Sparhawk

Hi David,
The spinner is the SR265LN, 2.5" sold by Cermark.
Here is the link: http://www.cermark.com/Merchant2/mer...t_Code=SR265LN
If you plan on getting the Cermark F16 (another awesome jet!) down the road, get two!!! All for $12USD, and you will need to balance it. I used small pieces of fiberglass strapping/packing tape inside the nose cone to bring it into balance. That tape added very little weight and will never move.

Good luck with the Flanker build... build the elevator and rudders as strong as you can.... eliminate any flexing in the rods.

Spar

DavidMC

My Feedback: (6)

Thanks Spar,

Although the F16 does look good I could never bring myself to buy a an ARF ;p (Plus I have a CBM F16 and F18 in storage after for later)

I will definately beef up the torque rod linkages and do the epoxy bearings. I plan to do all the mods laid out in this thread with one more - this plane will be electric powered. Probably won't ever be as fast as the Jett 90 birds but at least it will have a clean nose.

I have a couple other projects to finish up before I start this one though but hopefully I'll get started on it this winter.

Cheers,
Dave

graffitti

Great Thread......ordering my kit now......

Sparhawk

Shameless bump, but is there anyone else out there in the process of either flying, building, or planning to build one of these this winter?

Come on guys, there must be others with built Flankers and pics to post???

Spar

Anyone with info on Alex's (AKM) F16?

Pablo2000

Ordered my SU-27 yesterday, Jett order to follow after Christmas

Thats the back half of my winter taken care of.

Thanks to all the guys on this thread who went first...... there's a ton of great info in here for us 'followers' to use.


Happy holidays to all.

Pablo

Sparhawk

Hi Pablo,
You bought a great kit. Make sure you have new and sharp blades in the hand plane!
She builds well, just take care to do some of the mods on here to strengthen the ship and you will have a great flying plane. The biggest suggestions I can make is to make sure you add stregthening blocks to the landing gear plates, extra tristock on the Fins, full epoxy bearing on the rudders, and make absolutuely sure that the stab is slop free. Seal all hinge gaps!

Have fun building her, I know I did. Here is my build: [link=http://www.lobstercove.ca/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1150245080]Spar's Flanker Build[/link]

Cheers,
Spar

Joe Ortiz

My Feedback: (75)

I bought a Mig-29 few months ago, and this plane is on the list to get.

Joe[8D]

sticktickler

I just love these planes plan to build one this winter great thread keep up the good work. Hey Rich & Spar I'm an ad designer and had a bit of fun with your pics enjoy.

Mustang Fever

My Feedback: (2)

That is so cool. I saved them for desktop background.

MY 27 kit has been sitting on the shelf for going on two years. I don't know if I'll ever work up the courage to build it. Our field is so tough on fast airplanes.

Sparhawk

Very nice sticktickler.

It would be real nice to see more of these flying, no question. I think there are a couple more being built in Atlantic Canada, due to the appearance of mine at a few FunFlys this summer. I hope to see them next year.

Spar

happyal

Great Thread,

After reading this, I will be buying one as soon as I've finished my other builds (currently 2 in the que with one being built). The covering jobs you guys have done have been fantansic, really inspiring stuff. I'll keep an eye on this thread and hopefully join in when I finanly get round to buying it

sticktickler

Hey Rich would you post your clean artwork for the logos used on your Flanker. Love the look of that dark blue on white very sharp. I have a vinyl cutter to make my decals however even the best 3-M vinyl is not fuel proof. I cut the decal as a stencil keeping the outside part and paint the inside with Rustoliem paint much more fuel proof even right next to the engine exhaust. Thanks Rich.

jetpilotrich

Cool pics! Thanks... I saved it to my desk top.... I wish the Flanker was that easy to duplicate! That being said... it is a relatively simple plane to build... it just looks complex at first glance. It is probably the finest kit around. I think it is the best designed plane I have seen.

Use a JETT.... it will make the difference!

RICH

jetpilotrich

All the logos are laser cut from AKM.... he only charges around 6 bucks for the set. The 3 colored flag above the tail logo was just cut from sticker sheets I got at the hobby shop. here are some pics.

RICH

sticktickler

Hello everyone I’m trying to think of some fun ideas for my SU-27 thought of putting some High Intensity LEDs in the tail cone to simulate the after burner. I simulated the affect on a photo of Rich’s plane. What do you all think? The other jet pics have not been photo altered and are the real lights cool idea I love it. I plan to mix the switch with full throttle for a cool affect but can still hit a separate accessory switch on the transmitter any time during the fight. Full landing lights and nav lights will also be installed these are very bright LEDs thay can b seen in full daylight with no problem at all. They are often used by the scale turbine crowd all the time.
Hey Rich was wondering how you felt about Mods-R-Me stabilator mod to this kit. I have built the Combat Models F-16 (see my Viper pic) with a full flying stab and it worked great. However I did not mix it to be used as a stabilator but it was balanced and still has zero flutter with awesome control response. You have proved to me the SU-27 is a great kit built stock but this seems to be a simple mod. But I’m not much of a risk taker and would hate to loose that Jett 90.on a wim. So please tell me what you think about this idea. Or any others you may have if you where to build another 27 knowing what you know now. Thanks for the art got them all cleaned and digitized for cutting.

jetpilotrich

I would prefer a "Flying Tail(FT)" over the "fixed stab/elevator" mostly on high speed planes.... the FT is less subject to flutter... but it has to be balanced properly. Has anyone sucessfully flown the AKM Flanker with the FT? The Cermark F-16 has a nice FT that has a symetrical airfoil in lieu of the FLAT airfoil.

You are correct... it would be a true test flight.... betting the whole farm on the tail.

In addition.... I would like to see a better way to tighten up the rudders....they also flutter on my plane.... but I built it strong (use a 3rd CA hinge in the rudder & lower epoxy bearing)and so far it has taken the abuse.

Sparhawk

Hey Rich, what kind of crosslink wire are you using for the rudders? With all of the strengthening and epoxy bearings, if you are still getting some flutter, then it must be coming from somewhere else. The internal cross linkage or the servo itself has too much slop.

As a note, I do not have the lower epoxy bearing done on mine, and mine has never indicated a flutter. Although, I will probably do that mod so that there is no further possibility of flutter later.

Spar

jetpilotrich

It is a 4-40 rod...no play... also glued the torque rod into the rudder. It is real tight but the rod does flex a bit. I have never seen a torque rod with zero slop.... it is the nature of the beast. It does not flutter often... only when I am pushing it hard....but you can hear it when it does... A guy at the field clocked it on radar at 103 a few months ago... that was about top end with a 12-6 prop..... it sure looked like it was going faster! Gonna try an 11-8 eventually.

Sparhawk

Yep, same size as what I used, except I did one mod. I had some CF tube, cut and placed over the 4-40 rod on both sides of the E-Z link on the servo arm. I found that there was a small amount of bending going on when you hold and try flexing the other rudder. The CF tube over the rod makes for one stiff setup.

Might be a useful tip for others. It is actually something I have done on my 30% Edge and Extra. All the rods are done that way and are super stiff and strong... better than 4-40 alone.

For ****s-n-giggles, try a flight with a 12x8. You might be surprised, even from the Jett.

Spar

jetpilotrich

Do you normally use a 12-8? What does your Jett TACH at with the 12-8? That would give me a target to shoot for if I try that set up. With the 12-6 I have seen as high as 14.4 measured on the ground.... is seems to unload nicely in flight.

The 4-40 push rod on my set up is rock solid....no flexing. In hind sight... I would have used "thicker than 4-40 torque rods" for the rudders. Without the lower epoxy bearings there is just to much play with the 4-40 torque rods!

Do you have a video of your plane I can link to? That red color looks good in the sky!

Rich

jetpilotrich

I almost forgot.... Did you use any Longitudinal balance weight (nose or tail weight)? And do you have an acurate weight of your plane?

thanks

Rich

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

One way I tighten up my rudders on my planes id to double up the CA Hinges. makes them real stiff

bob27s

My Feedback: (19)

Also worth trying an 11x9. The standard SJ90 is ok with a bit heavier prop. The 90LX really needs the smaller 11x7, 11x8 sizes to spool up.

The 12x8 is on the high end of the prop range - but it will work ok - the engine unloads in the air.

Ive found that the 12x8 works well on the OS and ST 90 and jett-stream combionation for most of the applications. Just the way their porting and timing tend to fall into play.

rcuman

Here is my build of this kit if you are interested.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5180832/tm.htm

Steelie

My Feedback: (18)

Bob,

You say the Jett .90 likes the smaller diameter prop, 11x7 or so. Is that prop size less efficient than say a 12" or 13" with a lower pitch? Is there the possibility of 'cavitation', or the point at which some of the work is not being used? That is to say if the .90 spools up enough, it can overpower the given load that the smaller diameter prop yields. Adding more here, the smaller diameter props have a smaller thrust-pie. Therefore a higher percentage of available thrust-air is being bounced off of the airframe (frontal area) inducing that usual prop vs. airframe drag....and the false engine intakes under this design really add to this drag idea. It's my guess that achieving static RPM on the ground is less important than realizing optimum thrust in the air. If more thrust-air can make it past the airframe without hitting it first,... you get the picture. If a 12x8 can let the engine unload in the air, it probably is more efficient than the 11x7...? You guys are the experts, I am just trying to sort this out.


steelie