"AK-Models Tango 50"
05-09-2005, 09:10 AM
#1
"AK-Models Tango 50"
The Tango 50 ARF Models is not only an aerobatics (F3A) plane, but also a pattern (F3D) and its also a Profile plane. Is anyone flying the Tango 50 that could give me some info on the quality of the kit and the performance?
http://ak-models.com/tango50.htm
http://ak-models.com/tango50.htm
05-09-2005, 07:37 PM
#4
Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hill Top, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: "AK-Models Tango 50"
The only reference to the Tango 50 I have seen is over on the Pr*Br* site. I don't think I can link direct - for various reasons - so here are some quotes from him...
Today I test-flew a new model complete with TigerShark 56 engine.
It was a profile design called a Tango 50 (I've seen no other references to this plane anywhere on the Net) and it's labeled as an 3A/3D ship.
Quite honestly, this ARF was cr*p from start to finish.
The only reason I persevered and completed it was because I wanted a test-bed for the TS engine and this was the quickest path between start and finish.
Half the hardware missing (a clunk tank with no tubing, clunk or stopper, an excess of some bolts, a lack of others, bits that seem to bear absolutely no relevance to tbe model being assembled and screws that were just too short for the job.
Despite all that, and the fact that I had to rebuild the ailerons because they were warped beyond belief (3/4" twist!), I finally got it finished today and was still unhappy.
The tail feathers felt *awfully* weak and the balsa was clearly too light for the job -- but I figured I'd just keep the flying speed low and cross my fingers.
After putting a tank-full of fuel through the engine at a rich setting (it's ringed) I decided to give the bird a fly.
The TS56 was still way too rich in the mid-range to transition well and, as I expected, the first flight lasted only 30 seconds before the engine cut -- no problems with the deadstick landing though and I ran another tank of juice through the engine before attempting another flight.
This time the transition was markedly improved and I could safely play with the throttle in the mid/low range without problems.
However, as I turned and flew parallel to the strip (at about 1/3 throttle), I noticed the tailplane of this bird was fluttering violently.
I cut the throttle and glided in for a smooth landing (the engine was still ticking over nicely). I was even able to taxi back to the pits.
Although everything *looked* okay, I spoted some creases in the film on the tailplane and on closer inspection it became apparent that the balsa had broken in at least four places. The elevators and covering were all that were holding the horizontal stab together and it was just lucky that I'd spotted the flutter and cut the throttle immediately or I'd probably have been diging that new motor out of the tarmac.
I'm going to completely rebuild the tailplane and sheet it with 1/16" sheet (I"ll leave the elevators just covered in film). I may even use a spruce mainspar through the tailplane .
I know all the usual tips for reducing flutter (no control slop, sealed hinges, maximum rigidity -- but any other suggestions would be appreciated.
And, for the record, this plane was flying at about 1/3rd the speed my Katana has been seen to skoot along at with no sign of flutter.
And full marks to the Hitec HS475 servo on elevators that stood up to the punishment without losing a tooth.
Yep, it's a total knock-off of that ship (Primus 50) -- except the balsa is *way* too soft and it looks like it was built on a rollercoaster track.
The knock-off ARF cost NZ$99 (US$69) so, even though it's a cr*ppy copy with bits missing and you have to rebuild some of it, it's not bad value really.
I should have the tailplane rebuilt by next weekend so I'll wring it (and the engine and probably the new Sombra Shadow receiver) out then and report back.
The clevises they provided were cr*p -- all plastic. I replaced them with a Dubro clevis with the metal pin and sliding locking clip. The linkage is set up as on all my 3D stuff -- as far out as possible on both the servo arm and control horn -- this means minimum slop (it's rock-solid with no detectable slop).
I forget what prop was on when I took that picture -- It was the one I used for the first ground-run and recommended in the engine instructions -- a bit small/coarse for 3D stuff. I usually fly with a 12x4 or 12.25x3.75.
The new tailplane should be finished this weekend so I'll fly her again then.
It's been pretty hard to tell how the Tango 50 flies with that TS56 anchor bolted to the front of it. The transition is still so bad that it's impossible to hold hover very low (the cr*ppy transition means it's not uncommon to tailslide 10-15 feet while it clears its throat before spooling up).
Other 3D manuvers are also very difficult (if not impossible) due to the 4-8 seconds of coughing and spluttering that accompany any transition through 1/2-3/4 throttle.
Once I throw a TT46Pro in the front I'll have a better idea of its capabilities but so far I'd note that:
1. The joiner between the elevator halves is *way* too soft. It's a metal joiner but it's obvious that when you use 3D rates and haul on lots of elevator at speed there's a lot of twisting going on because instead of doing a wall it does a roll. This behavior doesn't seem to be a tip-stall -- it's just that the elevator half directly connected to the servo moves a *lot* more than the one that's on the other side of the joiner. I'm not sure what the best solution to this would be -- even if you use a thicker/stiffer joiner there's still quite a bit of flex going on in the elevators themselves.
2. Despite engine problems it really does "groove" so much better than your average profile. I suspect the long tail moment has a lot to do with this.
3. Now that I've rebuilt the tailplane (fixed portion) with one made with the strategic use of spruce and carbon it shows no sign of the flutter that killed the original. Although I'm only running a 12x4 prop, if you're not careful with the throttle it can scoot along at a fair pace (there's no doubt that the TS56 is powerful -- just a shame about the transition).
4. It's bl**dy hard to unstick from the tarmac. The tail design means that there's a lot of stuff below the centerline at back and this, combined with a short undercarriage and small wheels, means that the wing has virtually no angle of attack when it's on the ground. Flapperons would fix this but I prefer to fly "naked" without any kind of fancy mixing so I simply try to hit a bump or two on take-off Landings are similarly affected by the AOA problem insomuch as you'll find yourself wearing all the film off the back of the rudder because it *will* touch down first and drag, no matter how little you try to flare. Bigger wheels or longer maingear would fix this.
5. The covering on mine was *awful*. Cr*ppy Chinacover, you know -- the stuff with a kind of mesh texture on the back. It isn't shrunk very well (wrinkle-city) and the trim just blows off in the wind. I've given up worrying about funny noises now -- it's inevitably just another bit of trim buzzing in the slipstream as it inexorably peels back before falling off completely.
However, for $US70 (the price the cost here) it's still not bad value. I don't think you can buy enough balsa, hardware and covering film to build a plane from scratch for that price.
I should have the TT46Pro installed this weekend so I'll try to post some video if the weather's half good.
I threw the TT46Pro in the Tango today but it was way too windy to do any flying.
I also took out the 5-cell 700mAH battery that I'd been using because I'm not at all happy with its capacity after the close call I had (when it went flat as I was taxiing back to the pits.
In its place I stuck a 1650 mAH 5-cell pack but that raises just one other problem in respect to the Tango 50 -- space.
This is a profile so the only place to put your gear is in the wing -- but the wing is thin-sectioned and there's a full depth spar running down the whole length of the wing so every thing has to go between that spar and the trailing edge.
Only one side of the wing has a hatch and there was just no way that I was going to fit the new battery *and* the tiny Sombra Shadow receiver in that confined space.
I ended up having to cut a new hole on the other wing in order to slide the battery in but -- wouldn't you know it - that wing side has some extra spars that run right through where the hatch goes.
Anyway, after a lot of fluffing around I finally got the new battery in.
The other thing I noticed is that the TS56 is 2 oz heavier than the TT46Pro and that brings the CG quite a way backwards -- possibly too far in fact.
I'll try it out with this rearward CG (could be a short but interesting flight) and if it's too far back (and survives) I'll have to add some nose-weight because there's just no where to move the gear and the battery can't be placed ahead of the mainspar because there's no access.
Hmmm.. maybe I ought to throw that ST90 or TT91FS in this bird (just kidding)
Well I snuck out this afternoon and flew the Tango 50 with the TT46 in it.
Man, I love those TT engines!
None of the bone-shaking vibration that the TS56 produced, it uses *half* the fuel and, even though it's only got three flights on it, the TT honestly seems to have more power than the TS it has replaced.
I just fueled up the TT, threw the starter at it and away it went. A minute or two of ground-running (mainly to set the needles -- low-speed needed to be opened 1/8 turn to give *perfect* transition) and away she went!
Despite my concerns that the CG might be too far back, it flew fine -- just a click or two of aileron trim and a bit of down.
Right now I should say that the Tango has to be one of the easiest hovering planes you can get. I suspect the long tail contributes significantly to this. It's ridiculously simple to pop it up on its tail and hold it there. It also torque rolls beautifully -- I was getting several revolutions without having to touch the controls -- woo hoo (made me look almost good!)
It also tailslides like it's on rails. After several attempts I actually got it to drop tail-first for about 20 feet (with the engine cut right back tidle) before the nose snapped around -- that looks *really* cool.
It pulls towards the canopy in knife-edge but requires very little work on the sticks to do the slowest rolls you can imagine.
That long tail definitely works against you when you try things that need a snot load of quick rudder -- like pinwheels. The closest I could get was a kind of knife-edge loop
Spins are kind of interesting -- all that side area makes it a breeze to do knife-edge spins -- it looks as if someones shoved a rod right through the length of the wing and it's standing on a wing-tip spinning around it.
Harriers weren't at all impressive -- it's wobble-city - although it never goes right over (unlike my KatP) unless you really goof up on the sticks.
That soft/flexi elevator joiner really screws up anything that requires the sudden application of lots of elevator. Parachutes and walls have to be done with great care -- *easing* on the elevator rather than just hauling back on the stick.
At 4lbs-10oz, I think this bird could benefit from a grunty 4-stroke. The TT46 does haul it around with authority (more so than the TS56) but it's still a little lazy pulling out of a hover. Throw a Saito 82 or YS63 in it and I'm pretty sure it would be a whole lot more fun.
Perhaps the coolest thing about this ship is that (when nobody's looking) you can do hi-speed beatups of the runway. It grooves so well that you feel quite comfortable doing inverted full-power passes at a foot or so above the deck.
I don't think it's become my favourite plane after the engine-transplant but it is fun to fly and makes a nice change from the somewhat more twitchy Katana.
For NZ$99/US$75 it's not a bad buy -- especially if you use a decent engine.
Today I test-flew a new model complete with TigerShark 56 engine.
It was a profile design called a Tango 50 (I've seen no other references to this plane anywhere on the Net) and it's labeled as an 3A/3D ship.
Quite honestly, this ARF was cr*p from start to finish.
The only reason I persevered and completed it was because I wanted a test-bed for the TS engine and this was the quickest path between start and finish.
Half the hardware missing (a clunk tank with no tubing, clunk or stopper, an excess of some bolts, a lack of others, bits that seem to bear absolutely no relevance to tbe model being assembled and screws that were just too short for the job.
Despite all that, and the fact that I had to rebuild the ailerons because they were warped beyond belief (3/4" twist!), I finally got it finished today and was still unhappy.
The tail feathers felt *awfully* weak and the balsa was clearly too light for the job -- but I figured I'd just keep the flying speed low and cross my fingers.
After putting a tank-full of fuel through the engine at a rich setting (it's ringed) I decided to give the bird a fly.
The TS56 was still way too rich in the mid-range to transition well and, as I expected, the first flight lasted only 30 seconds before the engine cut -- no problems with the deadstick landing though and I ran another tank of juice through the engine before attempting another flight.
This time the transition was markedly improved and I could safely play with the throttle in the mid/low range without problems.
However, as I turned and flew parallel to the strip (at about 1/3 throttle), I noticed the tailplane of this bird was fluttering violently.
I cut the throttle and glided in for a smooth landing (the engine was still ticking over nicely). I was even able to taxi back to the pits.
Although everything *looked* okay, I spoted some creases in the film on the tailplane and on closer inspection it became apparent that the balsa had broken in at least four places. The elevators and covering were all that were holding the horizontal stab together and it was just lucky that I'd spotted the flutter and cut the throttle immediately or I'd probably have been diging that new motor out of the tarmac.
I'm going to completely rebuild the tailplane and sheet it with 1/16" sheet (I"ll leave the elevators just covered in film). I may even use a spruce mainspar through the tailplane .
I know all the usual tips for reducing flutter (no control slop, sealed hinges, maximum rigidity -- but any other suggestions would be appreciated.
And, for the record, this plane was flying at about 1/3rd the speed my Katana has been seen to skoot along at with no sign of flutter.
And full marks to the Hitec HS475 servo on elevators that stood up to the punishment without losing a tooth.
Yep, it's a total knock-off of that ship (Primus 50) -- except the balsa is *way* too soft and it looks like it was built on a rollercoaster track.
The knock-off ARF cost NZ$99 (US$69) so, even though it's a cr*ppy copy with bits missing and you have to rebuild some of it, it's not bad value really.
I should have the tailplane rebuilt by next weekend so I'll wring it (and the engine and probably the new Sombra Shadow receiver) out then and report back.
The clevises they provided were cr*p -- all plastic. I replaced them with a Dubro clevis with the metal pin and sliding locking clip. The linkage is set up as on all my 3D stuff -- as far out as possible on both the servo arm and control horn -- this means minimum slop (it's rock-solid with no detectable slop).
I forget what prop was on when I took that picture -- It was the one I used for the first ground-run and recommended in the engine instructions -- a bit small/coarse for 3D stuff. I usually fly with a 12x4 or 12.25x3.75.
The new tailplane should be finished this weekend so I'll fly her again then.
It's been pretty hard to tell how the Tango 50 flies with that TS56 anchor bolted to the front of it. The transition is still so bad that it's impossible to hold hover very low (the cr*ppy transition means it's not uncommon to tailslide 10-15 feet while it clears its throat before spooling up).
Other 3D manuvers are also very difficult (if not impossible) due to the 4-8 seconds of coughing and spluttering that accompany any transition through 1/2-3/4 throttle.
Once I throw a TT46Pro in the front I'll have a better idea of its capabilities but so far I'd note that:
1. The joiner between the elevator halves is *way* too soft. It's a metal joiner but it's obvious that when you use 3D rates and haul on lots of elevator at speed there's a lot of twisting going on because instead of doing a wall it does a roll. This behavior doesn't seem to be a tip-stall -- it's just that the elevator half directly connected to the servo moves a *lot* more than the one that's on the other side of the joiner. I'm not sure what the best solution to this would be -- even if you use a thicker/stiffer joiner there's still quite a bit of flex going on in the elevators themselves.
2. Despite engine problems it really does "groove" so much better than your average profile. I suspect the long tail moment has a lot to do with this.
3. Now that I've rebuilt the tailplane (fixed portion) with one made with the strategic use of spruce and carbon it shows no sign of the flutter that killed the original. Although I'm only running a 12x4 prop, if you're not careful with the throttle it can scoot along at a fair pace (there's no doubt that the TS56 is powerful -- just a shame about the transition).
4. It's bl**dy hard to unstick from the tarmac. The tail design means that there's a lot of stuff below the centerline at back and this, combined with a short undercarriage and small wheels, means that the wing has virtually no angle of attack when it's on the ground. Flapperons would fix this but I prefer to fly "naked" without any kind of fancy mixing so I simply try to hit a bump or two on take-off Landings are similarly affected by the AOA problem insomuch as you'll find yourself wearing all the film off the back of the rudder because it *will* touch down first and drag, no matter how little you try to flare. Bigger wheels or longer maingear would fix this.
5. The covering on mine was *awful*. Cr*ppy Chinacover, you know -- the stuff with a kind of mesh texture on the back. It isn't shrunk very well (wrinkle-city) and the trim just blows off in the wind. I've given up worrying about funny noises now -- it's inevitably just another bit of trim buzzing in the slipstream as it inexorably peels back before falling off completely.
However, for $US70 (the price the cost here) it's still not bad value. I don't think you can buy enough balsa, hardware and covering film to build a plane from scratch for that price.
I should have the TT46Pro installed this weekend so I'll try to post some video if the weather's half good.
I threw the TT46Pro in the Tango today but it was way too windy to do any flying.
I also took out the 5-cell 700mAH battery that I'd been using because I'm not at all happy with its capacity after the close call I had (when it went flat as I was taxiing back to the pits.
In its place I stuck a 1650 mAH 5-cell pack but that raises just one other problem in respect to the Tango 50 -- space.
This is a profile so the only place to put your gear is in the wing -- but the wing is thin-sectioned and there's a full depth spar running down the whole length of the wing so every thing has to go between that spar and the trailing edge.
Only one side of the wing has a hatch and there was just no way that I was going to fit the new battery *and* the tiny Sombra Shadow receiver in that confined space.
I ended up having to cut a new hole on the other wing in order to slide the battery in but -- wouldn't you know it - that wing side has some extra spars that run right through where the hatch goes.
Anyway, after a lot of fluffing around I finally got the new battery in.
The other thing I noticed is that the TS56 is 2 oz heavier than the TT46Pro and that brings the CG quite a way backwards -- possibly too far in fact.
I'll try it out with this rearward CG (could be a short but interesting flight) and if it's too far back (and survives) I'll have to add some nose-weight because there's just no where to move the gear and the battery can't be placed ahead of the mainspar because there's no access.
Hmmm.. maybe I ought to throw that ST90 or TT91FS in this bird (just kidding)
Well I snuck out this afternoon and flew the Tango 50 with the TT46 in it.
Man, I love those TT engines!
None of the bone-shaking vibration that the TS56 produced, it uses *half* the fuel and, even though it's only got three flights on it, the TT honestly seems to have more power than the TS it has replaced.
I just fueled up the TT, threw the starter at it and away it went. A minute or two of ground-running (mainly to set the needles -- low-speed needed to be opened 1/8 turn to give *perfect* transition) and away she went!
Despite my concerns that the CG might be too far back, it flew fine -- just a click or two of aileron trim and a bit of down.
Right now I should say that the Tango has to be one of the easiest hovering planes you can get. I suspect the long tail contributes significantly to this. It's ridiculously simple to pop it up on its tail and hold it there. It also torque rolls beautifully -- I was getting several revolutions without having to touch the controls -- woo hoo (made me look almost good!)
It also tailslides like it's on rails. After several attempts I actually got it to drop tail-first for about 20 feet (with the engine cut right back tidle) before the nose snapped around -- that looks *really* cool.
It pulls towards the canopy in knife-edge but requires very little work on the sticks to do the slowest rolls you can imagine.
That long tail definitely works against you when you try things that need a snot load of quick rudder -- like pinwheels. The closest I could get was a kind of knife-edge loop
Spins are kind of interesting -- all that side area makes it a breeze to do knife-edge spins -- it looks as if someones shoved a rod right through the length of the wing and it's standing on a wing-tip spinning around it.
Harriers weren't at all impressive -- it's wobble-city - although it never goes right over (unlike my KatP) unless you really goof up on the sticks.
That soft/flexi elevator joiner really screws up anything that requires the sudden application of lots of elevator. Parachutes and walls have to be done with great care -- *easing* on the elevator rather than just hauling back on the stick.
At 4lbs-10oz, I think this bird could benefit from a grunty 4-stroke. The TT46 does haul it around with authority (more so than the TS56) but it's still a little lazy pulling out of a hover. Throw a Saito 82 or YS63 in it and I'm pretty sure it would be a whole lot more fun.
Perhaps the coolest thing about this ship is that (when nobody's looking) you can do hi-speed beatups of the runway. It grooves so well that you feel quite comfortable doing inverted full-power passes at a foot or so above the deck.
I don't think it's become my favourite plane after the engine-transplant but it is fun to fly and makes a nice change from the somewhat more twitchy Katana.
For NZ$99/US$75 it's not a bad buy -- especially if you use a decent engine.
]
05-11-2005, 08:24 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SantiagoReg Metropolitana, Providencia, CHILE
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: "AK-Models Tango 50"
it`s a Exact copy of the profile primus from hokusei model (Jp?), I can´t tell aout the quality of the kit but the original one really flys awesome, I mean it!, and I have seen almos every video on the net 
http://www.hokusei-japan.com/
I got nothin with the company, but I just think that it is unfair to COPY a great model and worse it
http://www.hokusei-japan.com/
I got nothin with the company, but I just think that it is unfair to COPY a great model and worse it
05-12-2005, 03:45 AM
#7
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tokoroa, , NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 3,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: "AK-Models Tango 50"
I was the one who wrote that review quoted here and I've got some more info to add.
Another member of our club got his Tango 50 going a couple of weeks ago. His tailplane seemed a lot more rigid than the original one that was on mine *but* after about a dozen flights, it snaped clean off when pulling a hi-G manuver (not at any speed either).
The result was a crash that broke the fuselage behind the wing.
The wood in his tailplane was harder and better-glued than that in mine -- but it still broke.
He's fixed it up and, like me, built a new sheeted tailplane using spruce spars instead of balsa.
If anyone buys one of these ARFs, toss that tailplane in the trash and build a new one *before* it ruins your day.
Right now I'm waiting for my Saito 82 to arrive and when it does, I'll replace the TT46pro and let you know (on the ProBro site) just how it flies with a 4-stroke.
Edit: My gawd, I can't believe how puerile the operators of RCU are -- they have programmed this system to blank out the word "P.r.o.b.r.o.s" . Unbelievable!
Another member of our club got his Tango 50 going a couple of weeks ago. His tailplane seemed a lot more rigid than the original one that was on mine *but* after about a dozen flights, it snaped clean off when pulling a hi-G manuver (not at any speed either).
The result was a crash that broke the fuselage behind the wing.
The wood in his tailplane was harder and better-glued than that in mine -- but it still broke.
He's fixed it up and, like me, built a new sheeted tailplane using spruce spars instead of balsa.
If anyone buys one of these ARFs, toss that tailplane in the trash and build a new one *before* it ruins your day.
Right now I'm waiting for my Saito 82 to arrive and when it does, I'll replace the TT46pro and let you know (on the ProBro site) just how it flies with a 4-stroke.
Edit: My gawd, I can't believe how puerile the operators of RCU are -- they have programmed this system to blank out the word "P.r.o.b.r.o.s" . Unbelievable!
05-12-2005, 04:02 AM
#8
Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hill Top, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: "AK-Models Tango 50"
Xjet,
Apologies, I should have given you credit for your comments & experiences I quoted... but just in case anybody got a little uptight about it, I thought I'd leave it anonymous
Cheers,
Dragon.
Apologies, I should have given you credit for your comments & experiences I quoted... but just in case anybody got a little uptight about it, I thought I'd leave it anonymous
Cheers,
Dragon.
05-12-2005, 05:27 PM
#10
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tokoroa, , NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 3,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: "AK-Models Tango 50"
The weak area is the fixed portion of the tailplane -- it breaks right next to where it joins the fuselage. I suspect it's simply bad structural design, improper material selection and the huge amount of force that those large elevators impose -- especially with the use of aerodynamic counterbalances on the ends.
