Stewb

Tell me gents, has anyone any thoughts on the quality of the control surface horn mountings?   Does anyone know of any failures?   The elevator particularly seems weak so it's probably going to be strengthened. 

Stewb

Tell me gents, has anyone any thoughts on the quality of the control surface horn mountings?   Does anyone know of any failures?   The elevator particularly seems weak so it's probably going to be strengthened. 

profmb

I replaced them all with Pete Tindall fittings and Seacraft horns...my ele horns cracked...

akroblade954

[X(] off out to workshop to check mine now! [X(]

ian51291

Hi Adrian, the landing lights are from a guy called Ross Mansell,he has a website called aeromodel lighting
Lighting for aeromodels, he has lots of different lights, the ones I used are the large heli search lights which are also used for large model landing lights.they come with resistors for either 4.8 or 6v, you need to solder them to the fly leads, I use an electronic engine kill switch to switch them on and off,I will take some photos of them on to show you how bright they are when I get home on Friday.A guy in our club made me a nose leg from solid bar , much stronger thanks.

the Website for the lights is Lighting For Aeromodellers.












,

ian51291

Hi Joe

Good to hear you have another 182,ive heard you cant get them anymore here in the UK,that new engine you have should haul it around really well.

Ian

akroblade954

I did not find any problems with the control horns, but the more i looked at them the weaker they looked. I have stronger horns on 90 size models. When building the Cessna, I did upgrade control rods and also changed the clevises all to ball link type. Not sure why i didn't uprate the horns!

Profmb mentioned he 'upgraded' to Pete Tindel linkages. Whilst the quality of PT items are good, their horns have a basic flaw in that they need two parallel surfaces to clamp against (ie top and bottom of the control surface), or else they need to be spaced/packed out/ wedged so as not to crush part of the surface. These would be particularly unsuitable for our Cessna's as the thickness of the surface at the hinge line is very much thicker than at the trailing edge, therefore the top and bottom surfaces are far from parallel. Du-Bro linkages are much better as they 'self adjust' to the taper of the control surface. How did you get on we these Profmb???

But, I don't want either of those makes as I don't want the through horn being visible on the top of the surface. Not too scale at all! Have not decided what to do yet, but it may be to make some horns out of fibreglass sheet. Will let you know!

Adrian

Captmicom

Hi Ian,

That is what I am hearing as well. To the best of my knowledge, I got the last one from my wholesaler last year right after I sold mine. There are a few in private hands that might be looking for new homes but that is about it. A customer of mine who bought one of the last ones that I had,bent his main gear and is now looking for a replacement. If I can see photos of some of the new remakes that are out and about, I might be able to make a new one for him. Keep'em flying!!

Joe

Stewb

All seems ok and perhaps the problem was more with assembly than anything else but I'm keeping an eye on things. Anyway the engine runs carried out today and we may fly tomorrow if the weathers ok.

ian51291

Hi Stewb

Im using the supplied hardware and up to now it seems ok,i was thinking of changing the clevises for ball joint especially on the rudder as they seem a bit flimsy

Ian

Stewb

Hiya Joe,

Bent main gear? Remakes? Make a new one?

If anything about the ASM seems wrong it's those main legs without any forward sweep, without the correct looking track and which keep the thing too high off the ground. The H9 version has a much better scale look - I know 'cos i've got one as well.

Are you able to make a better looking main under carraige? If you are I might be very very interested.

Cheers,

Stew.

Stewb

Ta Ian,

As I said, it may be that the problems I saw were more to do with assembly. Anyway, after running the z62 and nearly being dragged away as I held on to the plane, I'm more confident it will be ok. Fly it soon then put the fpv in.

Stew.

profmb

Hi Ackroblade,
I have to differ about the PT stuff. It is not as you suggest because the threaded rods that pass through the control surface are just that - threaded so the linkage from the end of the rod from the servo can be set at whatever height you require. The machined alu clevis is very secure.

However whilst the fixing is hardly scale, I do not see the logic of your comment when so much of the rest is not...one would have to change the servo mounting in the wings to hide these away, as just one example.

I took the view a while ago that I would get it flying first then decide how much detail to add - this thread certainly provides plently of inspiration on that front!

Cheers

akroblade954

The problem with the PT horns is not quality, or the threaded rod or connection to the linkage rods, it's the nice looking "sculptured aluminium horns". The surfaces of these are parallel to each other or, put another way, 90 deg to the threaded rod. Therefore, if there is a taper on the control surface (our Cessna's control surfaces have significant taper), then the lovely sculptured horn will crush the leading edge of the control surface, unless you spend time and effort making a packing wedge to prevent this. The Du-Bro alternative dosen't look quite as "bling", but it is high quality and the design is better as the washers are a ball and socket type so they swivel to meet the control surface perfectly, so doesn't crush, damage and weaken the surface. Have a look and you will see what I mean http://www.us215225.bizhostnet.com/dubro/00016.htm

Agree with you on the unscale look of the ASM 182, but I do think the one and only angle it looks reasonably scale is from above, which is where most people see it when it's sitting in the pits when they are standing next too you chatting!! Of course, that is after they have walked over and noticed from 100 yards away that the under carriage is on steriods and has been "jacked up" 100% in height

Stewb

Quote Agree with you on the unscale look of the ASM 182, but I do think the one and onlyangleit looks reasonably scale is from above, which is where most people see it when it's sitting in the pits when they are standing next too you chatting!! Of course, that is after they have walked over and noticed from 100 yards away that the under carriage is on steriods and has been "jacked up" 100% in height

I'd go quite some way to be able to bolt on better legs.

Hide Signatures

profmb

Ok I understand what you mean now, but having used them it was not an issue fior me, cos I recessed the leading edge of the capping piece into the control surface. There is also sufficient tolerance on the capping piece to allow the rod to be drilled such that it will allow a 90deg relationship with the rod.

As the concern is now going to be the look from above, then I would love some suggestions for: window framing, cabin aerial, nav light blisters, door framing snd handles etc etc!

As always: where does one begin and end - I guess it is down to time, money, skill and desire?

akroblade954

I guess you are right - it's got to be one of the least scale large models on the market! Maybe that's why it's not on the market any more! I certainly don't have the skills to get it better scale looking, so will just have to play on the "look at the size of mine, it's huge!!" factor LOL

Stewb

And a bit more on the scale look.

Despite the obvious faults we don't have a model which is too far off scale. I mean, when it's on the ground or in the air it doesn't look too bad at all (and you gets what you pays for). Should we all rush out and buy a 157" TMMY 182 or just be grateful for the ASM version?

I know of one for sale RTF at £6,000 which hasn't flown for some time (if ever) and been for sale just about as long. I got the ASM instead 'cos it doesn't need CAA testing, transports easier (white elephants move faster) and best of all it cost a lot less. I've already had stunning offers for mine but bet the TMMY might never be sold.

Cheers.

Stewb

More on scale/better looking under carriage.

flyinucrazy

My Feedback: (107)

I have on of these Cessna new in the box if anyone is interested. Tim

Captmicom

Hey Tim,

I am lining you up a buyer. I will hook the two of you up as soon as I know he wants it.

Joe

flyinucrazy

My Feedback: (107)

Thanks Joe! I have a Tmmy Cessna for sale too.

akroblade954

Hi Stew

Would like to see some pics of how the larger wheels / repositioned axles look. As for the front, back on post 297 there was a link to a little guide to replacing the nose leg for a Robart 159F. This will take a 4" wheel to match your mains. If you wanted and offset leg instead of fork type, you could go for the Robart 159, which also accepts a 4" wheel.

Adrian

akroblade954

Quote I have on of these Cessna new in the box if anyone is interested. Tim Quote

That must be a rare thing!! Don't think these were ever made in great numbers at all.

I could do with a new cowl if any one has one? With the engine change to the Z62, I had to cut new exhaust exits, but the old Turnigy 52 exhaust exit holes are still there []

Stewb

Hi Adrian,

That could be just what's needed. However, went to see a bit of an engineering god today called John Braithwaite who pointed me in a direction which could basically mean making new main legs and possibly a new nose leg. Probably not so expensive and could be relatively simple.

Does anyone know what the mains are made of? I'd been told they are cast aluminium.

I'm busy all next week and will do something the week after and keep you in the loop.

Stew.