RCJones

Jim,
We can finally breath. We've all been holding our breath waiting for this maiden. Sounds like your experience was similar to mine. I used a Saito 270 and I was flying on the wing for sure. Definitely not a floater but lands well. Glad you had success. I have to get used to this one too, it flies heavier than other planes I'm used to.

good luck

Dave

John Murdoch

My Feedback: (11)

Congrats Jim... A three pointer on the first landing, teriffic. I love to hear success stories for maiden flights. After you get your tail wheel setup and wheel collars repaired, it'll be time for the second round. Keep us posted.

Again, congratulations!

RCJones

Forgot to say I did the pull pull with a free tail wheel, I can turn on a dime...love it

lsnover

My Feedback: (19)

Guys:

I'm working on mine and putting in a DA50.

I've got the wings all done and and moving on to the Fuse assembly.

My bottom wing does not fit very well. It will not go down far enough to fit the back of the wing where it needs to be over the bolt holes.

I think I can adjust it one of two ways.

1. I can elongate the wing dowl holes towards the bottom of the plane, which will allow the front of the wing to rotate up in the saddle, and there by allow the back to move down and forward slightly into alignment. (I hope).

2. I could grind some of the fuse where the wing saddles in at the high point and that would allow the wing to drop down in a little tighter and line things up.

My best guess is option 1, but I was wondering what you guys found when you built your planes.

Any suggestions, comments from those who have one built would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Lee Snover

hilleyja

My Feedback: (3)

Mine was a very snug fit, which I kinda forced a little without making mods. She fits like a glove now.

mustang105

My Feedback: (12)

Lee,
Mine did the same thing, scared me for a moment wondering what I could have possibly done to screw up so bad. I went with option 1 and it fits fine.

Chuck

hilleyja

My Feedback: (3)

Well, its slow but I've gotten 2 more flights under my belt. A few small problems keep showing up after each flight. Loose tailwheel (fixed). Loose wheel pants and significant rubbing of wheel on them. (I added an xtra dura-collar between the wheel and inside wheel pants for clearance and then used Gorilla glue on the screws that hold the wheel pants to the landing gear. Leaking raw fuel from the carburetor (BAX says this is carb blow-by caused by overly-rich setting on my H needle, not to worry.

I've got the engine running pretty good though the performance from the Top Flight 20x10 is very dissapointing. BAX from Fuji support tells me my 6300rpm is about right for that prop. I want/need about 1000rpm more to be comfortable with this 18.5 airplane.

I have found that the flying characteristics are very predictable. She is definitely flying on-the-wing with the 6300rpm 20x10 so I have to be prudent with my controls to keep from stalling. I use most of the runway and keep her takeoff angle small until I have more than enough airspeed to make my pattern turnout. She stays on the ground for me and only takes a small amount of left rudder to keep her in a straight small angle climbout. Axial rolls need a little adjustment with the elevator on the inverse but otherwise are straight. Loops are a challenge and a slight dive before up elevator gives me the added airspeed I need to take her to the top of the loop. These are the only two manueuvers I have attempted todate.

Landing was and continues to be a pleasant surprise. I keep her just above idle until I cross the threshold where I simply chop the throttle to idle. She maintains a slightly steep glideslope; a little more than average flare control is needed to keep her from ballooning. (I found I had to increase my low-rate elevator about 15% above book and decrease my dependency on expo to get a good finish.)

I'm still nervous with her but am slowly getting comfortable. I will be changing the prop to either an APC 20x10 or a Mejzlik 20x10 and will be finishing up the 25:1 oil mix soon. My next gallon will be a 40:1 ashless petroleum oil mix. The 3rd gallon will be a 40:1 Klotz synthetic oil mix.

lsnover

My Feedback: (19)

Jim:

Looks and sounds good, though the performance seems to be in line from what I've heard from others with the Fuji.

If you can find the means, those with DAs and BMEs seem to be much happier with the performance.

I've got mind aout 1/3 done, and with just the bottom wing on the fuse, she is no lightweight.

The only good I can see, is she does seem built very solid and so should handle the DA gas vibrations with out too much ill effect.

I'll let you know more when I get mine in the air.

Good luck!

Lee Snover

lonestareracing

My Feedback: (14)

Ok guys, I am picking up one of these and i need a littel Info that GP will not tell me. first how wide is the cowl? what is the width of the fuse at the pilots sholders? finally how tall is the fuse with the canopy installed.


FYI: I am planning on Racing this in a USRA Biplane race. I will have a Z-445 up front with HS-635's all the way around. weight will not be a problem as i have to weight at least 20#. I will be modifying the firewall to handle the aditiona loads i will be adding up front. My goal is 140+ MPH on gas ( 160+ on ALKI if it holds together)



This is all to just prove a point, so dont think i am some KRAZY person.



Bobby

hilleyja

My Feedback: (3)

This should help until I can actually measure with a ruler:

1) Width of fuselage at pilot position is 1/3-scale which is about 6 + 1, about 7" (actually 6.5")

2) Width of cowl appears to be about half the width of my 20" prop -- about 10" (actually about 10.5")

3) Do you want fuselage height from the ground on its landing gear or just the height of the fuselage from the bottome of the wing to the top of the canopy -- 1st one is about 18", second is about 12" (actually about 13", not from ground).

ADDENDUM: I went out to the parking lot and actually measured my Eagle. I was pretty close with my above estimates.

lonestareracing

My Feedback: (14)

Thank you for all of the info, if every thing you tell me is correct it will be legel to race in Giant Scale racing, I hope it can hold up to the stresses of 12 G turns.


Any Idea as to the spar construction in the wings??? ( ie... hardwood spares, shearwebs??)

I will post more as i get it ready to race and how the testing goes

GO CHECK OUT MY OTHER BIPLANE, YOU WILL LOVE IT


http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_19...tm.htm#1973712


Thank you
Bobby



That Krazy Guy

hilleyja

My Feedback: (3)

I'm not sure of the wing construction but I would assume it is probably hard-wood spars, given the size of the wing. Don't expect too much from it in the speed department; I don't think I would try 12G turns. I also don't think I would depend on Hitec HS-635s for that kind of flying. On-the-other-hand the HS-635s are probably OK at the extents of the plane's performance envelope. I'm currently flying with Hitec HS-5475s. They are about the same performance as the HS-635s, a little slower, and a little less torgue, but close, but with the precision and holding power of digitals. Of course the HS-5975 on my rudder is much more than I need. Given the nature of the original Christen Eagle II -- your not looking at a race plane; consider it to be more or a full-scale highly-acrobatic performer.

lonestareracing

My Feedback: (14)

Just wandering, as for the servoes, the 635 are more than enough for racing, I have been using thenm in racers for 5 years ( use to be 605bb), As for 12g's that is the issue, I am doing this to prove an ARF can compete in a USRA race and does not break the bank to do it.



thanks

Bobby

srayspencer

My Feedback: (5)

If you are planning on driving each side of ailerons with one servo (connecting top to bottom with a connecting
rod) - try the carbon fiber rods from CENTRAL HOBBIES. They are light, strong and great for this purpose. Be sure
to take care in assuring that all the connections are tight. Flutter could ruin your day if you leave any slop in the connections.

hilleyja

My Feedback: (3)

Just a set of curious questions:

Why would anyone want to connect the top and bottom airlons with a rod, rather than 4 servos? What advantange can you obtain from that configuration?

I am aware that the original Byron's GP Eagle, of a similar size, was setup that way. I also know the original Christen Eagle II is configured that way.

Surely tryin to save money on servos wouldn't be a sufficient reason? 6 servos vs 8 servos won't enhance your battery situation significantly?

thevirginian

I have to agree wit you, Jim. This would be an irrational shortcut that would certainly reflect in a lesser performance of this beautiful airplane. If you don't have the extra $100 it takes to make a $1300 airplane fly correctly, why are you considering "giant airplanes" in the first place.

NavyE6FE

I wouldn't think there would be much difference but I've been flying my GP Pitts with the 50sb using 20x10's and 22x8's. The last time I checked, I was getting around 7,000 with the 20x10's and 6300 with the 22x8. Zingers and Master Air screw. As far as the wing servo's, I doubt it has to do with $$$, more than likely you would be saving the weight difference between the servo's and the linkage and its more scale like.

srayspencer

My Feedback: (5)

Well, different strokes for different folks.

First: Scale - The real aircraft has the control rigging set up this way.

Second: Weight - the lighter you can keep the aircraft, the better it will perform for you. Guys
like Dave Patrick (model designer) know what they are talking about when they design these
models to be as light as possible. With the CE (on the edge of already being a little heavy) - the heavier it gets, the worse is flys. These days - it is the trend to mount an engine to overcome this weight problem. This adds more weight - and all kinds of thrust and torque problems.

I understand the concept of short coupling for the control surfaces. This becomes even more
critical for the new generation of 3D models with large control surfaces and unlimited verticle
performance.

The CE is not for 3D. To fly scale - you need to fly moderately slow and enjoy the capabilities of it's super stunt design. If it is built with a reasonable engine, and kept in the designed flight envelope, then the scale connecting method works fine. An yes, you can save another $100. However, not everyone has money to burn.

Just a personal opinion from someone that has been flying rc models for over 35 years.

hilleyja

My Feedback: (3)

Wow, hit some nerves!!!

Just one more point to make about the airlon coupling vs 4 servos. Yeah, you can save some weight, maybe a couple of ounces, maybe not because of the linkage. Will that make a difference on an 18 pound airplane -- who knows? Check out the rest of my post here to find out why I'm glad I had 4 servos instead of 2.

Well I finally got my engine tuned correctly. It turned out that she was just simply running way too rich. I'm getting close to 7200rpm on my Mejzlik 20x10 -- enough for now. It should improve even more when I start running the 40:1 mixture.

Saturday was a good day for engine tuning and I had a decent flight with 3 takeoffs and 3 landings. It was, however, almost a bad day for flying. I didn't know what was wrong during the flight but did notice some control problems after the 1st landing. BTW, the flight was very conservative, simple turns and a couple of mild loops, nothing real dynamic. When I finally came down for the 3rd landing and taxied her over to the pits I noticed significant servo noise (digital servos) coming from more than one servo. 1st, one of the 4 airlons was hanging by a single hinge -- the other two hinges had broken in the middle. I will be replacing those CA hinges with Robarts (already did that with the tail surfaces) before the next flight. Every single one of those 4 wing servos had stripped gears; three of them appear to be just one tooth, the 4th, attached to the broken airlon, was totally stripped out. They were the new Karbonite-gear digital servos, HS-5475s. I will definitely be bringing this to Hitec's attention.

So you can see, if I had my airlons coupled, top and bottom, I would have been in dire straits. With one side of the airlons working erratic and the other side flopping around the middle, that 18.5 pound airplane would have had a very difficult time maitaining attitude and possibly not be controllable at all.

BTW, just a personal opinion from someone who has been flying RC model airplanes for 30 years. I started out in 1974 with a Heathkit 5-channel and a Goldberg Skylane 62.

lsnover

My Feedback: (19)

Wow:

Sorry to hear about the hinges going. Did you use the stock hings from GP? Anything special in the installation?

I would certainly be in touch with Great Planes over this issue. I'm in the process of building mine now and installed the airlerons with the stock CA hinges. I have not assembled the tail group, but this report has me second guessing using the stock hinges.

I did mark the middle of my hings and rub them good with a crayon, base on other peoples suggestions, that the wax would keep the section that bends pliable and prevent the CA from making it hard and crack there.

Also, did you seal all your hinge gaps with tape or monokote? I do this on all my planes, and have not had problems. But I have to admit this is the biggest plane I've seen with CA hinges. I really don't want to redo the ailerons, but I don't want to lose this sucker in the air either.

Regards,
Lee Snover

hilleyja

My Feedback: (3)

I followed all the GP recommended steps in assembling those CA hinges. Like you, however, I did not crayon the middle -- maybe that will help. I did use Robart hinges on the tail group because I screwed up the elevator and had to cut the original hinges -- worked out for the best and gave me experience with Robart hinges. After this I will no longer use CA hinges on a 1/4-scale or larger airplane. As a matter of fact, I just finished a Model Tech Simply Magic and used Robart hinges on that 40-size airplane because my thin CA went thick on me -- talk about a very touchy airplane; will definitely have to cut down on the throws and add some more expo. There is virtually no binding on those surfaces.

John Murdoch

My Feedback: (11)

Jim, whether you use CA hinges, pin hinges, Robarts or whatever, you shouldn't have any binding from the beginning with any hinged surface. If you do, stop there and redo them.

I check out the material sizes before I use any kind of a hinge. I'll never, ever use CA hinges for anything larger than a 40 sized airplane. If the material that you're putting is deep, then I'd go for the Robarts. If the material is not so deep, then I like to go with the nylon pinned hinges. This gives more glue surface than that of the Robarts.

No matter what type of hinge I use (other than CA) I use Gorilla Glue. I can't believe how well that stuff holds up. As you know, the Gorilla glue actually is activated by water and swells depending on the amount of moisture you start with. It actually makes a rivet effect on any type of hinge you put it on. As it expands inside the surface, the hinge is locked on.

Good for you that you noticed a problem before it became a goner.

hilleyja

My Feedback: (3)

My English it not so good sometimes (3rd generation American Irishman, born and raised in Boston).

Binding is probably not the correct term. The Robart hinges have virtually friction-free movement versus the CA hinges. The easiest way to describe the difference is to shake the wing and watch the movement of the unconnected control surface. If you have a CA hinge it will barely move due to the nature of the hinge. If you do the same thing with a Robart hinge the surface will flop freely.

And ROGER on the gorilla glue -- just be careful you don't use too much because it will expand almost as much as spray foam insulation, it could expand out of the hinge hole and engulf the hinge itself (not good). I now use that instead of epoxy for most everything that is not sensitive to gorilla's expansion tendencies. Actually, the last time I used Robart hinges it was on a Model Tech Simply Magic and I use the Pace Hinge glue -- worked just fine.

John Murdoch

My Feedback: (11)

I understand what you mean but.. Anytime you have to change rates, change throws or change expos etc. because of the type of hinge you're using, there's something wrong. Binding will occur when you use CA hinges and situate the control surface too close to the actual mounting surface. That impeeds the ability to have full throw through out the swing range and WILL cause binding. Make sure when you install CA hinges that there is enough "gap" or "unglued" suface of the hinge to let it do it's job without multi point binding through out the hinge line.

lsnover

My Feedback: (19)

Guys:

I'll ask again. Did you fellows seal your hinge gaps with monokote?

Thanks,
Lee Snover