RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Kit Building >> RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 11/30/2006 8:40:44 PM

baldrick

Posts: 44
Joined: 2/28/2006
From: Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND
Status: offline

It's really your call on engine choice. When I build from a kit the largest recommended engine is the smallest I use. I just think that 40-50cc is a bit big. You need to think of the extra torque the motor has and the size prop you will need with it. Also with more weight you increase wing loading which in turn significantly reduces the performance envelope the planes was designed for. Some one correct me if I am wrong. From the video that RCDON did showing the 1.80 4 stroker there is no need to go larger than that.

(in reply to WarbirdAirRacer)

Post #: 426

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 11/30/2006 11:34:55 PM

RVM

Posts: 1975
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Status: offline

ZDZ 40 still too big and heavy. Brison 2.4 = 40cc, and the 3.2 is 50cc, both of which are again, too big and heavy.

I would stick to glow with this particular aircraft. How about a Saito 1.25?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarbirdAirRacer

Okay, how about a ZDZ 40? or a brison 2.4 or 3.2 ? of does anyone have a aero works 27% or GP Ultimate they would be willing to trade for a fresh CG Ultimate in a ARF ?

I look at something like this as you never know till you try..but I know when to say when if it will cost more then just the plane....I was also planning on putting thr rx and battery in the tail anyway along with the elv. servos.

_____________________________

There is no substitution for human competition.

(in reply to WarbirdAirRacer)

Post #: 427

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 12/1/2006 12:35:46 AM

WarbirdAirRacer

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Littleton, CO, USA
Status: offline

thanks but I am lookin to open new doors.... and if i did that i would stick with a YS.

_____________________________

Tat-Tude 379

(in reply to RVM)

Post #: 428

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 12/1/2006 12:40:02 AM

RVM

Posts: 1975
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Status: offline

Then go with a YS 1.10 or something.

I just don't think a gasser is the way to go with this particular model, especially not any of the ones you have mentioned. They're designed to haul around 14lbs-18lbs planes...

_____________________________

There is no substitution for human competition.

(in reply to WarbirdAirRacer)

Post #: 429

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 12/1/2006 1:33:14 AM

FlyerBry

Posts: 449
Joined: 9/12/2003
From: Washington, IL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarbirdAirRacer

thanks but I am lookin to open new doors.... and if i did that i would stick with a YS.

If you are looking to go gas on this plane here are some choices to consider. Note that a 26cc is roughly the same displacement as a 1.60 glow engine. The difference, however, is in the fuel and weight of the gas engines versus the glow options. Gasoline produces less power than glow fuel and the gas engines are also heavier than a comparable glow engine so keep this in mind.

http://www.bcmaengines.com/BCMA26.htm

http://brillelli.com/brillelli_engines_007.htm

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ZENE20EI

In terms of performance, the best options on this airframe include the YS 110 and Saito 125. These will provide maximum power at minimum weight. Of course, the drawback is you are burning expensive glow fuel that is a sloppy mess to clean up.

The gas choices are much cleaner and therefore require much less cleanup. Also, gasoline is dirt cheap in comparison to glow fuel. The plane will also require a smaller fuel tank that can be located on the CG than if running a glow engine. However, the gas engines will be heavier so your plane will be dragging around extra engine weight (not totally offset by the lighter fuel load) while not making as much power.

It depends on how you want the plane to fly and your flying style if you will be satisfied with one of the gas engines on this plane. This would be an easier decision if we were talking about a scale high winger. In a high performance biplane however, the gas choices may not be a good match.

I have been trying to make this very decision myself and although I have talked to a couple people who have seen or known someone with an Ultimate 10-300 with a Zenoah G23/G26 on it, I haven't been able to actually find anyone who has first-hand experience with a gas engine on this plane. Therefore, the final performance with one of these engines is a bit of a shot in the dark. While I believe these engines are light enough for the airframe, I'm not so sure they would have enough power to make me feel satisfied.

FlyerBry

(in reply to WarbirdAirRacer)

Post #: 430

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 12/1/2006 3:56:54 AM

WarbirdAirRacer

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Littleton, CO, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RVM

Then go with a YS 1.10 or something.

I just don't think a gasser is the way to go with this particular model, especially not any of the ones you have mentioned. They're designed to haul around 14lbs-18lbs planes...

Thanks for the comment but I've been running YS 120s in this airframe for the last 16 years....Though dont get me wrong I love YS and their performance and will stand behind YS bar-none. But im looking to open new doors and make waves that have never been made before.

_____________________________

Tat-Tude 379

(in reply to RVM)

Post #: 431

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 12/1/2006 4:26:23 AM

WarbirdAirRacer

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Littleton, CO, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlyerBry

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarbirdAirRacer

thanks but I am lookin to open new doors.... and if i did that i would stick with a YS.

If you are looking to go gas on this plane here are some choices to consider. Note that a 26cc is roughly the same displacement as a 1.60 glow engine. The difference, however, is in the fuel and weight of the gas engines versus the glow options. Gasoline produces less power than glow fuel and the gas engines are also heavier than a comparable glow engine so keep this in mind.

http://www.bcmaengines.com/BCMA26.htm

http://brillelli.com/brillelli_engines_007.htm

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ZENE20EI

In terms of performance, the best options on this airframe include the YS 110 and Saito 125. These will provide maximum power at minimum weight. Of course, the drawback is you are burning expensive glow fuel that is a sloppy mess to clean up.

The gas choices are much cleaner and therefore require much less cleanup. Also, gasoline is dirt cheap in comparison to glow fuel. The plane will also require a smaller fuel tank that can be located on the CG than if running a glow engine. However, the gas engines will be heavier so your plane will be dragging around extra engine weight (not totally offset by the lighter fuel load) while not making as much power.

It depends on how you want the plane to fly and your flying style if you will be satisfied with one of the gas engines on this plane. This would be an easier decision if we were talking about a scale high winger. In a high performance biplane however, the gas choices may not be a good match.

I have been trying to make this very decision myself and although I have talked to a couple people who have seen or known someone with an Ultimate 10-300 with a Zenoah G23/G26 on it, I haven't been able to actually find anyone who has first-hand experience with a gas engine on this plane. Therefore, the final performance with one of these engines is a bit of a shot in the dark. While I believe these engines are light enough for the airframe, I'm not so sure they would have enough power to make me feel satisfied.

FlyerBry

Thanks for the comments....I did talk with BMCA today for about 30 mins and will probably go with their 26cc engine. And its a plus because they are local to me and if I have a problem with their engine then I can take it to them for a tune etc.

I was also looking at like a G 26 etc. but I dont think they will give me the performance I want and am looking for. but if I could find something like their 38 then maybe so but after looking at their weights I will prob. stick with the BMCA engine line.

As your last statement said that their isnt hardly anyone dropping a gas in this frame because they think it will break or wont fly good but as I always say you never know till you try. And if it flys good and flys like you want then everyone else can copy the stuff you already did first.

But then again there is alot of people that are ok with flying the same comb forever....and I was one of those but now with how far gas engines have come in the last 10 years or so Im looking to open new doors. Hell a person could find their were better off leaving it the way it was rather then spending the money to change over to gas....then all you can say after that is hey I tryed.

John

_____________________________

Tat-Tude 379

(in reply to FlyerBry)

Post #: 432

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 12/1/2006 1:09:21 PM

RVM

Posts: 1975
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Status: offline

I'm going to guess that the only maneuver you really wish to perform with this plane is hovering, because I think the BCMA 26 will put the wingloading through the roof.

There is no gas engine that will fit this airframe that will provide anywhere near the power:weight that a glow engine will give. The wingloading on the Ultimate, with an extra pound or more of engine, ignition and battery will go through the roof.

Expect a lot of tipstalls and snaps.

Also, I don't think there are many waves to be made with this airframe. Most things that work have already been tried and tested, and they're commonly used for a reason.

Just my thoughts, but whatever you enjoy is the best thing to do, since this is your plane, not mine!

_____________________________

There is no substitution for human competition.

(in reply to WarbirdAirRacer)

Post #: 433

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 12/1/2006 4:41:54 PM

WarbirdAirRacer

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Littleton, CO, USA
Status: offline

Well Im glad everyone and their brother lives at sea level where glow runs its ass off and makes more power then gas.

They must only sell the power house glow engines where everyone else lives and send the ****ty ones here.

...... But im not one of those lucky brothers that lives at sea level.....so when you live at 6000 OVER sea level glow doesnt run as good as it does at sea level. One must look to different roads to go down....And last I checked that BMCA 26 was about 38 ounces (including ignition and muffler) and a YS 1.40-1.60 was 33 ounces (plus 20oz. of glow fuel) so you add all that up and thats 53 ounces. (3lbs 31oz.) and even if I went with the 26 with a 16 oz. tank that still 1 oz. more then the YS with a 20 oz. tank...hell we've even put 25 oz. tanks in Ultimates before with no proglems.....but im sure you thought about that while looking at their web site, before making your post or knew that before you made that post.

...So I dont think the wing loading will rocket through the roof like you think. Sorry Im not die hard glow fan (like you) that loves to pay 18.00 bucks a gallon for fuel and only get about 7 flights on a gallon of fuel. I believe there is better and cheaper (2.03 a gallon for gas) ways out in the world and I am going to use them. Gas has came along way since my earily days of flying and I love the performace of gas up here and I am going to go that route. Guess I better pick up a super tiger 4500 for my H9 46% Ultimate since glow makes so much more power.

If you dont mind me asking.......I was wondering how many CG Ultimates you've owned and flown and built and for how long ? I myself have been flying and building this airframe for the better part of 16 years for myself my father and others that have wanted one.

_____________________________

Tat-Tude 379

(in reply to RVM)

Post #: 434

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 12/1/2006 6:07:05 PM

FlyerBry

Posts: 449
Joined: 9/12/2003
From: Washington, IL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarbirdAirRacer

Well Im glad everyone and their brother lives at sea level where glow runs its ass off and makes more power then gas. They must only sell the power house glow engines where everyone else lives and send the ****ty ones here. ...... But im not one of those lucky brothers that lives at sea level.....so when you live at 6000 OVER sea level glow doesnt run as good as it does at sea level. One must look to different roads to go down....And last I checked that BMCA 26 was about 38 ounces (including ignition and muffler) and a YS 1.40-1.60 was 33 ounces (plus 20oz. of glow fuel) so you add all that up and thats 53 ounces. (3lbs 31oz.) and even if I went with the 26 with a 16 oz. tank that still 1 oz. more then the YS with a 20 oz. tank...hell we've even put 25 oz. tanks in Ultimates before with no proglems.....but im sure you thought about that while looking at their web site, before making your post or knew that before you made that post. ...So I dont think the wing loading will rocket through the roof like you think. Sorry Im not die hard glow fan (like you) that loves to pay 18.00 bucks a gallon for fuel and only get about 7 flights on a gallon of fuel. I believe there is better and cheaper (2.03 a gallon for gas) ways out in the world and I am going to use them. Gas has came along way since my earily days of flying and I love the performace of gas up here and I am going to go that route. Guess I better pick up a super tiger 4500 for my H9 46% Ultimate since glow makes so much more power.

If you dont mind me asking.......I was wondering how many CG Ultimates you've owned and flown and built and for how long ? I myself have been flying and building this airframe for the better part of 16 years for myself my father and others that have wanted one.

WarbirdAirRacer, I say give it a try... I agree, I don't think the wing loading will be too bad. The new Zenoah G20ei is being advertised as a good match for .60 size warbirds and the Ultimate will have more wing area than a typical .60 size warbird for sure. To me the big question has always been the power output. I don't think there will be any problem with the 26 working with this airframe. The level of performance is the big question mark for me. It seems to me everything I have read about this plane is it will fall out of the air during deadstick landings due to the typical biplane drag that causes it to lose speed so quickly. Sure the stall speed will be a little higher than if a lighter engine were installed but I don't think it will be unmanagable for any pilot that is already experienced enough to handle this plane. As you alluded to in your post, gas engines offer the advantage of being more reliable so the dreaded dead stick landing is much more unlikely. There have also been quite a few examples of this airframe powered with glow engines along with smoke system installations which may provide a similar wing loading to one of the gassers without smoke.

RVM, as far as everything already having been tried with this airframe I'm not so sure I agree with that statement in this case. While some have run the Zenoah G26 on this airframe and it seems to be considered a little too heavy by most. The engines I listed in my post have just come on the market in the last year or two. I seem to recall the BCMA or Brillelli being introduced at the Toledo show in 05. The little Zenoah is the most recent and it is the first gasser in this range to be introduced by a big manufacturer. Most folks stick to the mainstream engines so there isn't much information on the other two when considering this airframe or any other for that matter. Horizon has advertised that the little Zenoah will work acceptably on the Funtana 90 - a 3D airframe. I am a bit suspect as to how good a match the Funtana and G20ei really is but that tells me it should be an even better match for a non-3D plane at a similar weight.

I do have my doubts about any kind of hovering/3D capability with this airframe. The Ultimate isn't known for 3D even when running a lightweight glow engine. I would expect smooth, graceful aerobatics above anything else. This shouldn't be any surprise to anyone as this airframe has been around far longer than the 3D craze.

WarbirdAirRacer, go for it and let us know what you think. I think you will be as good a judge as anyone with your past experience with this airframe.

Keep us posted!

FlyerBry

(in reply to WarbirdAirRacer)

Post #: 435

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 12/1/2006 6:13:46 PM

R/C Lee

Posts: 157
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: Black Butte Ranch, OR, USA
Status: offline

For what it's worth, I was using a Saito 1.25 in my Ultimate and I have been underwhelmed by its performance. As WarbirdAirRacer mentions, flying at altitude makes a lot of difference. I fly at 3500 feet and the performance is severely limited compared to flying at 500 feet. I have taken the Saito out of mine and since I had it available, I am in the process of installing a ST 3250 on glow. It's not that I need vertical out of site performance, it's just that the Ultimate absorbs a lot of energy and the additional power available in the vertical side of things will really help. Needless to say, I won't be flying at full throttle all of the time, although it's been my observation that many modelers don't use the throttle appropriate to the maneuver. The great thing about this hobby is that even with all of these differing opinions, we continue to experiment and have fun doing it. Lee

_____________________________

Shot up, engine overheating, losing oil, but still flying.

(in reply to WarbirdAirRacer)

Post #: 436

RE: Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 build - 12/1/2006 7:49:25 PM

WarbirdAirRacer

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Littleton, CO, USA
Status: offline

Im glad im not the only one that thinks that the left stick needs or has to be all the way at the top of the radio in order for something to fly....You know FlyerBry your right...There is people that have put smoke systems in these with out issue. So I dont think that it is or will be as big of an issue as some make it out to be......I think people make it an issue is beucase one doesnt look at a smoke as alot of weight...vs a gas engine that looks like alot of weight and once someone sees how much something weighs then it takes on a new toll....I also think that Ultimates dont bleed off tons of speed on a DS landings like most think....But then again alot depends on how or where and what the plane was doing when the engine died.

People are always scared to try something new or afraid to try something new or change what works or what works best for them...which is ok because we all do it. I just want to do something new and be a first of its kind and if it dont work well then i guess its back to the power house glow engines.

...will add more later

_____________________________

Tat-Tude 379

(in reply to R/C Lee)

Post #: 437