planefreak123

My Feedback: (5)

What do you guys think? I am not interested in competition, I just want a ARF sailplane, that is relaxing to fly, and will stay up forever.
I considered the BOT, but that got ruled out due to the size. If you guys have any other suggetions, please do tell. I would like to keep it under $140 though.

Silvaire

My Feedback: (50)

I don't know the specifics of the ARF version, but you can't go wrong with a Gentle Lady as a first glider.

They are "relaxing to fly" and "will stay up forever", and a GL will probably teach you more than any other traditional entry level glider.

foodstick

I built both from kits, learned to fly on the gentle lady, and love the looks of the Sophisticated lady.

Initially My Soph. lady didn't fly as well do to a incidence issue, but eventually they flew fairly equal.

the one thing I would mention though is the T tail of the Soph. Lady is much easier to break at home, in the car, at the field... Its nice to have a special foam block or something to keep it from falling over and breaking the tail.

In the end I always wished I had the Soph. Lady fuse with a normal tail setup.

scaflock

Gentle lady for sure.  The Sophie has a problem with the fuselage breaking right in front of the vertical stab on harder landings.  It's not just the Sophie though as this is a problem with just about all "T" tails.  Having the weight of the horizontal stad up like that is the main cause.  When ever I build a "T" tail design, I reinforce the fuselage in that area with carbon.

planefreak123

My Feedback: (5)

Ok, thanks guys! I am starting to lean in favor of the GL.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Sophisticated Lady Review (I really like it and kept it btw)
http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...rticle_id=1369

Gentle Lady Review
http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...rticle_id=1359

planefreak123

My Feedback: (5)

another question. How long will it fly with a 600Mah NiMH battery?

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

With 2 micro servos?

A long dang time

planefreak123

My Feedback: (5)

Actually it would be two standard servos.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

LOL you got me! I'm so used to using micros in gliders but you're correct, had I used micros in the Sophie, it would have required even more lead up front.

Even still, the load is extremely low, and you're not doing 3D where the servos are constantly moving (the less you twiddle the sticks with a glider the better job you're doing of flying it!) so the draw would be extremely small. When doing the review we happened upon a day with excellent lift and even with 3 of us flying 30 plus minute flights each, I didn't put more than 30 percent of the battery back in the next time I took it out and that accounts for 2 weeks of sitting in the shop.

BMatthews

With only two servos it'll fly for literally hours before you need to worry about the air borne pack running low. It doesn't really matter if the servos are regular size or minis. For the most part they'll use the power needed to move the surfaces... which is very little at the speeds the GL or SL flies at.

The SL is a pretty model, no doubt about that. But the fin is notoriously poorly designed. A proper fin integrated into the tail of the fuselage with an airfoil to allow for using proper spars to support the stabilizer would instantly turn the SL into a durable winner... or at least she would be as durable as the rest of the model. As it comes with the kit it's far too easy to snap the fin off. There's just no proper carry through and the fin's airfoil is far too thin for decent strength.

sylvie369

Is it worth using smaller servos instead of standard ones?Will the weight reduction offset any, um, weakening of the controls?

(I'm talking about on a sailplane like the GL, or in my case, the Sig Riser, which I think is very similar)

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

If your choices are standard servos or lead, it really doesn't matter.

scaflock

Actually you should always strive to keep all weight in a sailplane as "useable weight".  The less lead the better.  However...  If you add a ballast system at the center of gravity, you can add more weight which will allow you to fly in higher winds.  The floaters have a tendency to "dance" and become uncontrollable as the wind speed increases.  The ballast causes the wingloading to increase there by making the wing use the excess energy instead of wasting it.  A simple threaded rod and wing-nut mounted at the CG will secure it and keep everything secure.  Cast up lead plates to size in several different weights (1,2,4, and 6 Oz) so you can adjust the amount of ballast for what you need at the time.  I've used this system for years and am glad I learned about it.

papermache

My Feedback: (35)

Use the standard servos. Both were designed to use them. You'll only have to use more nose weight to balance it if you use smaller servos.
I've had my GL in the air for 4 hours plus on a 600Mah battery (slope lift). No sign of the battery even starting to wear down.
My original GL is 18 years old and still going strong. I've never built a Sophie.

papermache

sylvie369

Okay, thanks. I get it.

All this talk makes me want to build a Gentle Lady. It'll make a great winter project, except of course for the agony of not being able to fly it right away.

planefreak123

My Feedback: (5)

Another question, would there be any reason not to use a 1600 5c 6v hump RX pack? I was shopping around and those are cheaper than anything else.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

As long as it fits its always better to carry useful weight than lead.

BMatthews

1600's implies to me that the pack is likely made from AA cells. The nose of the GL is sized to accept a 4xAA in a square formation right up front. So if I'm right about the hump pack then it won't fit.

foodstick

You know, everyone keeps mentioning the lead, If I was to build any glider kit that needs lead in the nose, I would use the old trick of extending the nose, make the radio battery area longer..more room.. weight is moved forward, need less if any lead. 2-3 inches would make a big difference.

BoiseBee

My Feedback: (3)

I have the S.L. kit. Trying to decide how to add power (electric). I can add a pylon with prop electric or a EDF. I am new to ep (Radian got me interested). I can fix the fin problem mentioned earlier when I build the kit. What I would like to know is how a EDF would work - not work, in regard to battery power (weight) required. Is the EDF less efficient than the prop equivalent? Am I missing something obvious (like this is a crazy idea)?

Thanks,
Steve

BMatthews

Foodstik, lengthening the nose has issues of it's own. By extending the nose the mass moment arm inertia is increased. You'll save a little nose weight but it'll produce yaw and pitch damping issues during the more rapid maneuvers or due to disturbances. Then there's the issue that it wouldn't LOOK like a proper Gentle Lady anymore.

And really if a "proper" 4xAA pack is used the amount of any extra nose weight is very little as long as super heavy balsa wasn't used for the fuselage or tail surfaces. The GL I had for a few years only needed an ounce or two as I recall. Really more of a final flight trimming weight than what I'd consider serious nose weight.

BoiseBee, EDF's are terrible for static and climb thrust on a thrust/watt rating. You're far, far, far better to stick with a propeller. And for slow and steep climbing such as gliders do the bigger the prop the better. That's why you see gliders using big folding props.

Yes, there's been EDF powered gliders in the past but because the EDF is not that thrust efficient it means packing a bigger battery pack and a bigger and heavier motor. And that means a higher wing loading. BUT... the airfoil used on the GL and SL is an old free flight airfoil that does not do well with a higher wing loading. For a GL or SL or even the offshoot Electra to fly well the wing loading needs to be kept low by RC glider standards. Then there's the fact that when not running an EDF is a rather big lump of frontal area that is going to be very draggy. With the blade in there and all the interference of the air trying to pass through the EDF tube you can basically say it's a "solid circle" of frontal area when the fan isn't running. So a prop would be best. A nose mounted folding prop would be optimum but if you want to be able to convert back to pure glider on occasion then a power pod is a nicer option even if it means you end up with a heavier model all around. Another option would be a second fuselage and tail so you have one electric and one pure glider.

foodstick

BMatthews , very true on the changes of looks and performance...

I always forget that those don't know me personally don't know that I am not a full on performance person, and that I have problems sticking to the instructions !! hahahah

I always come at certain things with my own sort of "LETS CHANGE SOMETHING" attitude.

The one thing I would do if I was to build another gentle lady would be to build a bulbous scale-ish pod up front ... After the 1000 other things I will never get around to on my plane wish list .

Hydro Junkie

Has anyone considered building either a GL or SL larger? How about one with a 108" or 144" span? Either size would make it easier to see at a higher altitude while at the same time, it would allow stengthening the tail of the SL so there would be less chance of it snapping off

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

My thoughts on that, is they are what they are. Cheap to purchase, minimum equipment, easy to transport and get in the air 2m ships. If I want something that big I'd get something full house.