*** Ultra Sport Brotherhood ***
#2376
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much for detailing your build, and the maiden flight. I would be very interested to hear if anyone else has flown a "stock" Taipan, to see how different it flies, as compared to the Ultra Sport.
#2377
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Westhampton Beach,
NY
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations Jim on a successful maiden!!
Considing what you said about how it flies, i will duplicate your mods on amine which i hope to start this weekend.
Did you put retracts or the stock fixed gear in yours?
EDIT: looking the pics you posted of the seems you did... I bookmarked the ones you listed from Tower Hobbies, plus I have a set of air retracts from an old Hobbico ARF from many years ago that may work if there is room for the tank.
Thanks,
Bill S.
Considing what you said about how it flies, i will duplicate your mods on amine which i hope to start this weekend.
Did you put retracts or the stock fixed gear in yours?
EDIT: looking the pics you posted of the seems you did... I bookmarked the ones you listed from Tower Hobbies, plus I have a set of air retracts from an old Hobbico ARF from many years ago that may work if there is room for the tank.
Thanks,
Bill S.
Last edited by Twin_Flyer; 07-09-2014 at 03:22 AM.
#2378
My Feedback: (9)
jim, im glad you are happy with the tiapan.
my ultra sport 60 built in feb1986 or 7 (i cant remember without my notes) has the amount of dihedral the tiapan has, flew great on alcohal and now on electric. now that the tiapan has shown me the light i may have to recover it and add a hatch in the process.
i bought a tiapan for my son, because he took one of my ulra sport kits and started it and there it sits. well i built the tiapan with stock dihedral and it sits in the corner waiting to be test flown. i hope tomorrow it will get weight off wheels, only time will tell.
Joe
my ultra sport 60 built in feb1986 or 7 (i cant remember without my notes) has the amount of dihedral the tiapan has, flew great on alcohal and now on electric. now that the tiapan has shown me the light i may have to recover it and add a hatch in the process.
i bought a tiapan for my son, because he took one of my ulra sport kits and started it and there it sits. well i built the tiapan with stock dihedral and it sits in the corner waiting to be test flown. i hope tomorrow it will get weight off wheels, only time will tell.
Joe
#2379
My Feedback: (551)
Joe:
Look for straight flight that slowly curves off one way or the other and rolls that rotate faster on the first 180 degrees than the second 180. It will want to roll back out of knife edge, also. Those are all characteristics of not enough dihedral in a low wing aerobatic plane.
I don't think the differences will be dramatic. The stock Taipan will probably just not feel as "locked-in" or "true" or "on a rail" as the Ultra Sport.
Jim
Look for straight flight that slowly curves off one way or the other and rolls that rotate faster on the first 180 degrees than the second 180. It will want to roll back out of knife edge, also. Those are all characteristics of not enough dihedral in a low wing aerobatic plane.
I don't think the differences will be dramatic. The stock Taipan will probably just not feel as "locked-in" or "true" or "on a rail" as the Ultra Sport.
Jim
Last edited by jrf; 07-09-2014 at 09:32 AM.
#2380
My Feedback: (9)
Thanks jim, i,ve found that its just as grovey as any of my wwii fighters if not more, and reacts alot in turns like them as well. if i don't use rudder in turns they are knife edge turns or a skewed immelman/chandelle which is good training for warbirds. the one thing i have noticed i dont care for is on landing it wount settle to a wheels down and even attitude wanting to stay in what ever small bank it is in. i hope the tiapan acts the same cause it is what he needs. a reliable plane with WWII fighter charactoristics.
Joe
Joe
#2381
I only have about 7 flights on my US60 and 5 of those I had retract issues so I’m done with retracts. I think the easy way to go would be to put landing gear on the fuse. I can pull out the retracts and cover the holes. Who has done this and what gear did you use?
#2382
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Winnipeg,
MB, CANADA
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Steve,
I used some composite LG on my US 40 and love them, I added a 1/4" ply plate to mount it too and use 2 10-32 nylon bolts in the front holes of the landing gear to hold them on. I have had one bolt break on a hard cross wind landing with no damage to the rest of the plane.
They are the Dubro super strength.
Calvi
I used some composite LG on my US 40 and love them, I added a 1/4" ply plate to mount it too and use 2 10-32 nylon bolts in the front holes of the landing gear to hold them on. I have had one bolt break on a hard cross wind landing with no damage to the rest of the plane.
They are the Dubro super strength.
Calvi
#2385
I came up with a simple temporary fix locking the wires together with two wheel collars. I'm going to try softer 3 inch wheels.
Last edited by smkrcflyer; 07-30-2014 at 05:01 PM.
#2388
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Winnipeg,
MB, CANADA
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sure am glad I put flaps on my US40, I was doing touch and goes with a bit of a crosswind and lost a wheel. The wind was blowing at around 10mph. I came in with the flaps down, held it just over the grass for as long as I could and lifted the wing on the side of the missing wheel just before touchdown. The plane did a nice zero roll out landing, no damage done.
Calvi
Calvi
#2389
My Feedback: (2)
On my 1000 I decided to go with the 120AX instead of my 160FX. The 120 is no slouch and it is an easier fit. The added benefit is the ability to run 14 to 15" props which will allow me to build it with trike gear. For some reason I always preferred the look of trike gear on this design. That and I haven't had a plane with trike gear in more years than I care to remember.
#2390
My Feedback: (9)
smkrcflyer, mechanicals are the hardest to set up for some one with no experience. i understand your frustration. pretty much u need to find a pattern flier they use mecanicals cause they are lighter and will know how to set them up.
as for a more robust lock down, the retracts have a cam (the part the strut comes out of) and a follower, actuator (the part the pushrod is attached to) . zip tie the actuator to the retract frame on the side you want it on.
Joe
as for a more robust lock down, the retracts have a cam (the part the strut comes out of) and a follower, actuator (the part the pushrod is attached to) . zip tie the actuator to the retract frame on the side you want it on.
Joe
#2391
My Feedback: (17)
I agree with paladin, mechanical retracts can be a PITA. Most mechanical retracts need about 25mm of control rod movement to lock properly in both positions.
Here is a video I found on you-tube that describes proper retract setup.
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...yfp-t-901&fp=1
Here is a video I found on you-tube that describes proper retract setup.
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...yfp-t-901&fp=1
#2392
I stopped at my local hobby shop today and got everything I need for the fixed gear for $30. They had a set of gear for the Seagull Yak that will put the center of the prop about 1/2 higher then it was. I'm also changing to 3" wheels. I'm moving to a new flying site and the runway is not as good so that's another reason for the change.
#2395
My Feedback: (17)
They are a blast for sure. It's like there is a string through the center of the plane, it's the most "locked in" plane I have. I traded the Das Ultra Sport off to a friend and I'm wishing I hadn't because it flew just as good as it's bigger brother. I think I need to build another one.
#2398
My Feedback: (17)
Thanks Bill.
Over the last few years I've been building and assembling mostly 60 size planes and ARF's but lately I've been eyeing the US 1000. I'm kind of limited to 1/4 scale or smaller due to my Dodge Ram transport system. I think it would be nice to have one of all three sizes. I've got an OS 1.60 twin that would be cool on the US 1000.
The sad thing about trading the Das Ultra Sport is that the guy I traded it to won't even fly it, he say's it's too pretty. Crazy.
Over the last few years I've been building and assembling mostly 60 size planes and ARF's but lately I've been eyeing the US 1000. I'm kind of limited to 1/4 scale or smaller due to my Dodge Ram transport system. I think it would be nice to have one of all three sizes. I've got an OS 1.60 twin that would be cool on the US 1000.
The sad thing about trading the Das Ultra Sport is that the guy I traded it to won't even fly it, he say's it's too pretty. Crazy.
#2399
My Feedback: (551)
The OS 160 twin was one of the originally recommended engines for the Ultra Sport 1000 and I believe that a firewall position for it is shown on the plans. The problem is that the airplane looks odd with the nose built that short. The good news is that you can use the more forward firewall position of the 1.20 and put the servos in the tail to balance the extra weight of the 160.
Jim
Jim
#2400
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Westhampton Beach,
NY
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have a Dodge Ram for transportation. the largest plane i have will just fit as long as i open the rear window of the cab and cap and slip the wing of my Nosen trainer through it, only then I can close the rear caps hatch!
For the field i fly at its about as large as i wodul ever want to go anyway...
Bill S.
For the field i fly at its about as large as i wodul ever want to go anyway...
Bill S.