RCU Forums

RCU Forums (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   Electric RC Jets (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/electric-rc-jets-198/)
-   -   F-16 fighting eagle from famous (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/electric-rc-jets-198/7978181-f-16-fighting-eagle-famous.html)

koolaid535 09-22-2008 01:05 AM

F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Have anyone flown this jet yet? I need your feed back, I also what to know if u can paint it with a pertective coating.

giddyuperic 09-22-2008 02:18 AM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
What jet? Is it foam or wood w/monokote?

koolaid535 09-22-2008 04:33 AM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Its a foamy, and the Maiden flight was a disaster. the wind caught it and it went down, I repaired it the best i could but later today i will see how she will do. how there's no wind.

rcmiket 09-22-2008 05:56 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Are you talking about the 70mm F-16 from Hobby Lobby?

rcmiket 09-22-2008 06:00 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
1 Attachment(s)
If so I own one. Short of the CG being wrong in the instructions its a great flier. Mike

CAPT John 09-23-2008 09:00 AM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: rcmiket

If so I own one. Short of the CG being wrong in the instructions its a great flier. Mike
rcmiket.
What CG did you use? I have one also and used the published CG, but the maiden didn't go very well. It's repaired and ready to try again, but I'd like to hear what CG worked for you. Also, are you using the stock battery?

Thanks,

rcmiket 09-23-2008 04:25 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
I'm about 90mm from the leading edge and think it needs to go back further. My first flight was at 78mm and it took all the up trim I had to get it back safe. Second flight I went 85mm and the same result. When I went to 90mm I needed some trim but it flew well. Its still nose heavy at 90mm. Next time out I'm going to 95mm. Overall I'm really pleased with it. As far as I'm concerned I'm going for a CG with no up trim in level flight. I also had way to much throws in it even with 15% expo it was touchy I've toned them down some and went to 20% expo and it was much better. The rudder is pretty ineffective so don't be surprised there. Even with the nose heavy condition I had no problem with the landing so feel free to experiment.If there's anything else you need feel free to ask. Good Luck .Mike

rcmiket 09-23-2008 04:28 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Sorry I missed the part about the battery, Its stock. I'm looking at some from Max Amps. I've been using them in my Helicopters and my H/L F-18 they really perked things up. Mike

koolaid535 09-23-2008 05:05 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
rc: its the same one like the one from hobby-lobby, but i bought mine from sn hobbies in canada.
ps what does cg mean.

rcmiket 09-23-2008 05:23 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Center of Gravity.

koolaid535 09-23-2008 05:26 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
I figured it out thanks. I just came back from trying to fly the bird again, this time it didn't get two feet off the ground and spun and came down and went into pieces.

CAPT John 09-23-2008 05:44 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: rcmiket

I'm about 90mm from the leading edge and think it needs to go back further. My first flight was at 78mm and it took all the up trim I had to get it back safe. Second flight I went 85mm and the same result. When I went to 90mm I needed some trim but it flew well. Its still nose heavy at 90mm. Next time out I'm going to 95mm. Overall I'm really pleased with it. As far as I'm concerned I'm going for a CG with no up trim in level flight. I also had way to much throws in it even with 15% expo it was touchy I've toned them down some and went to 20% expo and it was much better. The rudder is pretty ineffective so don't be surprised there. Even with the nose heavy condition I had no problem with the landing so feel free to experiment.If there's anything else you need feel free to ask. Good Luck .Mike
Mike,
Thanks for the info. My F-16 literally scrapped the grass before climbing out on the first handlaunch (our field is grass and it would not get up enough speed on the take off roll). We used all the up trim and it still was diving. After adding up elevator we launched again and it pitched up stalled and crashed. The CG was set slightly forward of the recommended 78 mm, so I now realize it was probably too nose heavy.

The jet is repaired and ready for another test flight this weekend. I'll set the CG further aft before trying again. Thank again for the insights.
John

ARF Guy 09-23-2008 07:12 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

ORIGINAL: rcmiket

I'm about 90mm from the leading edge and think it needs to go back further. My first flight was at 78mm and it took all the up trim I had to get it back safe. Second flight I went 85mm and the same result. When I went to 90mm I needed some trim but it flew well. Its still nose heavy at 90mm. Next time out I'm going to 95mm. Overall I'm really pleased with it. As far as I'm concerned I'm going for a CG with no up trim in level flight. I also had way to much throws in it even with 15% expo it was touchy I've toned them down some and went to 20% expo and it was much better. The rudder is pretty ineffective so don't be surprised there. Even with the nose heavy condition I had no problem with the landing so feel free to experiment.If there's anything else you need feel free to ask. Good Luck .Mike
Hmmm?? Wouldn't moving the CG BACK make it more nose heavy? I also have the Hobby Lobby 70MM F-16 and I had to add lead in the nose to get it to balance at the 78MM. I also contacted HB's tech support since there were no control throws in the book and they told me the one they fly on their online video is set up with the linkage on all surfaces on the outer-most hole of the control horn and the servo and with low rates set at 40% for rudder, aileron and elevators. The elevators didn't seem to have much movement so I made the D/R 45% for them.

First flight was yesterday and it wanted to roll left pretty so strong I added 80% right trim to keep it level and quite a bit of up trim and it was flying nicely. Landing, I cut the throttle to about 40% and it started a good predictable decent and I kept slowly reduced power and pulled the nose up as it got closer to the ground. It flared into a nice "mains first", nose high landing. The roll problem was the rudder not returning to center after steering for take-off. I took the push "wire" out and wiped it with silicone plus tightened up the quick connects on the rudder and servo since they seemed quite loose and sloppy. I removed most of the right trim before flying today and it took-off and flew nicely. The wind had picked up to about 10 knots before the batter was recharged and I found the plane wants to climb fairly strong into the wind. Also downwind landings are out of the question unless you have unlimited space.

The low rates make for fairly slow rolls but until I have a few more flights, I appreciate the milder response. I have no problems with enough elevator throw for flying or landing. The plane will slow down really quite slow and show no tendency to drop a wing. Landings are pretty easy. Just line her up and start backing the throttle off till you flare at about a foot above the ground. Carry some power all the way because the light weight and that big duct will slow it down quickly.

Bottom line is you want mild controls at least until you get comfortable with the plane. It seems to like to fly fairly fast if you want it to be responsive and it's not a plane I would fly in any wind over 8-10 knots and then only if you have experience. Gray is a tough color for me to see, even in the clear, dark blue skies of Prescott. Another note of interest; our field is at 5200+ feet and I felt the plane's performance was very good and scale-like.

ARF Guy 09-23-2008 07:21 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Forgive me guys, but reading your posts, it sounds to me like you are moving the CG the wrong way. Putting the GC further back puts more of the plane's weight forward. Anyway, the two fellows that crashed sounds more like tail-heavy aircraft than nose-heavy. Maybe I'm mis-reading your posts.

ARF Guy

ARF Guy 09-23-2008 07:36 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Oh, I got it now. Terminology strikes again! CG and point of balance! Anyway I'd still take nose heavy over tail heavy!

rcmiket 09-24-2008 12:14 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Here's my story. When I finished the jet. I tried to balance it at 78mm per the instructions. It required 3 oz. of lead in the nose to achieve that balance point. First flight I needed so much up to rotate it was ridiculous. In flight I keep adding up trim, all I had and it still was diving. Had to hold up the whole flight. I concluded the jet was nose heavy. I removed 1/2 the weight and flew again. some improvement but not much. I took all the weight out and flew again. Better but still not right. At 78mm the jet is nose heavy. I'm at 90mm right now and it balanced level. I still think it needs to balance back a bit more. As far as I'm concerened the CG point in the instructions are wrong. I realize that everyone has there own preference about how a plane should fly and what CG best fits there style. I prefer mine a hair nose heavy.I want to get it to thr point where there's no up trim in level flight,I'll keep messing with it till I find where that is. As far as the 2 crashes If they flew anything like mine did the first time out it took forever to rotate if you pulled it off green it would stall, snap and crash. Mike

CAPT John 09-24-2008 12:31 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: rcmiket

Here's my story. When I finished the jet. I tried to balance it at 78mm per the instructions. It required 3 oz. of lead in the nose to achieve that balance point. First flight I needed so much up to rotate it was ridiculous. In flight I keep adding up trim, all I had and it still was diving. Had to hold up the whole flight. I concluded the jet was nose heavy. I removed 1/2 the weight and flew again. some improvement but not much. I took all the weight out and flew again. Better but still not right. At 78mm the jet is nose heavy. I'm at 90mm right now and it balanced level. I still think it needs to balance back a bit more. As far as I'm concerened the CG point in the instructions are wrong. I realize that everyone has there own preference about how a plane should fly and what CG best fits there style. I prefer mine a hair nose heavy.I want to get it to thr point where there's no up trim in level flight,I'll keep messing with it till I find where that is. As far as the 2 crashes If they flew anything like mine did the first time out it took forever to rotate if you pulled it off green it would stall, snap and crash. Mike
Mike,
I concur with your assessment. I had to add about 2 oz. of nose weight to get the jet to balance at the recommended 78mm. I had to hand launch due to our grass runway not allowing the plane to build enough speed to rotate. The first hand launch was successful, but just barely as it was very hard to get the plane to climb. I too used all the up trim on my radio and the plane was still diving. In retrospect, I believe the jet was nose heavy. The elevator was not touchy and the landing was hard to slow down.

As for my "crash," I chalk that up to a bad hand launch throw. I'm going to remove the nose weight and try again this weekend. I'll report back with the results.

John

rcmiket 09-24-2008 12:39 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Sounds like you have a handle on it now. I'm flying off pavement and have no experience with hand launching but I've seen several go wrong. You'll be fine. Good Luck . Mike

ARF Guy 09-24-2008 01:12 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
I noticed at RC Groups a couple of fellows have complained about motor glitches and determined that the ESC is most likely the trouble. Have any of you had runs with the motor cutting out? I have and once AFTER flying it, I tried to throttle up and nothing happened. I power cycled the plane and it seemed to reset. The battery was reading 3.7 per cell except one that was 3.6 so there was no lack of battery power.

Thanks,

ARF Guy.

rcmiket 09-24-2008 01:40 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
I haven't had a issue like that yet. The F-18 I have from H/l had that problem I swapped it out with a Phoenix I had laying around and it cured it. Mike

ARF Guy 09-24-2008 02:36 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
I've contacted HL to see if there is an issue.

How do you like the F-18? It looks good but it's smaller and for me with bad eyes, I suspect, hard to follow.

rcmiket 09-24-2008 02:42 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
1 Attachment(s)
Actually its easier to see. Stock set up is perfect if your just looking to fool around. Its really quite slow but fun. The only upgrade I did was a Max Amps 1550 ma 25c pack. Its a bit larger than the stock pack and you need to cut out the bulkhead between the bays to get it to fit. It gives a lot more flight time with a bit more power. I take mine out every time I go flying. Its that much fun. Mike

Chris Balling 09-24-2008 04:11 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
1 Attachment(s)
I have 51 flights on my HL F-18. I did initially have a cut out problem with my motor but quickly isolated it to a poor connection between ESC and the motor itself. I replaced the "Red" line connector and have had no problems since. The little Blue Angel is a fun airplane and is rather easy to see.

Chris Balling
"Real Pilots Wear GOLD Wings"

ARF Guy 09-24-2008 05:31 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Thanks for the F-18 info, guys.

ARF Guy

ARF Guy 09-24-2008 07:57 PM

RE: F-16 fighting eagle from famous
 
Oh, if you get any bings and bongs in the foam, the light-weight 'pink' spackling paste can be smoothed into a dent and then painted with acrylic poster paint from any craft store. I bought a bottle of white and black and mix them to the color of gray I want. It dries flat and looks like what's already on the plane.

ARF Guy


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:43 PM.