RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.?  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> ARF or RTF >> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.?
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 2/25/2008 3:43:23 AM   
patzane


 

Posts: 588
Joined: 11/11/2005
From: Glendale, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		I have the nitro model ultimate and it is a great flying plane. I beef up the firewall and put and OS 160. The only hardware I use from the kit was the gears. All the other stuff I changed out. I have the lastest ver. (yellow) and have about 80 flight on her with no problems


_____________________________

Don't go where the path leads
But go where there is no path

(in reply to balsaeater)
       Post #: 51

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 2/25/2008 8:52:53 AM   
balsaeater


 

Posts: 204
Joined: 5/20/2005
From: p, ANDORRA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: patzane

I have the nitro model ultimate and it is a great flying plane. I beef up the firewall and put and OS 160. The only hardware I use from the kit was the gears. All the other stuff I changed out. I have the lastest ver. (yellow) and have about 80 flight on her with no problems


Excellent info
best I can tell in this thread the next largest engine thats has been used has been a 150 four stroke which I think was a Saito
(and I think this is bored out Saito 130 so it weight is ~ approx 800 grams and my MVVS is 160 glow is 900 grams not counting tuned pipe )
So I very interested to get any info 160 and larger to see if there is any important issues

When you say OS 160 is that 2 stroke or four stroke? glow or gasoline ?
( as the only one listed at OS is FT160 twin but if my memory serves me there was a 2 stroke single cylinder some years back )

and what mix ratio fuel % nitro methanol oil type if its 2 stroke or four stroke glow type ? if possible


what propeller are you using ?


I didn't beef up the firewall although I considered it and did 5 tanks plus static test runs mostly at WOT to verify any signs of issues and saw non
I also fitted epoxy 1.5 mm sheets behind the engine mount as sorta big washers to spread the load and allow change of engine angles with insertion or removal of sheets

Also I did epoxy paint the whole nose region outside and inside the fuselage where tank was and it helped when tank sprang a leak in static tests

When you say you swopped out all the gear did you replace fuel tank with what and what other gear to swop out is there except engine mount and undercarriage

Interested to know these details as 80 flights later I want to be sure I didnt forget something important and figure these kits would be very similar in make up and might even be built at same factory who knows

I want to go for lower pitch prop like 18*8 or even 18*6 but none was available and later on even try out a 3 bladed 16*8 to see which works best at 3D hover work and general low RPM low speed maneuvers close to the ground and more in your face style acro and also slowest down line descents from vertical so biggest draggiest props would interest me even if it four bladed as gobs of power to spare

I know I am asking a lot from a low budget motor like 2 stroke MVVS 160 glow but budget for fancy stuff like four stroke or or high end isn't there yet !!

so suppose I got to ask the boss for a raise !!


balsaeater

......



< Message edited by balsaeater -- 2/25/2008 9:16:26 AM >

(in reply to patzane)
       Post #: 52

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 2/25/2008 4:33:07 PM   
opjose



Posts: 5759
Joined: 11/26/2005
From: Poolesville, MD, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: balsaeater

When you say OS 160 is that 2 stroke or four stroke? glow or gasoline ?



Other than the twin, the only OS 1.60 in production is the 2 stroker.



_____________________________

-
Build em'', fly em'', crash em'' and build more.

(in reply to balsaeater)
       Post #: 53

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 2/27/2008 3:18:04 AM   
patzane


 

Posts: 588
Joined: 11/11/2005
From: Glendale, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		It a 2 stroke OS 160 swing a 18x6 APC prop. I did have to cut the side of the cowl for the motor head to stick out.


_____________________________

Don't go where the path leads
But go where there is no path

(in reply to opjose)
       Post #: 54

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 2/27/2008 9:28:06 PM   
balsaeater


 

Posts: 204
Joined: 5/20/2005
From: p, ANDORRA
Status: offline


Re:patzane

Thanks for info

I have on order a 18*6 to replace the 18*10 as even on tick over its doing 40 mph plus due to the deep pitch so the maiden flight landing was done with deliberate engine cut off and glide in and the field I often fly from has a small landing zone and tricky landing with slope

I mounted the engine upside down for the tuned pipe issues so I cut the bottom of the cowling and have a tuned pipe running down on side of the fuse which doesn't worry me as I am not a scale type person but there wasn't a sports plane that suited so I got this one
If one needed to with the MVVS 160 there is a muffler that sould allow a side mounting or if the tuned pipe manifold was bent and modified to suit the angle a tuned pipe under slung version should be possible with motor at semi side mount angle

Balsaeater


(in reply to patzane)
       Post #: 55

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 3/31/2008 10:39:43 PM   
balsaeater


 

Posts: 204
Joined: 5/20/2005
From: p, ANDORRA
Status: offline 		EEEEKKKKK tourque roll affects nearly got me close call

Spent most of the day flying the plane having fun acro and multiple landing takeoff touch and goes all the works to start sorting out all the gremlins with a 20MPH plus strong wind blowing onto the sloping club field peached on the side of the hill

Most take off's are down the runway well behaved no issues for thirty feet or less and then climb vertically often choosing to roll on the way up to 500 feet in seconds before leveling off and settling into other maneuvers

Acro manovers are usualy done 1/3 to 1/2 gas but can loop froma dive an less than 1/3 gas

Jaw dropping power with other club members commenting are you sure there is eneogh power to meet my needs ???


For landing the prop 18*10 is not so good as difficult to get the correct sink rates so often tends to be a sinky risy gentle undulating affair until touch down and hopefully next week changing to APC 18*6 will cure that with better RPM control affects

On one low level pass slash touch and go decided to do abort for practice two feet of the ground and decided to gun the gas while two feet up and then discovered the nasty torque roll affect which bites hard and dropped wing tip barely cleared scraping the deck but ended up in five feet doing a near 180 degree turn and pointing down wind climbing fast on full gas and wondering what happened to make such a handbrake turn event happen so fast

you cant beat power to extract the plane from a self induced mess

Hopefully the lesser pitch 18*6 APC will reduce the torque roll affect

Not a great fan of the Aluminum alloy U/C which splays out too easily in a half baked sink landing so for novice pilots will be better off with lighter motors and keeping weight down

I now use Brass bolts with notches cut so as to snap and that was tested and snapped according to plan when the motor quit on approach because I pushed the flight time too far and ran out of gas and landed short on rougher terrain

I will look for Suitable off the shelf replacement UC or if necessary make one with Epoxy Glass and Carbon as on windy days with the runway being on the side of a hill turbulence can make landing interesting rough especially if wind comes from the mountain side and creates down lift so landing tend to be hang on the prop and plop down

Later I will do a build thread for the Graupner Kit version but camera is broken presently

EDIT 6th April 2008
Severe crash but got lucky not too much damage
Flying in 25MPH wind did a low slow 30foot high pass for preparation for practice touch and go circuits opened the gas to climb to 500 feet to start circuit and motor started to sag and stupid kept into the turn hoping to compete the circuit and land and re tune motor but
motor continued to sag and now falling like a brick going fast downwind with only eneogh control to keep wings level so as to land flat and fast but a gorse bush caught the right wing when two feet of the deck and tore of lower right wing but did kill the fast landing speed so damage is the wing fix on system bolts and holders so a few hours work to repair
I am going to to fly without the engine cowling until I get at least 50 flights trouble free running so I can find this gremlin which I took to be idle jet too lean and thought i had cured it as last few flights were excellent tuning but it wasn't to be

Balsaeater




< Message edited by balsaeater -- 4/6/2008 8:06:09 AM >

(in reply to balsaeater)
       Post #: 56

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 4/14/2008 4:12:54 PM   
HUNTERANDJEFF


 

Posts: 556
Joined: 7/25/2007
From: E. Wenatchee, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Well guys, I finally maidened my Ultimate by Carl Goldberg (post 10). I just couldn''t believe how well it flew. Being my first biplane, It was different but I really liked it. I don''t really care for how it is rigged though - it takes forever to put it together at the field. The Pin that holds the top wing on is really hard to line up. I had 3 flights on it and Saturday was a really nice day, sunny 70 degrees and no wind. I took off and just felt comfortable that day. I was doing all kinds of stuff, loops axial rolls (axial rolls are very fast - even on low rates!). So, about 1/4 way through the flight I went verticle (it has a TTpro1.20) and backed off the throttle, nosed over and did a beautiful blender, leveled off, I heard a pop, then seen the center of the top wing bow up a bit, two more pops, the cabine struts were fluttering to the ground like confetti and the top wing just blew off!!! The plane beat it to the ground by at least 3 minutes. I almost had it and at about 80mph, it snapped in, spreading debris for over 30''. I just stood there watching the top wing spinning and floating to the ground. It literally went to a thousand peices. What happened is the center wire slid out and the two struts couldn''t hold the weight.
There was about 25 people there watching and it was dead silence. So I said, (to try to cheer myself up) At least I don''t have to land it now!!! Anyone got a garbage bag!!?? I couln''t believe how fast this plane was though. I thought biplanes were suppose to be slow!?
Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
Jeff

_____________________________

JeffThe only yard sales I go to is when I pick up my plane from all over the runway!!!!
Revver bro #191

(in reply to balsaeater)
       Post #: 57

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 4/14/2008 5:04:54 PM   
balsaeater


 

Posts: 204
Joined: 5/20/2005
From: p, ANDORRA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HUNTERANDJEFF

...edit ...

Ultimate by Carl Goldberg (post 10).
...edit ...

I don''''t really care for how it is rigged though - it takes forever to put it together at the field.

...edit ...

and did a beautiful blender, leveled off, I heard a pop, then seen the center of the top wing bow up a bit, two more pops, the cabine struts were fluttering to the ground like confetti and the top wing just blew off!!! The plane beat it to the ground by at least 3 minutes. I almost had it and at about 80mph, it snapped in, spreading debris for over 30''''.

...edit ...

Jeff


sorry to hear your bad maiden experience

I agree about the assembly on the field but I got a small car and need a compact plane for this car and for futur airliner travel so I put up with it and am also devising quick release solutions to speed things up

I suspected that the top center wing holding on solutions were not strong eneogh for my liking with the Graupner kit which is probably similar methods as the other make of Ultimate so I changed the system to my own solutions

I put a two thin 0.5 mm sheets of epoxy circuit board some two inch wide nearly the full length of the wing cord on top of the wing
( which for the scale guys looks bad if not painted correctly )
and had the 4 holding on bolts 3mm steel come out through the top wing with two bolts on mid front two bolts at the mid rearward section with heads of bolts on top of the wing ready to receive wing nuts for holding down the top wing

I have done severe manovers including fairly fast down lines to test the system and no sign of issues but my general theme is to fly slow to medium speeds on the level and down lines with only full fast for the uplines

Your motor a TT120 would if you put on a fast revving small prop at full tilt have the ability to reach not to exceed VNE speeds for that class of plane

My MVVS 160 has got on it the biggest prop possible to help reduce the risk of over speeding the air frame but the 10 inch pitch is a tad too deep so I have to ease back on the power a lot

I hope a 18*6 prop will reduce the risks of getting up too much speeds inthe level and down lines

If I put on a small fast revving prop like a 16*12 the risk to go too fast for the plane would be increased a lot

With these class of planes they will with over size engines using high speed props reach speeds that will break them up very easily

The trick is to use the extra large props for great handling and grunt tractor pulling abilities at half throttle and to know more than half gas at level or descending mode of flights risks overspeeding the planes


The Real Ultimates are actually very fast over 200MPH and no slow coach but they can slow down a lot to do slow acro as well and the pilots needeed to use the gas and not exceed the VNE speeds or design limits

I love blowing away the guys with my high speed climbing as that gob smacks them that my plane makes thier chug along get to 1000feet in ten minute weedeater engines look so so slow as I get to 1000feet in seconds maybe 10 seconds but coming down I have no gas input and use the big prop like a big airbrake as I want to arrive with all the wings still intact

If you can afford it get another Bi-Plane but don't be afraid to beef up anything your worried concerned about and go online and seek advise

The plane with my engine MVVS 160 engine can be made to fly real slow sub 20mph as it passes the runway gas at 1/5 th or less with less risk to be swatted down with down draughts as any drop in height I just pull a tad more up and apply a tad more gas and plough through the down draughts as if they dont exist not like a tepid 2 stroke 90 where the risk to be swatted down are higher as the smaller props cant grip the air so good

Later I will be prop hanging past the runway on the way to do 3D but I prefer to replace the 160MVVS with my new found expensive purchase 180 Saito

I have a graupner 1.8 meter CAP for the MVVS 160 to go into and the UlTIMATE biplane will get the Saito

Now I tested the facts with some 50 flights and the wings can stay on and the planes bugs are ironed out it seems that another engine that weight is the same some 950 grams which turn the same prop 18*6 at the similar speeds it seemed to me it offered the best solutions for me
It seems in my reasearch that all the 3d guys with the OS160FX 2 stroke motor need and all use a pump for that engine
If that is the case for that motor I supect its the same for the MVVS 160 and I wont cure the motor cut out incidents until I ether fit a pump or fit a motor that wont need a pump

I prefer for my Biplane to keep it simple stupid no pumps and went to buy a suitable Saito maybe 150 but the 150 these days is bored out to 180 and so I was even happier to get a more closely matched engine swop
Also I am anxious to keep noise levels low on the Biplane as I would use it most often visiting other clubs which sometimes sufffer more noise related issues so a big motor with big prop turning slowly on 1/4 gas will be fairly guite and quiter than the MVVS 160 although fairly guite at 1/4 gas but which unfortunately after half gas started to be a bit more growly than I expected

hope you come back and solve the wing losing problems HUNTERANDJEFF

balsaeater




< Message edited by balsaeater -- 4/14/2008 5:23:18 PM >

(in reply to HUNTERANDJEFF)
       Post #: 58

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 4/14/2008 5:18:00 PM   
HUNTERANDJEFF


 

Posts: 556
Joined: 7/25/2007
From: E. Wenatchee, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Oh, I may come back and solve them. The plane is a total loss, not rebuildable but I have another one identical to that one that needs rebuilding in the shop. I have 3 sets of wings for it. I may end up rebuilding that one for I really loved the performance of that plane with the Thunder tiger pro 120. I went to thunder tiger last year after being an os fan for over 20 years and never looked back. I just cannot believe how good they run and the power that they put out.
I was running a 14X8 master airscrew at the time of the crash and was going to change it out after complete break-in. The engine is fine but needs a good inspection and cleaning. When I pulled out of the blender I was not at full speed. I never pull out hard at speed - I broke a set of wings years ago and learned my lesson then. I did have two flights on it before this incident and on the last flight I was hanging it on the prop and harriering it around at slow speed alot. The wire pin just slid out. The next one will have the top wing bolted on.
Jeff

_____________________________

JeffThe only yard sales I go to is when I pick up my plane from all over the runway!!!!
Revver bro #191

(in reply to balsaeater)
       Post #: 59

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 4/14/2008 7:27:47 PM   
da Rock



Posts: 6640
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: western, NC, USA
Status: online 		The biplane was really fast? Most biplanes require a bunch of excess horsepower to bust through that end of the envelope.

Since that airplane is actually a 60 weight airplane that''s designed to use a 60-90, it''s not really got a design that has a strength safety margin. You''re asking it to handle basically twice the engine for the weight of it''s structure.

Blenders are supposed to be pretty hard on airframes. And oversized engines are hard on airframes for sure. And you proved both in just one flight. Next one you build, make sure to strengthen it everywhere extra horsepower can overpower the airframe. Because you''ve proven beyond doubt what it can''t handle. Or maybe just put a 90 on it. You won''t get the awesome speed, but a 90 on an 8lb airplane WILL show good vertical.

(in reply to HUNTERANDJEFF)
       Post #: 60

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 4/15/2008 12:24:36 AM   
HUNTERANDJEFF


 

Posts: 556
Joined: 7/25/2007
From: E. Wenatchee, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Da Rock, I did have the airframe totally beefed up - firewall, landing gear every joint in the entire airframe. what happened was the piece of wire that holds the center of the wing on to the cabine slid out. I forgot to put a rubber band on it to secure it. Stupid mistake on my part. The three flights that I had, I never had it at full throttle for very long - just long enough to know that it was about 90MPH straight and level. It would slow down to a very slow, stable crawl for the prettiest landings. This particular plane weighed in at 10.5 lbs and I was very surprised that in the balancing I didn''t need to add any weight to balance it anywhere. It had two servos for the elevator and two for the ailerons. On the directions in the kit it only calls for one for the elevator and 1 or 2 for the ailerons. that is why (with the larger engine too) it was just a bit heavier than stock.
I read alot of different forums on this plane before I built it for the engine and almost everyone that I read the pilots were starving for more power on this particular plane. So, I went with that TTpro 120two stroke - very strong and lightweight. If I do build another (I have one in the back room) I will put that same engine on it but atatch the top wing more securely and stronger with bolts instead of the cheezy wire.
Jeff

_____________________________

JeffThe only yard sales I go to is when I pick up my plane from all over the runway!!!!
Revver bro #191

(in reply to da Rock)
       Post #: 61

RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? - 4/17/2008 2:27:45 AM   
stangevil29


 

Posts: 146
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		Does anyone know why the red, white and black 60.5" Goldberg Ult. was discontinued? I dont think I have even seen it before. I noticed it on towers site. It looks(ed) pretty nice.
Stangevil29

(in reply to HUNTERANDJEFF)
&