TFF

Once you have gone down in rpm you are overly lean. The top is leaned out but you have no margin, so as you fly, the engine can go in and out of a lean condition. Working by ear with a 4 stroke is a lot harder than a 2 stroke; that is why a tach is good to use unless you have the power that you can be a little more rich than perfect. With an in cowl engine that is a good practice; also Saitos are known to loose a prop if it goes lean. I would see how the power is 300-400 rpm rich. You might have to change props to get what you want.

abufletcher

Thanks for the comments and suggestions, guys. They always get my brain going again. First up, I assumed ( [:'(] ) that I had on the same 12/6 prop I was flying the Cub with. Nope. It was a 13/6 so that explains that! I've got the "right" prop on the Saito 56 now so I should be getting my 400-500 RPMs back.

Next I did manage to solve the problem with the twisted wing panel. I just reinstalled a slightly shorter cross-brace from the top of the forward strut to the bottom of the rear strut and that pulled the panel into the proper shape.

Finally, I dealt with the problem of the strut bolts vibrating loose by using a longer (15mm) M3 bolt and adding a second nut on the outside (all with locktite).

Oh, and I epoxied half a washer in a slot in the skid.

So the batteries are charging and I think I'll be ready for another attempt tomorrow.

abufletcher

High winds today so no one was flying.

abufletcher

Tenno no Tanjoubi. The Emperor's Birthday. What more auspicious day for the (re)maiden of a Pup in these colors! Actually, the day started off very inauspiciously; at 11:00am there were rain clouds and the wind was blowing harder than yesterday. There was a strong cross-wind with a powerful updraft. Not the best for a "floater" biplane. So I went home.

But by 3:00pm it looked calmer so I drove back to the field and though it was darkish, the wind was down to a breeze. So up she went after giving another club member a quick lesson in photography. The take-off was uneventful and soon it was flyng. The previous problems were gone though it was still climbing and I needed several clicks of down elvator and also several clicks of right aileron.

Being unfamiliar with how it flew, I wouldn't describe it as a "relaxing" flight. It looked and felt a bit awkward in the air. But I think that's mostly just me not having a feel for it yet. I made a dozen or so laps around the circuit before cutting the throttle for the landing and it glided in a smooth as you please.

I only got in one flight before the light was almost gone so I'll have for next time to give a fuller description of how it flies. Hopefully, I'll also be able to get some photos in more photogenic light.

TFF

Super!

bassman

I am very happy that you and your puppy are finally getting along. I have been flying mine for 4 seasons now.

She a keeper.

Good job.

Bassman

abufletcher

I'm the only one in my club into WWI. Here are a few shots of the other "show stoppers" for today. BTW, this Kyosho FW190 ARF looks VERY nice and comes flaps and retracts for about $150.

But I guess I've got my hands full with the Pup, then the Legionaire, then the Snipe to fly.

CTDavies

That's good news, Abu. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for better weather in the next couple of days, and you getting more familar with handling this beautiful model. CT

TFF

I have always liked the short nose 190 better than the 190D-TA152, but send me 3 of the Saito radials, I can use them. Oh wait, I dont have the cash to spend on 3, so send me 1/3 of the radial.

abufletcher

So that should be about one FA-30. I was told by the owner that this 3-cylinder would have about the same power as a 50-class 4-stroke. It sure is beautiful but sticking such a long engine (with such a long mount) into a 50-class WWI biplane would be a serious challenge.

I'm hoping for better weather but I may have to wait until next weekend to fly again. []

bassman

I owned one of the Saito 90 3 cylinder radials. The problems with it are it has the power of a 65, the weight of a 120 and really needs on board glow to be reliable. It does sound great when it sitting there at idle. Actually it would be a great engine for the Puppeteer.

Bassman

abufletcher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhm4x...eature=related

But at $700 bucks I'd rather buy a Proctor DVII museum scale kit or 1/3 scale GTM Dr. I. Sort of the same situation with that OS IL-300 inline engine. It costs a couple grand and doesn't look scale enough to use in an actual scale model. So you see people putting this hugely expensive engine in a stand-way-off sport model.

DrHair

Great job again. These WW1 biplanes do have a lovely presence.
I'm still confused about my Puppeteer - wingspan is definitely only a shade under 59", not 60". Either it isn't a Flair kit or it's been built slightly smaller in some fashion.
From this thread and a few similar ones I've found, it defintely looks like a Flair Puppeteer - the cut parts, the open frame, the firewall, cowl etc looks the same. Most importantly, the Pup/Strutter non scale cross over is the same, especially now I've put the second cockpit in. I can't believe it isn't a Flair (other suspects could include plans from David Boddington, Peter Rake etc or other kit suppliers but they have a reputation for being more "scale.")
I'm wondering if it was built badly (but the rest of it is spot on - no warps etc) so I think the builder built it properly but less wingspan because?
to fit in his car,
or photcopied Flair plans from someone else's kit and copied it slightly reduced?
What might help me is the other dimensions - fuselage length, wing chord etc. If proportionally smaller, then maybe copied plans. Important as this could affect my COG which with a 4S lipo balances perfectly (tail up) at 130mm as discussed 2 pages ago. If slightly smaller, then I'll need to move COG proportionally forward.
Cheers for any help.

abufletcher

My guess is that you've got a "Mark I" vs. "Mark II" version. Flair's been making these for quite a while and almost certainly there have been some changes along the way. Technically, as long as the chord is the same, the wing span wouldn't have any effect on the CG placement.

DrHair

Yes, that's what I assumed but Vincento? thought that both versions were 60". However, it could be possible that the kit was defective. I came across a personal website http://www.wizzoplanes.com/index.html who details his 1/3 scale Pup build from a kit and states that his spars as sent in the kit, were short and he had to build extensions to get the correct wingspan. It could be as simple as that.
If someone could do me a favour and get the "old" tape measure out for fuselage and chord lengths, I'd be jolly grateful.

PS Pink Floyd quote above! Heard their track Learning to Fly?

abufletcher

Mine measures about 59" with a chord of about 11.5 inches. I'm not surprised by the "bit less than 60" measurement. Companies regularly stretch measurements to the next round number for marketing purposes. Lens manufacturers do it all the time. Also the amount of dihedral the modeler builds in would have some effect on the measurement, wouldn't it?

I wouldn't sweat the difference and I wouldn't change the CG (130 back balanced such that the stab is slightly forward inclined or 120 back with the fuse centerline level).

DrHair

Many thanks Abu. So, take the measurements with a pinch of salt, eh? The confusion being that there are a number of kit manufacturers here who have WW1 biplanes in the 56-60" mark and so I didn't want to make the assumption (that it was a Flair) after you found the COG quite sensitive on yours. Not all the designs have such a long, non scale nose and the amount of lead to add to those with a short cowl could be substantial. And even Flair didn't have it right on their plans!
As you say, if the chord is the same, a 58 or 60" wingspan would make no difference but another designer might not place his COG in exactly the same place. And 1cm forwards or backwards could be disasterous. My chord is 11.5 inches, same as yours. So the evidence confirms it to be a Flair version.
Fingers crossed for some decent flying weather!

abufletcher

I'm sure yours is a Flair.

It's not that the CoG is "sensitive," it's that the textual description of what counts as "balanced" is ambiguous (or just plain misleading). One builder's interpretation of "a slight glide" vs. another's could make the difference between a smooth maiden and a hairy one. Just make sure the stab is actually inclined forward a degree or two when "balanced." That's the sort of glide that's needed. If the stab (with its positive incidence) is level then the model is still tail-heavy.

vincento

Dr Hair:
I will take a ruler to my pup, and the plans, and give you some key measurements to check against
I'll give:
outside edge to outside edge of outer ribs on top / bottom wing
edge to edge extrementies of top wing
front of front firewall to rear of sternpost
let me know if you want any others

Abu:
Congrats on the maidens! BTW is the 'fuse centreline' from the crankshaft centre to the midway point of the sternpost?

Bassman:
Nice entry in the flight magazine! it does you pup proud. well done.

abufletcher

On an actual aircraft determining the centerline might be a somewhat technical endeavor. However, on the Puppeteer, I take it to be a line that would run parallel to the top side longeron. Thus, if the centerline were level (i.e parallel, relative to the ground) then the stab would be at its actual positive incidence (about +2.5 degrees) and the wings would be at their designed-in incidence. On my Puppeteer I have to balance the model at a point 120mm back from the top leading edge to get the centerline level. At 130mm back it balances such that the stab is tipped forward a couple of degrees (effectly, about -1 or -2 degrees) and the model as a whole has a pronounced downward angle. The key thing is that if your stab is level at 130mm then the model is definitely tail-heavy.

I may have a few extra oz of lead in the front but it's 1000% better to be nose-heavy than tail-heavy. Since we have almost identical setups, I wouldn't dare fly your model with less than 12oz of nose weight. I have 17oz.

vincento

you may have seen this page - and the videos.
http://www.blackwaters.ch/fc/greatsopwitpup.htm

abufletcher

Ya gotta admire the guy for flying not only ON snow but IN it! Flying the model from a moving car was also interesting. I can barely fly standing still!

In terms of weather here, it's been perfect flying weather all week long ON THE DAYS I HAD TO WORK. And now that the weekend's here again...it's raining. [&o]

vincento

I know, - with floats off snow and water really rocked my boat as well! Sounds like you have got our English weather Don.....

abufletcher

Good weather and no work, so the Puppeteer got its 3rd, 4th, and 5th flight today (as well as a 6th landing). I'm still pretty tense flying it but the trim issues have been resolved and I'm starting to get a feel for how it flies which seems none too elegant but stable. Or should I say, I fly it none too elegantly but stable enough. I'm still just flying it around in circles but by the last flight I was starting to turn a bit more aggressively. I think I need to decrease the exponential on the ailerons. Also it seems a bit hesitant to leave the ground so I'm wondering if I might loose a few oz. of the nose weight. Well, actually it was a really nice scale take-off, but I'm told models like this want to "jump into the air." Another possible clue is that I needed to put in a couple of clicks of up elevator (i.e. I found I was needing to fly with the elevator stick always pulled back a bit). In general the model feels a bit "heavy in the air" and I'm wondering what "nose heavy" looks like/feels like.

I've had no problems whatsoever on take-offs or landings. I feel pretty good about this since I gave me Pup taller, narrower "scale-like" gear. I'm still bouncing just a bit but otherwise landings don't seem any different than any of my other models.

I'm still just getting whoever I can grab to take pictures so the quality of the photos leaves a lot to be desired. Since using a camera is almost second-nature to me, I tend to forget the skills involved. On the first flight my cameraman shot stills and for the next two I had him do video. For the most part, video of models flying is pretty darn dull. But with some editing I might be able to put together a minute or two of interesting footage. Just have to figure out how to do it all.

The other thing I'll add is that as fun as this color scheme is, it's totally boring from the bottom, which is 90% of the views from the ground. It takes both carefully planned flying and a photographer with a quick finger to get a good 3/4 view shot.

abufletcher

BTW, to any WWI pilot wannabie newbies who might be reading, I don't know why I didn't build this model earlier. A great progression would be TRAINER > CUB > PUPPETEER > ANY WWI MODEL YOU'D LIKE. And you could probably get away with just the trainer and Puppeteer or maybe even with just the Puppeteer, if you train on a buddy box.