Phlip

Well, you guys inspired me to check mine. I've got a 6.5 lb. Poke, including several ounces of lead behind the firewall and a Higley heavy hub. My power plant is an LA .46 with an 11X6 Master Airscrew.

It flies like a vintage homebuilt. Take-offs take 50+ feet before lift-off, and a real gradual climb out. Once up to altitude, aerobatics are fun, but we sure can't hover or fly straight up! Lots of fun though

Phil

airmaniac

[&o] i dont have any pictures. i flew mine after 40 yrs of building!! kits dye cuts suck and theres no denying it! i also have a 40 2 stroke on it. with a 11x6 wood prop. flies like a big kite! or like a fellow member said a big bipe with 1 wing. i have found with past experience (10 or so planes) that 10x6 or 10x7 flies this plane well. you can get away with 11 inch if your running the os engine. that little change in power allows the spin of a bigger prop. all in all trial props the only way to go! this plane flies very well without wind. like others have said windy conditions set up disaster esp at take off. all in all the elder 40 kit flies relatively the same. much easier build. 50x better looking. no cheap parts at TF. just my 2 cents.. ive actually built the elder twice after loosing it to a dead battery. both times added were shorter than the pete n poke!![X(]

aggie84

I personally can't imagine a plane that looks much better than a PNP if you're into that vintage kind of look but I can't remember what the elder 40 looks like, may be the next plane I build I'll have to check it out. You're right about the kit though it was kind of sucky. [>:] I'm flying the OS 46 FX as I mentioned earlier but it just doesn't want to turn the prop (either an 11 X 8 or a 12 X 6). I posted a question to Bax on the OS Manufacturers Forum and he said that the 46 FX should fly it easily but I may need to drop back to a 10 inch prop. I planning on the following test now that Ivan has blown through town:
1. I went to the local sporting goods and bought a 20 lb digital scale that measures down to tenths of a pound (this is used by fishermen to measure fish - $19.99)
2. Weigh the plane
3. With my 12 X 6 prop I'm going to measure RPM and thrust (using the scale to "hold" the plane) for various throttle positions
4. Repeat above with the 11 X 8, then with a 10 X 8, a 10 X 7 and a 10 X 6 prop.

This should give me a good feeling about which prop gives me the most throttle and best power.

You're remark about "...flies like a big kite!" is very appropriate. I'm new to RC (about 1 year) so the kite aspect of flying this plane has been very scary. There have been two times when I've pulled up after a low pass only to have the plane catch air and stall within 15 feet of the ground. Both times it came back over the pits (they were vacant at the time but still a big no-no) and both times I thought it was a goner. I hate to ground the plane but until I get something resolved and get more confidence in the power plant I'm afraid I might crash it. I'm waiting for the fine folks at Magnum to send me back my 52 4 Stroke and I'll try it again. I'll propably run some propeller and thrust experiments with it too once I remount it to the plane.

I'll keep you posted on the results of my little experiment,
Tim

airmaniac

a four stroke allows a little more guarantee as far as pulling out of tough situations because of the torque. you'll be very surprised to see that its not the engine size that totally determines prop size but also yhe stlye plane. i have an eindecker which is similar to the elder 40, slightly smaller, and has a closed fuselage at the rear. anyway they look almost identical. same engines. eindecker flies with 11x6 perfect. it feels as any other size really affects this plane. the elder almost any within engine man. range. right now i have a 12x7!! if you are into vintage, high wing planes check out the elder. what a kit! if your not into building too much. the eindecker is an ARF for like 100 bucks. check it out at horizon hobby.com search for eindecker!!

aggie84

I looked at the Elder in my Tower Catalog last night. Neat looking airplane. It will probably be my next plane. In spite of all the work I really enjoyed building and finishing my PNP. As I said, I'm fairly new to RC and have flown mostly ARFs and planes that I've bought from others in my club (I also have a Goldberg Chipmunk and an Aeromaster). I enjoy the satisfaction of building my own plane and the pride in the finished product.

I realize that static engine testing is only going to tell a small part of the story about how a given engine/prop combination will work for a plane, but it will at least be a starting point. One thing I'm interested in determining is why my RPMs quit increasing after about 1/2 throttle. I'm suspecting that its a prop issue but want to confirm that theory.

airmaniac

possibly the prop. is your carb opening all the way at half throttle? my eindecker does the same. email me or post any questions you have about the elder. kit was very easy and straight forward. i wish i had a picture to post. im gonna try to find one

DaveB

After flying the Poke for a few sessions, I have noticed the engine mounting screws loosen. I have secured them with "Loctite", but they will still seem to loosen after a few flights. I am using the OS FS-52 (4 stroke) for power.

When I built the "Poke" I added an additional piece of lite ply (total of 3) for the engine mount as I thought 2 as the plan called for wasn't enough. I would recommend doing that, however I would use aircraft ply and not lite ply as the aircraft ply is harder. I believe part of my problem is the engine mount blind nuts are compressing the lite ply and as a result the bolts are loosening.

In any case, if you're building the "Poke", think about improving the engine mounting. Once the engine compartment is closed up and the engine mounted, it is more difficult to resolve if you experience the the same problem.

DaveB

airmaniac

i wish i had. this is another pia about this kit!!

Nuker

Sig makes a piece for their Fazer. It's a plastic "U" shaped item that the engine screws into sidesways on the Fazer. I bought one of these and epoxied it underneath the ply. I use a Saito .56 and haven't had the engine come loose at all. It has lock nuts underneath.

Worth trying if you are still in build phase. though you could probably get it in even afterwards.

Bob

fabicar

Hi,

I am now finishing my Pete 'n' Poke, and although enjoying this phase I think it is not an easy kit to do, I hope to finish it some day.....

1. Checking the distance from the wing servos to the receiver it seems a very long one. In fact now I am not sure if this can produce interference. I heard is usual in this case to add ferrite to the servo wires. Is it recommended? Have any of you note something about it in your P'n'P?. Could the metal pushrods (as they go more or less parallel to the receiver antenna enlarge a possible interference problem?.

2. I have the incidence meter from TowerHobbies (laser), How should I check the incidence?. Are the struts what should be at 1 degree or it should be measured from the wing?

Thanks a lot,

carlos

airmaniac

good question? i thoght i may have some interference once in a while! to be honest ive flown mine 2-3 times and don't care if i take it to the feild again!!! this does sound like a possible problem with the distance and all. wouldn't be surprised either!

DaveB

Carlos,

With regard to incidence, set the plane up with the wing mounted and the stab level. With the stab level (0 degrees) the wing should be 1 degree positive. Also, while you're at it, check the engine for 2 degrees downthrust (negative).

As far as interference goes, I have not had any problems.

DaveB

Phlip

Carlos,

I agree with DaveB ... incidence should definitely be measured on the wing. Measuring at the struts, which would be the same as the flat, bottom surface of the wing, would give you way too much incidence. As it is, with the wide chord of this wing, the plane can really seem to "plow" through the air, and too much wing incidence would just make it worse. I think it's this tendency that some pilots don't like about the Pete, hence, all the discussion about what motor/prop combination flies best.

Also, I've not had any interference problems with mine, and I've done nothing special with my radio installation.

Phil

Phlip

Anybody who hasn't reinforced the wing strut structure, BEWARE!!

I read the posts about reinforcing the strut joints with dowel pins or screws, and I thought that's a good idea, BUT ... my plane has flown well for a few years already, the joints seem strong and I'm not overpowering my airframe with my LA .46, so I didn't bother to do the retrofit. Then came the fateful day ...

On the first flight of the day, the muffler came partially loose from the engine, and with reduced power I struggled to get the plane back on the ground in one piece. I set it down in the tall grass, and it seemed there was no damage done.

After tightening up the muffler, the second flight was fine, but my landing was rough due to windy conditions. But I've had so many rough landings with this plane, I didn't think much of it.

Third flight, I'm coming accross the field full throttle at about 60' ready to pull up into a stall turn, when, WHOOMP, the wing comes off and the fuselage is a missle. I had the time and presence of mind to pull the throttle to idle, but that's it.

So, might this have still happened had I put in some screws? Perhaps. I have made quite a few rough landings with this plane, and I think that's what eventually caused the failure. I think, though, that a few screws could have made the failure less catastrophic.

Phil

aggie84

Oh Man Phlip, what a shame![] That's the kind of thing I was really worried about when I made the modification. I've got about 15 flights on mine now and still check that everytime I set up.

OK, I think I've finally found the "perfect" engine for flying a PNP, or at least for me flying mine. I bought a Saito 72 Golden Knight 4S and put it on. WOW! What a difference! I no longer feel like I'm having to react to my plane and I'm finally back in control. It does great on stall turns, humpty bumps, cuban eights, everything I asked for. Of course I was practicing a good deal of "throttle management"; even with reinforced wing struts I'm nervous about tearing the wing off. The only problem with the 72 is getting it to throttle back enough to coast in. I was using a 13X7 prop and just couldn't throttle back enough to glide in without worrying about killing the engine. I think I'll drop back to a 13X6 and see if that lets me idle any lower. The other "only problem" with the 72 is fuel consumption. With the standard 10 oz tank recommended for the PNP I was only able to get about 8 minutes max of flight time. I think I'll go with a larger (12-14 oz) tank and move my receiver and battery. Anybody got any ideas? Phlip, it looks like you did this on yours.

There's been some talk on PNP threads about reinforcing and beefing up the engine mounts. I made a very hard landing on the nose of my PNP yesterday as the result of a legitimate radio hit on approach and then a bad case of jitters and fat fingers. The only damage done was to break the epoxy joint where the plywood engine mount section epoxied to the fuselage sides. The "weakness" of this joint may have saved me an engine. I'd thought about cutting out the plywood engine mount and going with a traditional firewall mount but I may rethink that now. This will sure be easier to fix than a firewall.

Good flying everone!

perdo

My Feedback: (61)

Alright already. I traded for a nice looking Pete N Poke and the first time I tried to fly it it was disastrous, I now have a Saito 65 with 2 Degree down Thrust I blocked up the back of the wing to get 1 degree positive incidence and with my level set on the long part of the fuselage I have the tail at zero. this thing tries to turn right and balloon all the time I landed today on first test flight with full up elevator 1/4 throttle and full left aileron. I am going to try to go to stab zero wing zero and keep the engine at minus 2 degrees, but can some one please tell me (since I don't have the plans) where the thrust line should be measured from? on top of the front of the fuse on the area between the seats to set level?


Thanks

Don//

aggie84

It is supposed to be measured relative to your vertical stabilizer. If the stab is assumed to be at zero the front of the wing should be 1 degree higher. It sounds like you raised the trailing edge. The instructions for the Pete recommend placing 2 washers under the rear of the engine to supply the proper down thrust. I haven't found anything wrong with that. I suspect that you've got the wing incidence wrong and therefore you're having to keep putting more and more up elevator in it just to maintain level flight. Under those conditions the Pete would be very bad to balloon. I've got a Saito 72 in mine and while I don't have trouble maintaining level flight anymore it still wants to balloon, personally I think "kite" would be a better term.

Good luck! I found a GP incidence meter to be a real good investment for this plane.
Tim

perdo

My Feedback: (61)

Actually, I am using two Robart incidence meters, and when I traded for this plane with the tail at zero and the engine at minus 2 the wing was positive 5 degrees. I have raised the back of the wing to get it to 1 degree positive, But it still just mushes around with the nose stuck up. I have the cg set as per the greatplanes web site at 3 7/8 inches from the leading edge. I have found a small warp in the right wing panel close to the tip causing most of the hard right turn, and using my heat gun I have straighted that out.
What I really think happen is the builder of the plane was not as careful as he should have been on the wing struts. and got the incidence and the lateral level off on the fuse. the wing is well built just that small twist at the wing tip and it was simple to get it straight. But the actual datum line or thrust line is what I need to square up this plane once and for all and get her flying like it should....

aggie84

Perdo, I'm not sure this plane will ever "fly like it should"[] I spent a tremendous amount of time building mine and making sure everything was right and it is still a handful to keep airborn. Maybe if you fly somewhere with 0 wind its a good plane but any wind at all makes it a real chore to fly and land.

Good luck, if you get it where it flies easy make sure and tell everyone how

Tim

Phlip

I found that mine would fly fine at 75% or greater throttle... once you get it up to cruising speed. But, if I pulled the throttle back, the tail would drop, and the thing would just mush around as you describe. The problem was that, balanced at the CG shown on the plans, it's tail heavy. I added nose weight until throttling back caused the nose to drop, just slightly, and it was then much easier to fly.

With the huge surfaces and big throws this thing has, it is flyable in that tailheavy state, but to me, it was no fun.

I hope to get mine repaired again and have it baqck in the air next spring.

aggie84

How far back did you finally put the CG? I bought a GP CG machine and put my PNP on it. It was waaaayyy nose heavy. I moved the receiver and battery out of the fuel compartment and mounted them to the joiner aft of the servos and it still needs 2 oz of lead in the tail to balance. How nose heavy would you advise me leave it?

Thanks for the help,
Tim

perdo

My Feedback: (61)

According to the GP website, CG should be 3 7/8 inches from the leading edge. However all the planes of this type, I think, should be at 33% of the chord. That would be at 4 7/8 inches. that is what I will try before the next flight. I will report back after I get to try this change.


DOn//

Phlip

I originally balanced mine toward the front of the range given on the plans ('cause I've always believed in caution with a new plane, and better nose-heavy than tail-heavy). As I was struggling to learn to handle it in the air, an old-timer at the field made the observation that the tail dropped when I throttled back, an indication of a tail heavy plane. I already had the battery and receiver as far forward as possible, so I added a bit more weight. Eventually, I also added a heavy hub.

Remember, mine is powered by an LA .46, and all up, with the added weight included, the plane weighs 6.5 lb. I don't remember exactly, and unfortunately it's in no condition to check the balance point, but I think it wound up about 1/2 inch forward of the front of the range shown on the plans.

It's easy to add some weight (or remove from tail) and try it ... will only make the plane more mild handling ... worst case, increase the landing speed a bit.

Good luck,

Phil

DaveB

Perdo,

How is the incidence coming?

A real easy way to check the incidence is to remove the wing and with the stab level, check the level of the wing supports. They should also be level. With both the supports and stab level, the wing will be positive as designed. This is because the center of the leading edge is positive with reference to the center of the trailing as it is thicker.

It's a quick and simple check. You may to try it and compare with the results you obtained using the traditional method.

DaveB

perdo

My Feedback: (61)

I have the wings at zero,I ended up with 1/2 inch of shims under the trailing edge, and last night I moved the cg forward by an inch. We now have a winter storm coming for the weekend so I will see when we get a break to fly on a future weekend.

Don//