Cox Hyper Viper
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ruksakinmakiak,
AK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Cox Hyper Viper
The following is reprinted from a comprehensive review and discussion of the HyperViper at another site.
See:
[link=http://www.clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=136&forum=DCForumID9&viewmode=all]HyperViper Early Reports[/link]
The entire thread is well worth reading. It includes other folks modifications as well as what seems to be a very sanitary of stuffing a Tee Dee .049/.051 or Norvel into the nose. The fellow who wrote about the latter included pictures.
See:
[link=http://www.clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=136&forum=DCForumID9&viewmode=all]HyperViper Early Reports[/link]
"I don't know about your atmospheric conditions or altitude, but I will say that the three of us that fly them together here have had only minor problems. The stock plane flies well, with good line tension throughout the flight hemisphere. We are using the stock engines running Byron 1/2a fuel (25% Nitro, 20% all castor, 55%methanol) and using the supplied Cox prop, although we all have several of the Cox recommended APC props to try. The three of us are all using the supplied dacron lines and handles, as well, but all of us have 35'x .008" cables that we'll be using soon, as the dacron is becoming oil soaked and sticky. The only modifications (?) we've made are:
1. Add a Nickel (5¢) to the weight hole on the bottom of the outboard wing for a bit more tip weight and cover the hole with a piece of 2" wide clear tape.
2. Install the leadouts one hole to the rear of the position suggested in the plans.
The other problems we have had are:
1. Two of the three fuel tanks were improperly joined to the point that air would not exit the tank when blowing into the fuel outlet. Cox/Estes replaced the tanks with no problem. We were not the first to have this problem, and we checked the tanks before assembling the planes.
2. One plane lost its canopy on every flight until the owner taped the front to the fuselage. We're going to find some "Goop" to fix that problem permanently.
We decided, contrary to the stereotypical male image, to read and follow the directions that came in the box. The only reason we installed the leadouts/lines about 1/16" to the rear of the position indicated in the directions was that one of us already had a HyperViper and had flown it at his winter home in Reno (at a much higher elevation than here) with good results. He found that variance to be worthwhile while flying there. He also discovered the advisability of that Nickel more tip weight at that time.
We also broke the engines in a bit, again following the break-in instructions with the plane, by running three tanks on the ground, leaning the mixture on all three runs until the engine would hold a strong, high RPM. None of us are engine gurus or designers, but this process works!! The engines have continued to gain power with additional runs while flying.
On none of the flights I've watched or flown have I seen any of the problems you and other folks have described. We are not expert level fliers, but we do know a fairly decent airplane when we see or fly one. While I'm certain that the mods done by Larry and others will provide better performance, the plane does pretty well stock.
Did you read Larry Renger's review? It's the first post in this thread. In it, he wrote, "...Don't even dream of trying to fly with .012 lines, unless you just want to climb, dive, and fly level I also found that I needed extra tip weight (everyone seems to be finding the same), and it has now been added....." This might be your biggest problem so far. Has your engine been properly broken in?
I admire the excellent TD .049 installation shown here as well, but I'm not convinced that it is needed. As far as replacing tail feathers and sealing the bottom of the fuselage with balsa, I would ask, "Why?" If one is going to all that trouble, why not go all the way and throw away everything but that foam wing and possibly the landing gear and build the rest of the plane from appropriately sized balsa. That's what I would do if I wanted the ultimate in performance from that wing.
Finally, as I wrote previously, I'm not an expert flyer who would be able to obtain the performance you might be seeking, but for my money ($40.00 at the LHS) the HyperViper is a good machine as it comes from the factory. I have 1/2a planes that I've built that fly much better, as they are larger and much lighter, but when I consider the cost of balsa, finishing materials, tank, engine, wheels and all the other bits required, to say nothing of my time (if I considered it as a cost), those probably cost at least double, if not considerably more, the price of the HyperViper."
1. Add a Nickel (5¢) to the weight hole on the bottom of the outboard wing for a bit more tip weight and cover the hole with a piece of 2" wide clear tape.
2. Install the leadouts one hole to the rear of the position suggested in the plans.
The other problems we have had are:
1. Two of the three fuel tanks were improperly joined to the point that air would not exit the tank when blowing into the fuel outlet. Cox/Estes replaced the tanks with no problem. We were not the first to have this problem, and we checked the tanks before assembling the planes.
2. One plane lost its canopy on every flight until the owner taped the front to the fuselage. We're going to find some "Goop" to fix that problem permanently.
We decided, contrary to the stereotypical male image, to read and follow the directions that came in the box. The only reason we installed the leadouts/lines about 1/16" to the rear of the position indicated in the directions was that one of us already had a HyperViper and had flown it at his winter home in Reno (at a much higher elevation than here) with good results. He found that variance to be worthwhile while flying there. He also discovered the advisability of that Nickel more tip weight at that time.
We also broke the engines in a bit, again following the break-in instructions with the plane, by running three tanks on the ground, leaning the mixture on all three runs until the engine would hold a strong, high RPM. None of us are engine gurus or designers, but this process works!! The engines have continued to gain power with additional runs while flying.
On none of the flights I've watched or flown have I seen any of the problems you and other folks have described. We are not expert level fliers, but we do know a fairly decent airplane when we see or fly one. While I'm certain that the mods done by Larry and others will provide better performance, the plane does pretty well stock.
Did you read Larry Renger's review? It's the first post in this thread. In it, he wrote, "...Don't even dream of trying to fly with .012 lines, unless you just want to climb, dive, and fly level I also found that I needed extra tip weight (everyone seems to be finding the same), and it has now been added....." This might be your biggest problem so far. Has your engine been properly broken in?
I admire the excellent TD .049 installation shown here as well, but I'm not convinced that it is needed. As far as replacing tail feathers and sealing the bottom of the fuselage with balsa, I would ask, "Why?" If one is going to all that trouble, why not go all the way and throw away everything but that foam wing and possibly the landing gear and build the rest of the plane from appropriately sized balsa. That's what I would do if I wanted the ultimate in performance from that wing.
Finally, as I wrote previously, I'm not an expert flyer who would be able to obtain the performance you might be seeking, but for my money ($40.00 at the LHS) the HyperViper is a good machine as it comes from the factory. I have 1/2a planes that I've built that fly much better, as they are larger and much lighter, but when I consider the cost of balsa, finishing materials, tank, engine, wheels and all the other bits required, to say nothing of my time (if I considered it as a cost), those probably cost at least double, if not considerably more, the price of the HyperViper."
#28
My Feedback: (8)
RE: Cox Hyper Viper
Actually all the years I've been flying years back of ucontrol. I flown many stunt planes. But cox hyper is actually more touchy for some reason. And it gets me more dizzy
then my other stunt ucontrol airplanes. There .40 size. But it has longer wire and stuff. I don't know who has parts for cox hyper. But I bet atleast ebay does. Check it out.
Also if you want run ur plane with 30-35 percent of trexxas racing fuel. You'll see a huge difference.
then my other stunt ucontrol airplanes. There .40 size. But it has longer wire and stuff. I don't know who has parts for cox hyper. But I bet atleast ebay does. Check it out.
Also if you want run ur plane with 30-35 percent of trexxas racing fuel. You'll see a huge difference.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Arlington,
VA
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Cox Hyper Viper
For anyone still following this thread....I've got my project "Frankenviper" still underway. I bought an "old-style" Killer Bee...the high-performance version...not the recent renamed Baby-Bees in the hopes that the added performance will cure the woes seemed to be cause by the soemwhat anemic Surestart engines. When I get it flying I'll send a report. One modification I did was to the horizontal stabilizer. The "pinned" arrangement seemed to bind and not move smoothly at all so I removed it and reattached the elevator with good old fashioned cloth hinges....moves smooth as silk now. I am planing on covering the wing with whatever the lightest film I can get is to add some strength...which may push it over the edge power wise but I have a spare wing just in case to try if that doesn't work.
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: garden city,
GA
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Cox Hyper Viper
I bought a hyper viper about two years ago. The engine ran great after about two tanks. It is fast in level flight, but kind of shaky in maneuvers. It's on the wall in the living room now. If past experience with cox planes has taught me anything, it's that they degrade from fuel exposure after a few months of inactivity. I doubt if I will fly it again. I personally think the older super chipmunk was a better out of the box flyer.
I remember at the Lake Charles Nats in the late seventies the Cox people brought an 18 wheeler full of planes and they would let anyone that was interested take a stab at flying them. I've never seen so many crashed planes in one pile in my life!
I remember at the Lake Charles Nats in the late seventies the Cox people brought an 18 wheeler full of planes and they would let anyone that was interested take a stab at flying them. I've never seen so many crashed planes in one pile in my life!