to hear that Robert has had some success. I think this is a fantastic airplane and it's great to hear others chime in as well.
Steve
03-21-2016, 05:17 PM
#56
I tried the Mejzlik 22x20 / 22x22 combo. Man, is that a stump puller. It also uses a lot more battery juice than the 22x20 contradrive prop combination. The Mejzlik prop combo I tried was quieter than the contradrive 22x20 combo and it also had better downline braking. I may just run the 22x20 on P and then switch to the Mejzlik for F since it has such massive power.
The more I fly this, the more I am impressed with it. The Adverrun is a great setup and the Agenda handles everything you throw at it. It can fly slow, close, and smooth or big and fast. Both are awesome.
The more I fly this, the more I am impressed with it. The Adverrun is a great setup and the Agenda handles everything you throw at it. It can fly slow, close, and smooth or big and fast. Both are awesome.
03-27-2016, 03:30 PM
#57
Hey Steve,
When you mismatch the pitch on the props, do you see the yaw trim change?
I ask this because I know that the Adverun Drive is a direct geared system, so the front and rear props will always spin at the same rpm. This means that if the props have mismatched pitches, each prop will absorb a different amount of power.
Another thing to consider is that the power absorbed by the front and rear props will also change with airspeed and power loading. If the plane is flying a high speed horizontal pass, the relative airspeed going into each prop will be almost the same, (assuming the same pitch front and rear ... ) but at full throttle at the end of a long vertical, the airspeed into the rear prop will be significantly higher than the airspeed going into the front prop, which will cause the rear prop to absorb less power than the front prop.
Adjusting the pitch separately for each prop should balance the load between the props for a specific flight condition, but in theory, a power imbalance should return at other flight conditions.
Do see any evidence of this when you fly?
Brenner ...
When you mismatch the pitch on the props, do you see the yaw trim change?
I ask this because I know that the Adverun Drive is a direct geared system, so the front and rear props will always spin at the same rpm. This means that if the props have mismatched pitches, each prop will absorb a different amount of power.
Another thing to consider is that the power absorbed by the front and rear props will also change with airspeed and power loading. If the plane is flying a high speed horizontal pass, the relative airspeed going into each prop will be almost the same, (assuming the same pitch front and rear ... ) but at full throttle at the end of a long vertical, the airspeed into the rear prop will be significantly higher than the airspeed going into the front prop, which will cause the rear prop to absorb less power than the front prop.
Adjusting the pitch separately for each prop should balance the load between the props for a specific flight condition, but in theory, a power imbalance should return at other flight conditions.
Do see any evidence of this when you fly?
Brenner ...
03-27-2016, 05:03 PM
#58
Hey Steve,
When you mismatch the pitch on the props, do you see the yaw trim change?
I ask this because I know that the Adverun Drive is a direct geared system, so the front and rear props will always spin at the same rpm. This means that if the props have mismatched pitches, each prop will absorb a different amount of power.
Another thing to consider is that the power absorbed by the front and rear props will also change with airspeed and power loading. If the plane is flying a high speed horizontal pass, the relative airspeed going into each prop will be almost the same, (assuming the same pitch front and rear ... ) but at full throttle at the end of a long vertical, the airspeed into the rear prop will be significantly higher than the airspeed going into the front prop, which will cause the rear prop to absorb less power than the front prop.
Adjusting the pitch separately for each prop should balance the load between the props for a specific flight condition, but in theory, a power imbalance should return at other flight conditions.
Do see any evidence of this when you fly?
Brenner ...
When you mismatch the pitch on the props, do you see the yaw trim change?
I ask this because I know that the Adverun Drive is a direct geared system, so the front and rear props will always spin at the same rpm. This means that if the props have mismatched pitches, each prop will absorb a different amount of power.
Another thing to consider is that the power absorbed by the front and rear props will also change with airspeed and power loading. If the plane is flying a high speed horizontal pass, the relative airspeed going into each prop will be almost the same, (assuming the same pitch front and rear ... ) but at full throttle at the end of a long vertical, the airspeed into the rear prop will be significantly higher than the airspeed going into the front prop, which will cause the rear prop to absorb less power than the front prop.
Adjusting the pitch separately for each prop should balance the load between the props for a specific flight condition, but in theory, a power imbalance should return at other flight conditions.
Do see any evidence of this when you fly?
Brenner ...
I see zero yaw changes or need for side thrust when running my 22x20 front and rear. It is pretty much straight as an arrow at all speeds. It doesn't wander when throttling up out of a corner or at the end of a long vertical. I do see a slight yaw to the right on very long uplines with the 22x20 and 22x22 combo. It seems that a small amount of left thrust would correct that. That mirror's B.J.'s notes to me as well. It doesn't vary with flight speed noticeably or with flight attitude. I prefer the 22x20 and 22x22 combination overall since it has more pull for F17. But, the overall linearity of the 22x20 f/r combination is really nice.
Perhaps it is the G2 design from BJCraft, but I really don't detect any of the yaw instability issues which I noticed on my original experiment with a contradrive conversion a few years back. It seems that with the right airframe then the contradrive is very smooth on throttle transition and out of corners. I'm sure I'll get to see some Agenda's with your drive soon so it will be interesting to compare.
03-27-2016, 06:51 PM
#59
Hey Steve,
Yaw stability is very much plane dependent. As long as a plane has sufficient rudder fin area, (or equivalent..) there should be no yaw stability issues with a Contra Drive.
However, a slow, and very slight change in yaw trim might show up if the props don't absorb equal amounts of power, such as would be the case if mismatched props were used with a direct geared Drive, but this would be different from yaw stability.
Brenner ...
Yaw stability is very much plane dependent. As long as a plane has sufficient rudder fin area, (or equivalent..) there should be no yaw stability issues with a Contra Drive.
However, a slow, and very slight change in yaw trim might show up if the props don't absorb equal amounts of power, such as would be the case if mismatched props were used with a direct geared Drive, but this would be different from yaw stability.
Brenner ...
10-06-2016, 02:58 AM
#60
My Feedback: (30)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello guys,
I would like to share our experience, building & setup, with BJ Agendas in Florida.
The plane and Brenner’s contra combinations have been shown pronounced flight performance through the multiple months of the flights.
Interestingly, the three different flight mode pilots have flown together with the same models as shown in the picture.
Here are the details.
Preston’s Agenda 1:
- Contra unit: Brenner V4 with Pyro 650 outrunner, Brenner 22x18 front, 22x20 rear (F3A Unlimited).
- ESC: Jeti mezon 130, using built-in BEC power for the receiver
- Transmitter & Servos: 18MZ, BLS-171SV for all
-CG: 10mm forward from the wing bolt
- Down thrust: -1°, factory setting
- Wing incidence: higher than factory setting (+1°) for slow flying
- Takeoff weight: 4730g with F3A unlimited 5.4A 2x5s lipo
Note:
-Custom carbon fiber landing gears (narrower)/wheel pants
- Custom removable carbon fiber battery tray, highly recommended for future repair
- Thicker dia carbon rod on the canopy locker, highly recommended
-Wheels: Dubro 2.5” for grass field
-Used a bigger dia carbon tube of the stabilizer joiner, full moving stab.
-Throttle tech device on board
-Customized Canalizer mounting flat washers
Kyu’s Agenda 2:
-Contra unit: Brenner V3 with Nue inrunner, Falcon 22x18 front, 22x20 rear
-ESC: spin99, Smart SW regulator/receiver battery (F3A Unlimited, .9A)
-Transmitter: 14MZ, DS8611 with plastic gears
-CG: wing bolt
-Down thrust: -1°, factory setting
-Wing incidence: higher than factory setting for slow flying
-Takeoff weight: 4780g with F3A unlimited 5.4A 2x5s lipo
Control surface deflections:
-Aileron
Normal: 7degree up/down
Snap: 18degree up/down
-Elevator
Up(pitch up maneuver): normal:3.9 degree
Down: normal 4.9 degree
-Mixings
Vertical down: down elevator (pitch down) 2.5% condition mixing, Th-Ele
Knife edge loop:2% down elevator, line mixing.
No Rud to Ail mixing
Note:
-Custom carbon fiber landing gears (narrower)/wheel pants
-Custom removable carbon fiber battery tray, highly recommended for future repair
-Thicker dia carbon rod on the canopy locker, highly recommended
-Wheels: Dubro 2.5” for grass field
-Used a bigger dia carbon tube of the stabilizer joiner, full moving stab.
-Throttle tech device on board
-Customized Canalizer mounting washers
-Gator RC wing incidence adjuster
Joe’s Agenda 3:
- Contra unit: Brenner V4 with Pyro 600 outrunner, Falcon 22x20 front, 22x22 rear (F3A Unlimited).
- ESC:Jeti mezon 130, regulator/receiver battery (F3A Unlimited, .9A)
- Transmitter: JR 12x
-CG:somewhat forward from the wing bolt
- Down thrust: -1°, factory setting
- Wing incidence: +1°, factory setting
- H stab. Incidence: 0°, factory setting
- Takeoff weight: 4760g with F3A unlimited 6A 2x5s lipo
Note:
-Wheels: 2.75” dia for grass field
-Fixed H.stab with two joint tubes
-Gator RC wing incidence adjuster
-Rear air vent holes near the tail gear
-Depron air blocker rear the canopy
Thanks for the reading.
Q
I would like to share our experience, building & setup, with BJ Agendas in Florida.
The plane and Brenner’s contra combinations have been shown pronounced flight performance through the multiple months of the flights.
Interestingly, the three different flight mode pilots have flown together with the same models as shown in the picture.
Preston’s Agenda 1:
- Contra unit: Brenner V4 with Pyro 650 outrunner, Brenner 22x18 front, 22x20 rear (F3A Unlimited).
- ESC: Jeti mezon 130, using built-in BEC power for the receiver
- Transmitter & Servos: 18MZ, BLS-171SV for all
-CG: 10mm forward from the wing bolt
- Down thrust: -1°, factory setting
- Wing incidence: higher than factory setting (+1°) for slow flying
- Takeoff weight: 4730g with F3A unlimited 5.4A 2x5s lipo
Note:
-Custom carbon fiber landing gears (narrower)/wheel pants
- Custom removable carbon fiber battery tray, highly recommended for future repair
- Thicker dia carbon rod on the canopy locker, highly recommended
-Wheels: Dubro 2.5” for grass field
-Used a bigger dia carbon tube of the stabilizer joiner, full moving stab.
-Throttle tech device on board
-Customized Canalizer mounting flat washers
Kyu’s Agenda 2:
-Contra unit: Brenner V3 with Nue inrunner, Falcon 22x18 front, 22x20 rear
-ESC: spin99, Smart SW regulator/receiver battery (F3A Unlimited, .9A)
-Transmitter: 14MZ, DS8611 with plastic gears
-CG: wing bolt
-Down thrust: -1°, factory setting
-Wing incidence: higher than factory setting for slow flying
-Takeoff weight: 4780g with F3A unlimited 5.4A 2x5s lipo
Control surface deflections:
-Aileron
Normal: 7degree up/down
Snap: 18degree up/down
-Elevator
Up(pitch up maneuver): normal:3.9 degree
Down: normal 4.9 degree
-Mixings
Vertical down: down elevator (pitch down) 2.5% condition mixing, Th-Ele
Knife edge loop:2% down elevator, line mixing.
No Rud to Ail mixing
Note:
-Custom carbon fiber landing gears (narrower)/wheel pants
-Custom removable carbon fiber battery tray, highly recommended for future repair
-Thicker dia carbon rod on the canopy locker, highly recommended
-Wheels: Dubro 2.5” for grass field
-Used a bigger dia carbon tube of the stabilizer joiner, full moving stab.
-Throttle tech device on board
-Customized Canalizer mounting washers
-Gator RC wing incidence adjuster
Joe’s Agenda 3:
- Contra unit: Brenner V4 with Pyro 600 outrunner, Falcon 22x20 front, 22x22 rear (F3A Unlimited).
- ESC:Jeti mezon 130, regulator/receiver battery (F3A Unlimited, .9A)
- Transmitter: JR 12x
-CG:somewhat forward from the wing bolt
- Down thrust: -1°, factory setting
- Wing incidence: +1°, factory setting
- H stab. Incidence: 0°, factory setting
- Takeoff weight: 4760g with F3A unlimited 6A 2x5s lipo
Note:
-Wheels: 2.75” dia for grass field
-Fixed H.stab with two joint tubes
-Gator RC wing incidence adjuster
-Rear air vent holes near the tail gear
-Depron air blocker rear the canopy
Thanks for the reading.
Q
10-13-2016, 02:50 AM
#63
My Feedback: (30)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choche,
The removable tray provides the many advantages as following. We have recognized it through the couple of years experence on my BJ Episode, agenda, and friends’s planes.
- Structural reinforcing on a fuselage(tortional & bending), laning gear bulkhead, and wing jointer mount.
-Can be iterated for a moving forward CG change with a longer size tray.
-Can be removed for a landing gears mount repairing or reinforing.
-can be shave down the size and weight after the CG ballancing.
-Alluminium mount screws can be sheard when a plane crash to protect an airframe.
-
The first generation carbon fiber tray on my BJ Episode is following.
The agenda tray has been evolved as the second generation. There was very good feed back from a local friend who has been using this on his Agenda.
The front mount brackets are made with a carbon L shape channel. You can see unidirectional carbon fiber reinforcing on the bulkhead.
Thanks
Q
The removable tray provides the many advantages as following. We have recognized it through the couple of years experence on my BJ Episode, agenda, and friends’s planes.
- Structural reinforcing on a fuselage(tortional & bending), laning gear bulkhead, and wing jointer mount.
-Can be iterated for a moving forward CG change with a longer size tray.
-Can be removed for a landing gears mount repairing or reinforing.
-can be shave down the size and weight after the CG ballancing.
-Alluminium mount screws can be sheard when a plane crash to protect an airframe.
-
The first generation carbon fiber tray on my BJ Episode is following.
The agenda tray has been evolved as the second generation. There was very good feed back from a local friend who has been using this on his Agenda.
The front mount brackets are made with a carbon L shape channel. You can see unidirectional carbon fiber reinforcing on the bulkhead.
Thanks
Q
10-05-2017, 01:52 PM
#66
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gainesville,
FL
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a comparison between the Agenda and the BJ/AJ collaboration...Element. I'm still very pleased with my Agenda/V4 setup but its had a few mishaps and I would like to build a new aircraft this winter. Considering several but unsure whether the Agenda option should be replaced with an Element.
10-05-2017, 09:52 PM
#68
I have had all three over the last few years. I am a intermediate flyer and don't know how good a comparison I can provide. I ran a BS V3 contra (with Neu) in the Inspire and a V4 in both the Agenda and Element. I loved the inspire even though a very good FAI flyer at my club didn't like its characteristics. The Agenda flew slower and quite well but the wing placement was too low and made rolls look odd. It also consumed more power to make it grove.
The Element has so far been the best of the 3 from flight characteristics perspective, but I have had issues with power consumption being way to high (4000 mah for advanced sequence). This has been a large part due to a need to increase speed coming out of corners to get the plane to lock in. Also I am not as good at throttle management as I should be, so am replacing the V4 with my V3 with a Hacker C54 I am also finishing a second Element with a Pletty Advanced and 3 blade, which tends to be the preferred set up for this plane among most of the people I know who are flying it. I think you just have to fly it with more speed I wont have any info on the changes for a while as I am traveling for the next month and have no time to complete the changes and see how they work
The Element has so far been the best of the 3 from flight characteristics perspective, but I have had issues with power consumption being way to high (4000 mah for advanced sequence). This has been a large part due to a need to increase speed coming out of corners to get the plane to lock in. Also I am not as good at throttle management as I should be, so am replacing the V4 with my V3 with a Hacker C54 I am also finishing a second Element with a Pletty Advanced and 3 blade, which tends to be the preferred set up for this plane among most of the people I know who are flying it. I think you just have to fly it with more speed I wont have any info on the changes for a while as I am traveling for the next month and have no time to complete the changes and see how they work
10-06-2017, 06:27 AM
#69
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: , UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bill,
that's useful info. I too am an intermediate flyer and am flying a Gaudius, with hacker c50-13xl and a 21*14. It needs to fly fairly fast and big, my slight problem is that I have slight cataracts, a common thing at my age, so when the lane is a way off it turns into a fuzzy blob which does not help. I am thinking of trying to find something that flies a bit slower and closer in so thought the agenda may be the answer. Keep us posted on how the element/pletty goes and I would be interested on your views when you have flown it a bit
Al.
that's useful info. I too am an intermediate flyer and am flying a Gaudius, with hacker c50-13xl and a 21*14. It needs to fly fairly fast and big, my slight problem is that I have slight cataracts, a common thing at my age, so when the lane is a way off it turns into a fuzzy blob which does not help. I am thinking of trying to find something that flies a bit slower and closer in so thought the agenda may be the answer. Keep us posted on how the element/pletty goes and I would be interested on your views when you have flown it a bit
Al.
10-06-2017, 11:25 AM
#70
My Feedback: (46)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bridgewater,
NJ
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Invitation would be a better choice for someone flying Intermediate or Advanced. I had an Agenda on a Contra and sold it because I could not see it well. The dark blue running through the root rib area makes it harder to see the wing tips. The Agenda is a draggier slower flying airframe compared to my Allure. It also typically comsumed more battery. I also discovered in the end that using any sort of braking was too much. I found just flying at an idle on the contra on downlines and through corners on both the Agenda and the Allure gave better lock through the corners. Last year I primarily flew an Invitation on a Pletty on a 21.5X13 2-blade and in the end a 19.5X13 3- blade props. I think the Invitation wing planform is the most stable and easiest to see of the BJ wings. It also snaps well enough for up through Masters. FAI I have no idea. Just beware a 3-blade consumes about 5 to 10% more battery. I now only fly 6000ma TP Prolites which I think is the best way to go for better battery life. Only downside is you have to be creative to keep weight down. With the new weight limits passed, it should not be that difficult to make weight up through Advanced.
I also think the Invitation fuselage scheme other than the AJ color scheme is the easiest to see in the air of the BJ airframes. The stock color schemes on certain designs are too busy and harder to see. If you want to do it right, order your own custom color scheme. It just may take time to get and cost you a little more, but I think it would be well worth it if you are struggling seeing your airframe in the air. On my Allure I ordered it with a different simpler color scheme just on the bottom of the wing and that made one heck of a difference for me. It ended up being the easiest to see airframe I've had in a number of years. I have done the same for the Alchemy that I have coming.
Another option out there is the AJ Acuity. Since it is covered in Ultracote, it would be very easy to put your own spin on the airframe with Ultracote to see it better. I had the opportunity to judge Jason Shulmans back in early September and definitely could see where a few simple changes could make it easier to see.
I also still practice with at times with a BiSide. Simply painting over the silver with red on the top of the fuselage made that airframe much easier to see.
Color schemes is a big thing for my aging eyes more and more. Over time you just see certain colors better. Bright red happens to be one color that I see well along with a white basecoat. What is done on a particular design from a color scheme perspective has steered me away from considering it for purchase.
I also think the Invitation fuselage scheme other than the AJ color scheme is the easiest to see in the air of the BJ airframes. The stock color schemes on certain designs are too busy and harder to see. If you want to do it right, order your own custom color scheme. It just may take time to get and cost you a little more, but I think it would be well worth it if you are struggling seeing your airframe in the air. On my Allure I ordered it with a different simpler color scheme just on the bottom of the wing and that made one heck of a difference for me. It ended up being the easiest to see airframe I've had in a number of years. I have done the same for the Alchemy that I have coming.
Another option out there is the AJ Acuity. Since it is covered in Ultracote, it would be very easy to put your own spin on the airframe with Ultracote to see it better. I had the opportunity to judge Jason Shulmans back in early September and definitely could see where a few simple changes could make it easier to see.
I also still practice with at times with a BiSide. Simply painting over the silver with red on the top of the fuselage made that airframe much easier to see.
Color schemes is a big thing for my aging eyes more and more. Over time you just see certain colors better. Bright red happens to be one color that I see well along with a white basecoat. What is done on a particular design from a color scheme perspective has steered me away from considering it for purchase.
Last edited by J Lachowski; 10-06-2017 at 11:33 AM.
10-07-2017, 03:22 AM
#72
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gainesville,
FL
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be more specific...My understanding is that the Agenda fuselage and the Element fuselage are the same except the wing is slightly higher and slightly forward on the Element. (plus nose ring thrust changes to accommodate contra vs single prop) Does this result in any handling/presentation improvement of merit ? I would like to hear the opinions of those who have flown both.
10-12-2017, 05:01 PM
#74
My Feedback: (92)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an Inspire and I thought it was the best flying model I ever had until I got the Agenda. I feel my Agenda flies great. I don't understand the comments about rolling issues. I've never seen any sign of that with my model. I can't see how a slight move of the wing would change how it rolls that much. Just get the aileron throws measured accurately and put in the correct differential.An awful lot of time when I fly someone's model this is why it is rolling poorly.
I do think the Inspire color scheme is a bit better to see in the air. I did add a white stripe to the LE of the wing on my Agenda plus I painted the wheel pants red. These weren't big changes but I don't have any problem seeing my Agenda.
willyuk, I had cataract surgery three years ago. Best thing I could have done. I am now 20/20 uncorrected and I see better then I ever have.
I do think the Inspire color scheme is a bit better to see in the air. I did add a white stripe to the LE of the wing on my Agenda plus I painted the wheel pants red. These weren't big changes but I don't have any problem seeing my Agenda.
willyuk, I had cataract surgery three years ago. Best thing I could have done. I am now 20/20 uncorrected and I see better then I ever have.
10-13-2017, 08:59 AM
#75
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: , UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your input guys. Luckily for me the chaps whp run bondaero over here in the uk are going to arrange for me to have a couple of flights with an Agenda with the crs contra. Keith and Adrian who are top pilots both fly Agendas and will let me have a quick go to see how it feels for me. As for colour schemes the optional Akiba scheme looks good.
my eyes are not yet bad enough to warrent surgery but I am keeping it in mind for the future. I will post the results of my test flight in due course, maybe a few weeks. This is the UK and the weather Gods ate not kind.
my eyes are not yet bad enough to warrent surgery but I am keeping it in mind for the future. I will post the results of my test flight in due course, maybe a few weeks. This is the UK and the weather Gods ate not kind.