~~SIG Brotherhood ~~
#751
Thread Starter
I had pics of it somewhere. All that survived were the wings beyond the joiner box, and the fuse from the cockpit back, the rest became toothpicks.
#752
WOW
i have had wings depart before and the out come is always bad
but only had one wing brake, that was on a over powered P51 in a tight turn. Of course the tree it went through after the wing broke didn't help. Al that was left was the engine
i have had wings depart before and the out come is always bad
but only had one wing brake, that was on a over powered P51 in a tight turn. Of course the tree it went through after the wing broke didn't help. Al that was left was the engine
#753
Thread Starter
Reason I am a big fan of SIG is they stood by their guarantee, since the wing snapped off due to a defect, and not a dumb thumb on my part, they replaced it with a Kit and covering. Didn't cover the entire cost of the ARF, but at least the plane that it replaced is built to my specs, and it will take a mid air or worse to snap this wing in half.
#754
My Feedback: (6)
Reason I am a big fan of SIG is they stood by their guarantee, since the wing snapped off due to a defect, and not a dumb thumb on my part, they replaced it with a Kit and covering. Didn't cover the entire cost of the ARF, but at least the plane that it replaced is built to my specs, and it will take a mid air or worse to snap this wing in half.
Sounds like you are better off with the kit and covering than another ARF. I have looked inside a number of ARFs and it was a lack of strength and the ridiculous lack of material in the construction that turned me off. Granted I have been know to build closer to a heavier than lighter side but my stuff is built to last years not months like most ARFs. Servers are having difficulty again today.
#755
Thread Starter
I'm taking a chance on a TF P-51 ARF, if I am going to wreck a warbird while learning, rather it be a $299 one than one I spent $1000 on and years to build. So far construction on it is pretty good, just getting it ready to fly now, have to balance it, get the proper nut for the spinner attachment, and set the throws and it is ready for its maiden flight.
I did a lot of practice landings with my 4* the other day, it is set up with Flaperons so I can slow it down on landing. I reduced the prop to a 16x6 which helped a lot, and other then coming up short on one landing and dropping it into the ditch just before the runway, they have been pretty good, so I am just about ready to fly the Mustang. Take offs and flying, not a problem, its the landing that I have concerns with, would hate to drop a wing on landing. Flying this one on my JR 12X since I can set auto land for the flaps, they will slowly deploy at 30% throttle, so if I have to throttle up they will retract to avoid a pitch up.
I did a lot of practice landings with my 4* the other day, it is set up with Flaperons so I can slow it down on landing. I reduced the prop to a 16x6 which helped a lot, and other then coming up short on one landing and dropping it into the ditch just before the runway, they have been pretty good, so I am just about ready to fly the Mustang. Take offs and flying, not a problem, its the landing that I have concerns with, would hate to drop a wing on landing. Flying this one on my JR 12X since I can set auto land for the flaps, they will slowly deploy at 30% throttle, so if I have to throttle up they will retract to avoid a pitch up.
#756
It was an ARF and the joiner box was poorly designed. Instead of the webs going top to bottom and glued tight to the top and bottom spars, they were the same width as the distance between the spars and not glued to them. After several flights I guess the joints weakened enough that after a roll the left wing parted company with the rest of the plane.
I had pics of it somewhere. All that survived were the wings beyond the joiner box, and the fuse from the cockpit back, the rest became toothpicks.
I had pics of it somewhere. All that survived were the wings beyond the joiner box, and the fuse from the cockpit back, the rest became toothpicks.
I might be willing to argue one MINOR point with you though - poorly designed????? It's a SIG design, so I'm 99.999998% sure the design was just fine. Not so sure about the Chinese assembly of the design though.
#759
Thread Starter
Well if I had the pictures of the joiner box, I would show the failure, it had to be designed by someone, and since the side parts did not extend up and down to meet the sides of the main spars, its a design flaw. The Kit version is designed very well, the Arf was a goof since instead of a plywood joiner and epoxy assembly, they opted for an aluminum joiner and bolt on assembly. This is where the design was flawed and failed. The rest of the plane was really nicely built, and some of the ideas they used on it I incorporated into my build, like putting the elevator servo at the tail and using a pull-pull rudder control. If the wing hadn't failed it would still be flying today. I still have all the parts and pieces and someday plan to resurrect it in some fashion. Both wing panels survived from the third inner rib out, and the fuse is intact from the mid cockpit back. The tail is perfect, not a scratch. Maybe I will glue the two panels together making a shorter wing, shorten the fuse and make a stubby 2*120, and put a 30CC gasser on it. Put enough aileron and tail on it and make it 3D.
#761
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm taking a chance on a TF P-51 ARF, if I am going to wreck a warbird while learning, rather it be a $299 one than one I spent $1000 on and years to build. So far construction on it is pretty good, just getting it ready to fly now, have to balance it, get the proper nut for the spinner attachment, and set the throws and it is ready for its maiden flight.
I did a lot of practice landings with my 4* the other day, it is set up with Flaperons so I can slow it down on landing. I reduced the prop to a 16x6 which helped a lot, and other then coming up short on one landing and dropping it into the ditch just before the runway, they have been pretty good, so I am just about ready to fly the Mustang. Take offs and flying, not a problem, its the landing that I have concerns with, would hate to drop a wing on landing. Flying this one on my JR 12X since I can set auto land for the flaps, they will slowly deploy at 30% throttle, so if I have to throttle up they will retract to avoid a pitch up.
I did a lot of practice landings with my 4* the other day, it is set up with Flaperons so I can slow it down on landing. I reduced the prop to a 16x6 which helped a lot, and other then coming up short on one landing and dropping it into the ditch just before the runway, they have been pretty good, so I am just about ready to fly the Mustang. Take offs and flying, not a problem, its the landing that I have concerns with, would hate to drop a wing on landing. Flying this one on my JR 12X since I can set auto land for the flaps, they will slowly deploy at 30% throttle, so if I have to throttle up they will retract to avoid a pitch up.
The correct flaps setup is helpful on this model. When i was setting my plane up the recommended flap movement did not seem like enough. Reading this thread and others I setup some additional flap movement (beyond the 40 deg described to like 50). After flying the model I added even more. I think they go down to about 60 deg on my model and that really slows things down for landing. It also creates lots of drag so that some power can be kept on until just before touch down.
Landing with a bit of power on was new to me when I started with the mustang but it helps prevent problems with dropping a wing or undershooting the runway. Basically I cut the power back to 1/2 or a little less and deploy the flaps. Once the model slows a bit I put the wheels down. Most often I do this over the runway and have to turn 180 deg to get on a downwind base leg with appropriate altitude. After turning onto final I cut the power down to 1/4 or a bit less and let he model settle into a good decent rate. Once I'm lined up and just a foot or so above the ground I can slowly cut the power and apply back pressure to get it settled onto the runway. If I'm not lined up, too high, or the decent rate is not correct I have never had an issue with applying power and going around while the flaps were down.
The auto flaps seem like extra complication with potential to retract at the wrong time if a little power is applied to reduce the decent rate. That's just my opinion though.
Good luck!
#762
Thread Starter
It is easy to turn off, I set one of the switches to F mode so I can enable or disable the auto land with a flip if I detect a problem. One thing I do need to setup is expo on the tail on my 4* for landing, its a little touchy on the elevator on landing. I can add it to the same switch, it s 3 position setting so I can have wild, mild or in between. Will most likely do the same for the P-51.
#767
Thread Starter
My 4* does not like cross winds, or I should say I don't like cross winds with my 4*. Man does this big bugger crab in the wind When I took off winds were right out of the west, no problem! When it was time to land, they switch to out of the north, and pushed the plane south as I was trying to land. After 4-5 go arounds I finally found the spot to start from so it landed on the runway and not into the pile of plane parts along the side. Made for some exciting times. Lets just say that the plane was traveling towards the runway at a 45* angle. Yeah she flies sideways.
Oh forgot to mention, took full rudder to keep it this way too, working rudder and ailerons to bring it in level to land made for real exciting times.
Oh forgot to mention, took full rudder to keep it this way too, working rudder and ailerons to bring it in level to land made for real exciting times.
Last edited by acdii; 06-25-2014 at 04:55 AM.
#768
Yup, a normal day.
...
...
But, ain't it fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:c ool:
#769
Thread Starter
It's much more enjoyable from west to east than east to west for me, fewer obstacles that can shred a plane in a microsecond. Also no big barn in the way to lose the plane into.
#770
My Feedback: (1)
It was an ARF and the joiner box was poorly designed. Instead of the webs going top to bottom and glued tight to the top and bottom spars, they were the same width as the distance between the spars and not glued to them. After several flights I guess the joints weakened enough that after a roll the left wing parted company with the rest of the plane.
I had pics of it somewhere. All that survived were the wings beyond the joiner box, and the fuse from the cockpit back, the rest became toothpicks.
I had pics of it somewhere. All that survived were the wings beyond the joiner box, and the fuse from the cockpit back, the rest became toothpicks.
Regarding the 4*120 ARF I have. After a few months of use I noticed the Inner wing ribs with the tabs that attach to the fuse were separating, So I turned it into a one-piece wing, and while I was at it, I narrowed it one rib bay on each end which will allow it to fit better in my pickup, and it rolls like no-one's business.
Another problem with it were the damn CA hinges cracked on both elevator and ailerons. I replaced them with pinned hinges, but it was a butt-load of work.
Some of this is a result of powering it with a CRRC 40 engine which shakes the carp out of it.
#771
Ya, Flight Risk
that is exactly why I don't like ARF's . I know Sig's engineers are the best. But nothing can beat epoxy and CA glue for holding an airplane together . That hot melt glue just doesn't work. The ARFs I have had in the past have all fallen a part. So now when I get one I spend a lot of time epoxing the fire wall and other crucial parts just to get it to last a little longer.
Also nothing beats a well made airplane kit.
that is exactly why I don't like ARF's . I know Sig's engineers are the best. But nothing can beat epoxy and CA glue for holding an airplane together . That hot melt glue just doesn't work. The ARFs I have had in the past have all fallen a part. So now when I get one I spend a lot of time epoxing the fire wall and other crucial parts just to get it to last a little longer.
Also nothing beats a well made airplane kit.
#772
Thread Starter
SIG stopped making the previous run of 4 Stars, probably because of the poor construction of the wing, the rest of the plane was well made so I was surprised to find the wing go BOOM. I know where I can get 2 4*40's still, a Red and Yellow one. I was tempted but after the first one, I just know that a 4*40 with a 91 would not last long. It would be fast, it would be strong in the vertical, but it would also kit itself in flight.
I was pointed to the Vanessa rig for balancing, and balanced my P-51 yesterday, and it was so easy, so going to rebalance my 120 since I feel it is still too nose heavy, and the GP balancer is a PITA to use. Not going to touch my LT-40, its perfect right where it is, in fact it has NO dead weight in it.
I was pointed to the Vanessa rig for balancing, and balanced my P-51 yesterday, and it was so easy, so going to rebalance my 120 since I feel it is still too nose heavy, and the GP balancer is a PITA to use. Not going to touch my LT-40, its perfect right where it is, in fact it has NO dead weight in it.
#774
Senior Member
I picked up my Rascal 110 Friday. I've been too busy trying to stay ahead of the weeds in my 6000 sq ft garden. My ancient 1958 Ariens "Jet" tiller is down waiting for parts.
ASAP I'll get some PIX posted.
ASAP I'll get some PIX posted.
Last edited by SrTelemaster150; 06-29-2014 at 06:17 PM.
#775
Thread Starter
My Cub got some love today, 1/5th SIG Cub.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/kit-...l#post11832269
For the paint scheme, I'm winging it. Have the Fuse just about done, may add one more tapered stripe to it, and starburst the stab and fin. The wings I had an idea, but nothing set in dope yet. Finally figured out why the dope isn't going as far as I think it should, the white does not cover as well as the deep colors do. The red and blue were done in 2 coats, the white I have 4-6 coats on top of the clear before it no longer was opaque.