Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RC Airplanes] >> ARF or RTF



Message

JDV500 -> Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (11/28/2007 4:47:02 PM)

good morning,

i'm shopping for an ultimate series arf biplane, seen the nitro 120 size plane but have heard that the build up and instructions are lacking in quality.

i'm looking for a decent arf that will take a .91 4-stroke to pull it, something around a 45" to 54" span. i really like the looks and size of the nitro plane, if anyone has faired well with it, pls let me know. or if there is a better arf out there that i should see, i'd greatly appreciate it..

lastly, been eyeing the "seagull" and the "goldberg" versions of the ultimate, both are at 54" spans and are in my price range and will take my .91 engine.
looking for feedback on these two models, if possible.

thanks in adv.



Foxy -> RE: good ultimate bip arf.?? (11/28/2007 4:51:27 PM)

Little bit bigger than you're looking for, but Great Planes do a good one. Should have those better manuals you seek.

http://www.greatplanes.com/performance/airplanes/gpma1307.html



RCKen -> RE: good ultimate bip arf.?? (11/28/2007 4:54:09 PM)

Discussing an Ultimate bipe such as this is a bit advanced for the Beginner's forum. I'm going to move this thread to the ARF's forum, which should be a more appropriate place for this discussion.

Ken



MinnFlyer -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (11/28/2007 7:22:48 PM)

Check out the one from The World Models



JDV500 -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (11/28/2007 8:23:53 PM)

founds tons of great referrals in the search section here,

thanks,



TexasSkyPilot -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/1/2007 4:20:58 PM)

JDV500,

I just bought this Seagull ARF Ultimate, it's a .90 - 1.20 size, I'll be powering it with a Saito 100. That sounds like it might be the size you're looking for. I've been looking it over and it really seems to be a nice ARF.

Here's a link to it, hope it works for you.

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=SEA5050&utm_source=rcu&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=rcu_mp&utm_content=seaultimate90

Jim



busted blade -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/1/2007 7:34:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mainer_Jim

JDV500,

I just bought this Seagull ARF Ultimate, it's a .90 - 1.20 size, I'll be powering it with a Saito 100. That sounds like it might be the size you're looking for. I've been looking it over and it really seems to be a nice ARF.

Here's a link to it, hope it works for you.

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=SEA5050&utm_source=rcu&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=rcu_mp&utm_content=seaultimate90

Jim

I have the Seagull ultimate also. Although the Saito 100 will probably fly it decently, I think you will be happier using a Saito 125. I have been powering it with the 125, It does fly really good but still seems to be a little short on power. Just my thoughts anyways.

Built up mine weighs right at 10lbs.

You are going to like it, Its a great flying aircraft and its very well built.



TexasSkyPilot -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/1/2007 9:43:20 PM)

Busted Blade, do you fly yours 3-D? This is exactly the same size and probably somewhat lighter than my Hog Bipe (9Lbs plus), which has for many years flown great with a Saito .91 four-stroke. Now by all accounts, the new Saito 100 is lighter than the .91 and it has more horsepower.

I'm absolutely not into 3-D, I'm an old fart who thinks that for the most part, people who want to hover should get a helicopter. The aerobatics I like are the old classics; tailslides, hammerheads, rolling circles, waterfalls, etc. Unlimited vertical isn't something I care about. I've had Saito 1.20's before and decided that I like the .91 sizes at the largest. The new 100 replaces them or I'd be strapping a .91 in there. The extra pound or so makes me think the 100 might be just right for this, though. For my type of flying, at least.
Jim



busted blade -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/1/2007 10:37:41 PM)

Jim,

No 3D flying out of me(My skills arent up to par for that)LOL, Just what I would call agressive sport flying. I will ocasionally hover it at the top of a vertical climb. But in a hover the 125 really doesnt have what it takes to pull out of it. Dont get me wrong the 125 is a powerhouse and flies this plane great. Seems to have more than enough power for most everything else though.

The 100 would definatly fly it(My guess is as good as the 125), but not sure about its "pull out of trouble" performance if you needed it.

The two engines mentioned will easily perform all the menuevers you described.

I try to fly the ultimate in a scale like manner, with a Realistic looking flight pattern. I get many comments on it when I take it to the field, mostly on how it looks in the air and how good the plane flies.

good luck with yours, they are a lot of fun to fly!!!



ram3500-RCU -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 3:31:19 AM)

I have the Goldberg Ultimate and relly like the way it flys. These pictures were before I installed the wheel pants. It looks better now.

It is 54"



HUNTERANDJEFF -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 6:02:53 AM)

I have been wanting to get an ultimate for a long time now. I stumbled across this guy at our club and told him that and he said that he had 2 of them for sale. I went to see them and they were both wrecked. I asked him how much and he said 100 dollars. I said each? He said no, 100 takes it all because I need to clean up my shop! So, I went home with two fuselages and 3 sets of wings. They are built from original Carl Goldberg kits. That was in September. I took the Roughest looking one and started pulling off the covering and the framework just fell apart (it was built with elmer's wood glue or something of that sort. I kept saying to myself, What have I gotten into????!!!!!! After hours of patience and massive rebuilding, It is together now and I couldn't be happier. The gear is Du-Bro and the new cowl and pants are from Stan's fiber tech.

Everyone that I have talked to says that they always want more power for their Ultimates. The best report that I've hear is using a YS 120s. I didn't have that kind of a budget so I went with a two stroke TT120pro. I ran it last night and all I can say is WOW!!!!! I will not be able to fly it untill February though because we will have snow untill then. So I will do the second one and Tinker with this one untill then.
Cheers!
Jeff



ram3500-RCU -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 7:32:52 AM)

Jeff. Great looking work. It sounds at first like a great deal, but not many would take on such a project, and I'm sure it took many hours of work, and not just a couple bucks. But it is very rewarding isn't it.

I flew mine the first season with a Saito 120, the second season (this past year) with a Saito 150, and just tonight completed the install of a Saito 180 in her for next season. This plane is only limited by ones pilotage skills and the amount of power under the cowl. It will not be lacking power next year, that is for sure. BTW, I too had to rebuilt the one in the pictures after a radio failure that resulted in some serious damage.



TexasSkyPilot -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 1:00:35 PM)

Does the Goldberg model come in an ARF? I always liked it but didn't feel like building it. I've been building for 30 years and after thieves backed a truck up to my ex's house where I was storing them and cleaned me out, I decided that I'm not building 30 more planes to restock my hangar. (No, the ex didn't do it, they robbed her badly too) So, since ARFs have advanced so far, I've decided to go with them. I'm making sure I research them first. I know the OLD Seagull Edge 540's were really bad, but generation 2 is beautiful stuff so I bought one, and I looked the Ultimate over at the hobby store before I bought it and it was just as nice.
Anyway, I've been the route of powering them up and up and up until they fly straight up from a standstill, I had Brison gassers in my other planes and you could do anything with them. My planes are sub-giants now and I drew the mental line at a Saito 100 for power. Granted, it might not do every sigle thing, but I predict I'm going to have a ball with them. Probably most important of all to me is the manageable size and the ability to store them hanging up tucked between ceiling joists! Any bigger and that just wouldn't work. Of course, having something left to retire with so I actually CAN fly then is an important issue for me too at this point, so keeping costs down always comes into it, which is tough to do when you're trying to restock a whole hangar. The smaller sizes make a difference there too.
Hunterandjeff, that's a really nice color theme, simple and eye-catching, is that stock or your design?
RAM-3500-RCU, if that's a photo taken after the crash, you can't even tell it was ever down. Nice work!
Jim



lrglnman -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 1:09:59 PM)

I too have the Seagull Ultimate powered with a Saito 125. I am like busted If i had it to do over I would go gas on this plane. But so far I like the plane. Got 4 flights on her yesterday for a total of 5 flights. real touchy start out on low rates until you get use to her . I also am no 3d pilot I like scale tricks. I am using an 16-6 apc and geting about 8900 rpm out of her and she is still getting broke in. I would not hesitate to go this route again. my next bipe is gonna be a skybolt.[:D]



busted blade -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 1:26:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mainer_Jim

Does the Goldberg model come in an ARF? I always liked it but didn't feel like building it.


It does come in a ARF version,

Link: http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXDJE1&P=0



BankYank -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 1:57:47 PM)

I have had a couple Goldburg Ultimate's. The engines i have flowen them with are OS91FS flew like a dog but it flew..OS91FX Flew it way better but still a little under powered. OS1.08FSR Flew it great for my style flying. Been wanting to get another sometime and try it with the OS1.20AX.
Now i ain't against overpowering a plane and do it my self alot,,But man i think a Saito 1.80 might just be to much and make it a little to heavy to have any kind of decent landing speed. Anyway Be sure to post the results as i have a 1.60FX doing nothing and there both about the same power[:D]
Pat



ram3500-RCU -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 3:51:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BankYank

I have had a couple Goldburg Ultimate's. The engines i have flowen them with are OS91FS flew like a dog but it flew..OS91FX Flew it way better but still a little under powered. OS1.08FSR Flew it great for my style flying. Been wanting to get another sometime and try it with the OS1.20AX.
Now i ain't against overpowering a plane and do it my self alot,,But man i think a Saito 1.80 might just be to much and make it a little to heavy to have any kind of decent landing speed. Anyway Be sure to post the results as i have a 1.60FX doing nothing and there both about the same power[:D]
Pat

Reason I went with the 180 was that I already was flying it with the 150 with no issues. The 180 bolts right in on the 150 holes, and even the throttle link connects right up. Exhaust is the same, and all the cowl holes are exactly the same. Weight is about the same. Landings were no problem with the 150, so I don't think It will be an issue with the 180. I flew the Cermark Pitts with a 180 for four seasons with great success. The Ultimate is a more capable airframe, I just need to watch the speed on the down lines, so I don't fly it out of it's wings.[:D]



BankYank -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 6:05:27 PM)

Man somehow you have got to post a video of it flying![8D]
Pat



HUNTERANDJEFF -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 6:19:44 PM)

Thank you for the kind words guys. Yes it was originally a kit and it was crashed - I thought beyond repair. The front and rear turtle decks were entirely replaced and the whole frame had to be re-glued. I didn't have the original plans with it but I downloaded the instructions and printed them from Tower Hobbies. About a dozen ribs along with alot of sheeting on the leading and trailing edges of the wings were replaced. The firewall was barely salvageable but the plate on the bottom of it was replaced too. Then it was covered. I have new cowl, wheelpants, canopy (the canopy is a seagull replacement and perfect fit), fuel tank landing gear, servos, battery, rx, hardware and engine. It would have been cheaper to buy an arf but an arf wouldn't be as strong and wouldn't have my signature on it. To get thos nice curvy lines for the patterns I use a large french curve that you can get at an art store. The graphics are all monocoat that is put on by windex or glass plus with NO heat - just let it dry.
It took me two weeks to figure out how I wanted it colored. I finally stumbled on a picture of a jet that had graphics about the same and did that with some splashes of my own. The bottom of the plane is entirely white with a few checkers and chrome strips. I want the plane to FLASH when I am doing manuvers.
Yes CG does have an ARF. It is expensive and personally I do not like the color scheme. It out flys almost all of the Ultimates in this size range though. To bad they don't sell it in a RTC format. That would be great.
I woke up to 7" of snow on the ground and my heart just sank. Oh, well, back to the drawing board!!!!



ram3500-RCU -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/2/2007 10:32:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BankYank

Man somehow you have got to post a video of it flying![8D]
Pat

It won't be till the weather gets nice again, but I will be sure to take some video to post. Knife edge loops should be nice and round now.[:D]



HUNTERANDJEFF -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/3/2007 5:40:22 PM)

Hey Ram, are you guys still flying out there in Ohio? We got 12" of snow yesterday, and then It started pouring rain all night and I woke up to a big mess outside. What a freak storm. We usually don't get that much snow here and I am really bummed now. I WANNA FLY!!!! Did you hook up your elevators to one servo or two? I hooked up each elevator half to it's own servo and I regret doing it. I have a 7 cap and it doesn't have that capability so I had to use a Y with a reverser to make it work. One half moves farther than the other at full throw. If I ajust my E point, then it is ok but I only have an inch of throw now. Anything beyond that I have problems. What do you think short of getting a 9cap?
JEFF



ram3500-RCU -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/3/2007 10:13:36 PM)

Well, I rigged mine on one servo with a split push rod (would solve your radio limitations). Works great, is totally symmetrical, and I got a little weight off. It is on an HS 645MG, so it has plenty of torque. One inch is plenty on low rates, but I have about 1 3/4 on high rates for extreme aerobatics. The rudder is pull pull.

My plane is overpowered (a tad[:)]), so I have two 8411s on the ailerons, with custom aluminum push rods to the top ailerons. I had some flutter problems with lesser servos and the stock push rods early on.

Cold, sleet, snow, wind over here.[&o] I am flying the sim, and will be for some time, it looks.



Ed Cregger -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/4/2007 1:20:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JDV500

good morning,

i'm shopping for an ultimate series arf biplane, seen the nitro 120 size plane but have heard that the build up and instructions are lacking in quality.

i'm looking for a decent arf that will take a .91 4-stroke to pull it, something around a 45" to 54" span. i really like the looks and size of the nitro plane, if anyone has faired well with it, pls let me know. or if there is a better arf out there that i should see, i'd greatly appreciate it..

lastly, been eyeing the "seagull" and the "goldberg" versions of the ultimate, both are at 54" spans and are in my price range and will take my .91 engine.
looking for feedback on these two models, if possible.

thanks in adv.



-------------------


The Goldberg ARF Ultimate Bipe will fly very scale-like with an average .91 four-stroke. That means it will easily perform loops, rolls, inverted flight, snaprolls, stall turns, spins, etc. It will NOT hover at all, nor will it have infinite vertical climbing capability. Neither will the full size Ultimate Biplane. <G>

I have a Global 40 sized Ultimate Biplane ARF. The instructions suggest using a Magnum .91 four-stroke because the extra weight will be needed to have it balance correctly. Why carry dead weight? This one might hover with a .91 four-stroke engine...<G>


Ed Cregger



HUNTERANDJEFF -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/4/2007 2:37:19 AM)

Hey, Ram, I totally agree with you. I wish that I would have done the same thing. That is the way it was done originally. I was talking to a few folks that really know what they are doing on this plane and all of them said to use dual servos on the elevators for redunancy. I really regret it now. I put my servos in the plane permanently because I didn't want them to show. I hate to see servos outside of the airframe - it just looks cheap and ugly. Now I wish that I didn't do that. I just bought a really nice 3D plane from someone that is getting out of the hobby and it came with a Futaba 9cap that has the capability to do what I need so that is what I will do. I have plenty of time cause it is winter and the snow is DEEP, WET AND COLD!!!!! ps. The aileron conection wires are temporary - just to get it finished. I will have carbon rods or aluminum in their place when it gets it's maiden.
Ed, Everyone that I have talked to about ultimates were very disapointed if they underpowered their plane. That is why I chose the motor that I have (TT120pro two stroke). I really didn't care about the sound with this plane so a two stroke was just fine with me.



ram3500-RCU -> RE: Ultimate biplane, mid-sized arf.? (12/4/2007 3:12:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HUNTERANDJEFF

Hey, Ram, I totally agree with you. I wish that I would have done the same thing. That is the way it was done originally. I was talking to a few folks that really know what they are doing on this plane and all of them said to use dual servos on the elevators for redunancy. I really regret it now. I put my servos in the plane permanently because I didn't want them to show. I hate to see servos outside of the airframe - it just looks cheap and ugly. Now I wish that I didn't do that. I just bought a really nice 3D plane from someone that is getting out of the hobby and it came with a Futaba 9cap that has the capability to do what I need so that is what I will do. I have plenty of time cause it is winter and the snow is DEEP, WET AND COLD!!!!! ps. The aileron conection wires are temporary - just to get it finished. I will have carbon rods or aluminum in their place when it gets it's maiden.
Ed, Everyone that I have talked to about ultimates were very disapointed if they underpowered their plane. That is why I chose the motor that I have (TT120pro two stroke). I really didn't care about the sound with this plane so a two stroke was just fine with me.

Sounds like you will be good to go with your new radio. IMO, Redundancy isn't an issue in this size. With todays servos (good motors and gear trains with over 100 oz with many affordable servos now), one servo offers reliable service for a whole season and more, in a smaller plane like this. I like your thinking on internal controls. Also, you only need watch Sean Tucker fly his bipe to get another aspect of 'scale' flying. I saw him again this summer. He does many '3D' type maneuvers with his full scale plane, including hanging it on the prop and 'harrier' type flying. I want my bipes that are capable of this type flight, to have the power to do it. And that is what it takes, horsepower, and lots of it. A Liberty Sport, Stearman, Waco, Stagerwing, EAA bipe, and the like, will always be powered and flown altogether different by me, than my Ultimate types.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>  

Valid CSS!




SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.
0.671875