Kostas1

Ray ,

as i said ,

i am sorry for your loss...

BUT i have to add this ...

YES the manufacturing of this airframe was a little bit *fast* (?) , anemic ?

BUT buying such an airframe (...talking regarding complexity )
on the price you bought it makes it a * good deal *

By mentioning GOOD DEAL

i don't mean that the quality is up to GreatPlanes - Hangar9 - TopFlite's series....

Not even by close...

But for the money (....think that all other mfg's sell maybe triple the price )

yeah i believe it's a good deal....

This * good deal * though,

may have spots in the airframe that needs attention.
And one of them maybe was the lack of glue in critical areas , like the wing bolt plate on firewall......

IMO we, as buyers , we are responsible for the 'flying machines' we operate,
so,
i guess
everyone who buys an ARF/ARTF SHOULD check the critical points on the airframe...

That's the one and only reason why i always run EPOXY thinned with alcohol over every joint i feel it's critical,
and also i apply a thin coat at the sides on the radio compartment,
i mean both sides and length !!!

Anyway,

this is a big talk , so......

AGAIN i am sorry for your loss ,'cause been there / done that

good larry

Thinking the AT-6 would be a good match for my zenoah G-26 some day. I like a war bird with no bad habits on take off and landings. woud appriciate a report on your test flight. good luck. Good Larry

bingo field

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_96...mpage_4/tm.htm

Hope this helps. Flew well with the G26, 16x8 MAS.

Pennbrit

I just went and had a read. Its a crying shame that we have to have so much stress because the people in the factories just dont do their job right.
When I built my second Texan I thought I had covered all the lack of glue places. There is always the one you miss.
We live and learn.
I have a P47 Thunderbolt now. Fantastic.

Ray

bingo field

I took so much time with this, I could easily have built the kit. When I built my Thunderbolt, I really made sure the firewall was solid and secure. Don't know why I didn't do the job correctly here. It was a costly lesson, one I won't forget shortly.

The Ash tree, is the same ash that baseball bats are made of. I planted hundreds of them.

VIRGINIA MODEL BUILDERS

My Feedback: (159)

Is your build on the 120 size AT6 ?

VIRGINIA MODEL BUILDERS

My Feedback: (159)

They do not come with a pump or air tank

VIRGINIA MODEL BUILDERS

My Feedback: (159)

As a large volume BH dealer I can speak for our company.The planes we sell that have a problem with a valve receive a replacement part.Please note I refer to planes that we have sold.If you purchased elsewhere talk to the dealer you purchased from.At VAMODELBILDERS we back what we sell.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

VMB I'll give you 'five' on that!

Kostas1

I have found a video-review of the BH AT-6.....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akvvRHOOzyg&feature=related[/youtube]

SCARYCLARY

I have the BT version and was wondering what gas motor would work best on it.
I'm all glowed out
would a CRRC Pro 26cc work , i know a MT42 would be way over kill
this plane looks awsume and looking forward to build now that i have read you guys threads.
SCARYCLARY

Pennbrit

I had forgotten I had started this thread. So here is an update. Owing to a mid air, the Thunderbolt I meantioned above is no more. So 2 texans and a thunderbolt and I am £400 down and nothing to show for it.
Dont you just love this hobby, I know I do.

stevelesl

Anyone still watching this thread ?.
If so, I just purchased one unbuilt, putting a Saito 91 in it with e-flite electric retracts (dont like the look of the air ones supplied).
I am confused on the CG, book states 77mm back from leading edge at 510mm in from wing tip, saw on the thread people mentioning various measurments. The book also states 77mm back from leading edge at side of fuselage, very confusing.
Any tips appreciated.
Thanks

Pennbrit

hi. This was my thread.
The CoG should be set at 77 mm back from the leading edge of the wing centre section (not the wheel wells).
Ignore the other setting.
Also the wing dowel needs to be pulled out and glued in prooerly. Mine came out on model No.2
Good luck with your test flight.
Ray.

stevelesl

thanks, didnt see where you stated from wing center section, will go with the 77 back from there, not sure what you mean from the wheel wells as there is no mention of that in the manual ?.
Noted your issue with the dowel, mine appears good but will check it, also intend beefing up the rear wing mount where it looks like yours failed too.

Thanks again

Kostas1

I'd like to see some pictures from your Texan! There is so little info on the web for the assembly process!

stevelesl

you can see the manual if you search on BH AT-6 91 in pdf format if you dont have it
I will post some pics as I progress.

sj3cub

My Feedback: (9)

I'm helping a guy set his CG up on his now. Its really crazy how it is drawn up in the manual. Are you saying that the CG is measured at 77 mm back from the leading edge of the wing center section next to the fuselage sides? (like where most CG's are measured from on most planes). Don't know why they insinuate to measure the cg out on the wing panels? Please help, as we are scratching out heads on this one.
Thanks a bunch guys.

Pennbrit

Yes thats what I am saying. 77mm back from the leading edge at the fuselage. Dont measure it from the wheel wells though.

stevelesl

I set it up at 77mm back from the leading edge of the center section of the wing, not from the front of the wheel wells, from the center wing leading edge.
I have many flights on mine and to be honest you could actually go slightly back from that as it is still slightly nose heavy, I am going to try 80mm and see what it's like.
The plane fly's well and looks great in the air.
Interestingly, I am building an old Mid West kit AT-6 which is 84" span and for a 20cc or above engine and the CG on that is apparently 5" which is behind what the plan states at around 4 1/2 so looks like the AT-6 planes need to be slightly towards the rear of what designers come up with.
Try 77mm and see how she fly's, it is certainly a good starting point.

sj3cub

My Feedback: (9)

Thanks guys! Much appreciated. Why are you saying don't measure from the wheel wells? I mean, I would have never even thought of that anyway, but you guys are making me think I'm missing something here? I will set up the cg machine for 77 mm, measure from the straight section of the leading edge of the wing center section next to the fuse sides and balance. I'm going to balance it upside down on the machine anyway, so the wheel wells will be facing up, and not come in to play while balancing. OK guys, I just figured out what your talking about. Measure from the leading edge, and not the wheel well portion that is forward of the actual leading edge. I would never do that, but I guess some people would try it.

Steve, your going to love the Midwest kit. I built mine back in 1993, and its still one of my most favorite airframes. It flies so so nice. My only complaint is that Tom Herr (The Midwest designer) didn't put flaps on it, but she settles in to a real nice 3 point attitude at landing. Powered mine with a OS pumped 1.20 4 stroke, and its the perfect power plant. Make sure and install the custom designed Robart retracts in it as well.

stevelesl

Glad you got the CG info.
On the Mid West kit, yes, the absence of flaps is strange and i "may" modifying to install them, I have the Robart gear and also got the Fiber Glass specialties cowl and wing center section.
I am installing the new NGH 38cc Gas 4 stoke, have been test running it and it is very nice, also nice is that is only $369 for a gas four stroke, OS have their new 40cc gas four stroke out at $800 +, no brainer to go with the NGH.

Happy flying

sj3cub

My Feedback: (9)

Please let me know how you like the NGH motor. I have been eyeing that one as well.