dmccutchen
Posts: 18
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Coppell,
TX,
Status: offline
|
"Has anyone received and tested this plane yet? It looks really nice and at a very tempting price. Also does anyone have an engine recommendation for this plane. Thanks,Mike"
I have been flying the WildhareRC Giles for a few months now, and have seen them evolve from the first prototype to the final production version.
At this point is should be noted that since I have been so close to the project from day one that I may have a biased opinion. This may be the case, but a biased flying review is probably better than no information at all. Read on and be your own judge. I have nothing to gain by offering a positive review.
I have been flying an Aeroworks 40% G202 for the past year, so it was the yardstick I judged flight performance by. I have also had considerable exposure to giant scale aerobatic aircraft over the past 25+ years.
I have flown the plane with a 3W-75, BME 100, BME 102 and ZDZ-80. In my opinion the ZDZ-80 is the best bang for the buck. I have been competing in IMAC with the Aeroworks Giles, but due to logistics was unable to get the aircraft to an out of town contest. Tom loaned me the ZDZ Giles to fly at the contest and it easily fit in the back of my Toyota Highlander, along with all my supplies for a weekend contest, including my EZ-up. This was a big plus, as I had to buy a trailer to haul the Aeroworks plane around in!
The ZDZ did seem to shake the plane more than the 3W-75, however I do not know how well the prop had been balanced. On hot days the ZDZ version needed full power on many occasions to power through the sequence. This is definitely not the case with the BME powered versions. The 3W and ZDZ would easily fly this plane through basic, sportsman and intermediate sequences.
The BME provided truly unlimited vertical, with little energy loss after multiple upline snaps and vertical acceleration with authority. The engine fits completely within the cowl, clearance holes not required for the plug caps as in other giant scale models (i.e. my BME wouldn't fit in an Aeroworks Edge without clearance holes). A 3 bladed prop/spinner on the nose made for a very good looking, quiet and nice flying airplane.
All aircraft flown have exhibited similar flying qualities, construction qualities are consistent throughout the prototypes and initial production models I have flown.
Rudder / pitch coupling exists in the design, the yellow production prototype exhibited a very small amount of coupling, to the point I did not feel the need to mix it out in the transmitter for the initial test flights. A very small amount of mix was used (~2 degrees negative) to cancel out the coupling on the other airplanes.
The approach and landing characteristics of the aircraft are very docile. There has been no tip stall / stall-spin incidents, even in agressive testing. Low speed stalls mush straight ahead. This can make clean spin entries difficult to perform without fudging the entry.
Spins stop immediately upon neutralizing the controls.
Differential aileron mix produced very axial rolls.
Sustained knife edge flight is possible at 1/3 power (ZDZ-80) and a relatively small amount of rudder deflection when balanced at the recommended CG location. Knife edge loops at half to full rudder deflection were easy (okay, the first 270 degrees are easy, I don't have the cojones to attempt the last 90 degrees close to the ground with someone else's airplane!). The plane exhibits very little to no rudder-roll coupling.
I have not explored the 3D envelope with the airplanes yet, but will report in upon doing so.
I also have a G62 powered version ready to fly, and will report on the flight performance once I have had a chance to fly it enough to offer a comparison. I have not flow the 3W-75 version enough to render a final opinion either.
The fit and finish of the airplanes is among the best I have seen in an ARF. This may sound like the words of a biased reviewer, but I am confident this opinion will be echoed by the recipients of the first planes shipped. The design uses interlocking and keyed ply fuselage members, making for a very strong design.
I have flown the design with one and two servos per aileron, and notice no difference in performance. Snaps start/stop with the same amount of authority either way. The wings have three servos bays cut but covered over, so servo configuration is up to the builder. I think a single JR 4721, JR 4131 or low end Hitech digital would be more than adequate on aileron.
Elevators are set up for one servo per side, and again, a single 4721 is plenty.
The rudder can be set up as a pull/pull with the servo under the canopy or with two servos in the tail. This is a handy way to adjust the CG.
The bottom line: This would be an excellent introduction to giant scale. The plane is very competitive in IMAC, I am not qualified to comment on the capabilities in the Unlimited range of maneuvers, but it can certainly fly the Intermediate sequence on a modest single. I would not hesitate to compete in Advanced next year with this airplane and a strong engine.
For the sport flyer this plane offers docile landing characteristics, a high degree of durability due to the extensive fuselage sheeting and plywood understructure, a wide flight envelope and the ability to be flown on common, inexpensive servos and engines. A computer radio is NOT required to trim and fly this airplane (although it sure makes it easier!), so a basic 4 channel radio will fly fine.
David McCutchen
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic >> WildHare R/C Support >> New photos of 35% G202 on Wild Hare R/C Web Site 
New photos of 35% G202 on Wild Hare R/C Web Site - 
New photos of 35% G202 on Wild Hare R/C Web Site - 
<$1000