Super08

My Feedback: (2)

I just bought the 1000 that Greg had in the Sig forum a few days ago.

Larry J.

May I join the brotherhood?

I maidened her yesterday and she flys like a trainer

Balance was perfect without extra weight. A little more prop will be on tap

Perhaps GP will consider an "Electric" kit option?


20 yr old Ultra Sport 1000 (Super Tigre 2500 never flown)
Tacon "Monster" 160
YGE 90 HV ESC
Castle BEC Pro
Sky Lipo 5S 4400MAH in series
APC 16x12E prop
Robart air retracts

rglgatortail

My Feedback: (7)

Quote from RCKen in post #1 "We ask that all proudly display their Ultra Sport Brotherhood # in their signature lines. Let's all tell the world about this great plane and bring more into the brotherhood!!!"


Updated Roster

1. Ken Isaac - RCKen
2. Mike Buzzeo - Minnflyer
|
|
\/
155. balsatermite
156. Falkwulf
157. Larry J.

That number is yours remember to put it in your signature

ochsnm00

This may not be the prettiest US but she’s been around along time. I fell in love with this ship when the article first appeared in RCMin 1989. I miss that mag. I ordered the plans and wood right away and startedbuilding. To speed up the build I cut out foam cores for the wing. The fus. is true to the plans. I made it a tail draggerwith fixed gear bent from music wire. It still wears the original Monokotecovering. Originally it flew with a Picco 60 with a pipe. I wore out the Piccoand rebuilt it but a few years later it threw a rod, locked up and threw thespinner to parts unknown. About 10 years ago it was mid aired and rebuilt.After the Picco I flew it with an OS 91 4 stroke. Now it has a HB 61 that wasgiven to me, it pulls the plane well. That is a Supertigre muffler bolted onthe motor. I had the plane out this weekend and I still marvel at how well ittracks. Sign me up.

Super08

My Feedback: (2)

Great story I really enjoyed reading your post. You just have to love a plane with a history to it. I have a 90/120 Super Sportster I built in '91 that is still flying and sporting it's original Monokote covering after all these years. I have now passed it on now to a very good friend that just adores it. Here is a picture that was taken of it in 2012. Hasn't changed a bit.


Edit: bit off topic but added a pic to the post.

Super08

My Feedback: (2)

Did I mention I am going crazy waiting for customs to release my Ultrasport 1000 kit so it can continue the rest of it's journey to me?

rglgatortail

My Feedback: (7)

Quote from RCKen in post #1 "We ask that all proudly display their Ultra Sport Brotherhood # in their signature lines. Let's all tell the world about this great plane and bring more into the brotherhood!!!"


Updated Roster

1. Ken Isaac - RCKen
2. Mike Buzzeo - Minnflyer
|
|
\/
156. Falkwulf
157. Larry J.
158. ochsnm00

That number is yours remember to put it in your signature

RoyR

This may sound cliche, but I don't think there is such thing as an ugly Ultra Sport.

ochsnm00

Good point, they do have sexy lines.

ochsnm00

Thanks , proud to be a member.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

The only time they don't have sexy lines is when they are laying in a trash can!!!!

WontGrowUp

Good Evening All!

I've be been perusing the thread for a couple of days looking for ideas & suggestions for the US 40 kit that brown Santa just brought me from Tower. Can I claim brotherhood number 159?

James

rglgatortail

My Feedback: (7)

Quote from RCKen in post #1 "We ask that all proudly display their Ultra Sport Brotherhood # in their signature lines. Let's all tell the world about this great plane and bring more into the brotherhood!!!"


Updated Roster

1. Ken Isaac - RCKen
2. Mike Buzzeo - Minnflyer
|
|
\/
157. Larry J.
158. ochsnm00
159. WontGrowUp

That number is yours remember to put it in your signature

WontGrowUp

Thank you! Proud to be a member.

I've debated the power plant now for a couple of weeks... I live on a golf course and it's SUPER easy to just walk out the back door and fly.... if the plane is electric & quiet. But, I'm not really happy with some of the lower flight times & I think the UltraSport is worthy of the power of a glow / gas setup. So, now I'm leaning toward glow and just driving to the flying field to fly it...

Does anyone want to chime in on electric vs glow? If electric, what power setup would you recommend?

If I do indeed go glow, I'm thinking the Rossi .50 looks interesting, in the US 40. Thoughts? I had a Rossi years ago, as a kid and it was a great motor. I just don't know about the current generation of Rossi's after all the family changes.

Any insight is appreciated.

James

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Electric is quick and easy and you don't have to buy fuel. It is also heavier for the same power level and flight time, more expensive to buy, particularly if you don't already have the extra batteries and charger, and it is more dangerous than glow in that the prop can start anytime the battery is plugged in and a lot of people have burned their truck or house down charging LiPo batteries. The higher low end torque means there are some new flight characteristics to deal with also.

Converting the US 40 to electric will mean you need to remove the wing to change batteries, or build a hatch into the front of the fuselage. (See the Hobby People Taipan.) And longer landing gear to clear the larger prop the electric will require.

And finally, there is a good chance that sooner or later someone is going to decide that flying a model airplane over the golf course is a hazard and that will be the end of that. If you go electric solely for that reason, you would be stuck with it. If you want to fly over the golf course, maybe you should try something that is less threatening to the golfers, like a powered glider. (Slow and graceful, as well as quiet.)

Jim

ochsnm00

They all crash eventually.

mpieklik

I would like a brotherhood number, just got a US60 kit.
Thanks,
Matt

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

I finally, finally, after 3 years, finished my US60. Did the maiden flight on Sunday. It is everything you all told me it would be. Very gentle, very well behaved but very capable. It stalls gently and straight, it lands easily, it does knife edge well, everything about it is very nice. I have a Fox 74 on it, and if anything it is overpowered. Unlimited vertical like a 3D plane.

I had some trouble with it nosing over while taxiing. Mine is a tail dragger. The CG is slightly rear of the specified location (dry, of course). But I think that the 14 oz tank is too much and may cause it to be nose heavy when full. I'm thinking of going to a 10 oz tank to try to help the nose-over problem. I hate to go to a fuselage mounted main landing gear. Does anyone have a solution?

WontGrowUp

Thanks Jim! Yeah, the more I think about it I think a nitro engine is going to be the setup.

I'll stick with my little park flyers for the golf course.

anyone have any experience / comments about the current generation Rossi's?

James

Tango Juliet

JP - Are you sure you mounted the Gear in the proper location in the wing? I can't imagine that you would have any nose over issues with a rearward CG (even with 4 more oz. of fuel). On the plans there is a location for the Mains if you are making a tail dragger (ahead of the spar), then there is a location for tricycle gear (behind the spar). If you used the latter, you will always have issues.

Zor

Hello JPMacG,

Just thinking about the factors that cause a model to nose over _ _ _

1 - The amount of thrust from the propeller and the line of thrust versus the CG location. I am talking about the moment arm. I am NOT talkng about the CG location in terms of its location from the leading edge of the wings at the wing root.

2 - The size (diameter) of the main wheels as related to the surface of the terrain and runway.

3 - Free running wheels as any wheel turning resistance need more thrust to taxi or for take off acceleration. See 1 above.

4 - Now the CG location in terms of distance from the leading edge of the wings at their root comes into play. It is easy enough to check that location with the fuel tank empty and also full thus knowing the range of its location and relating it to the wheels' axis support.

5 - The rate at which the power is applied. A sudden quick high thrust is favorable to a nose over.

6 - The handling of the elevators. While taxiing the elevators should be partly or fully up and appropriately handled during the take off acceleration.

7 - None of the above is applicable to a 3D model particularly when launched (take off) from holding it by hand nosing upward. L O L .

8 - Perhaps a negligeable factor but the main wheels should have a bit of 'toe-in' ( one to two degrees ).

Note that the above is based on my personal experience and that a model does not know who is the flier.

Enjoy your flying.

Zor

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

then just put the torque rod of the lg in a vice and just bend the wheel forward.

Joe

Zor

Yes Joe _ _ _ if the landing gear design allows that to be done.
I imagine you figured out that I was thinking in terms of design to result in the least nose over tendencies.
To just bend the rods ( wire . . . . or torque rods if so is the design ) has to have a fastening structure strong enough to resist damage while bending the landing gear. If the structure to which the landing gear is fastened is inside a wing it may be impossible to check for any structure damage while bending.
In the case of aluminum alloy shaped landing gears fastened under a fuselage or composite made, they cannot be bent. They would have to be shimmed at a forward angle or relocated to move the wheels' axis forward. Some of these are installed wth a very narrow strip ( front to rear ) and are more susceptible to break the structure as well as nosing over in a landing that has not enough flare out.

These considerations apply to an 'Ultra Sport' as well as to any models.

I hope no one consider that I am out of topic with my considerations.
I am just responding to the mention of the model 'nosing over' and how to reduce that tendency.

In a different forum, a while ago, I posted a study of nosing over conditions and capabilities for one of my models.

Zor

ochsnm00

Congrats on the successful maiden. I bent the gear forward on mine to prevent nose over. Don't forget to hold some up elevator when taxying and after landing. How old is that Fox? I'm a Fox fan.

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

Thanks everyone. Yes, I did check the plans to be sure that the main gear was in the forward position. Good thought though.

I will try to bend the main gear further forward. Maybe I can clamp the horizontal part in a bench vise and bend the vertical rod by hand. I think larger wheels may help also. We have a grass runway that is a bit rough. The nose overs happen at low speed, usually when I it is just starting to move. I do hold in full up elevator while taxiing, except when taxiing in a strong wind from the tail direction. The takeoff run is no problem. Once it starts to move at a good speed there is no tendency to nose over.

The Fox 74 is nice. It is my first modern Fox and I am pleased with it. It throttles very well, idles low and reliably and has plenty of power. It seems to sip fuel. I can fly for 15 minutes and use about 6 ounces. It is a recent production engine, I bought it new from Fox in about 2012. Their new carb design (with the big knurled knob) is well behaved and easy to adjust. I think Fox temporarily stopped production of all their engines. I hope this is just a pause and not the end. It is a good match for the US60. The Fox 60 (same crankcase as the 74) would also be a good match.