Cermark F-16
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bowling Green, KY
Posts: 1,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cermark F-16
Finally got a chance to get the test flight out of the way on my Cermark F-16, what can I say... I love the airplane and its simplicity, couldn't ask for a better combo with the fuel sipping Super Bee KS from Eric and the Jet Central gang.
Question, to the guys out there flying this plane, where did you CG it at? Just curious to see where everyone else is running, the Cermark manual stated like 4.5" back from the wing leading edge and the manual for Tams said like 6" which I thought to be two widely spread numbers for similiar aircraft. I'm running mine level with gear down and UAT full at 4.5" and it flies like a dream, easy rotation on takeoff, and flare for a slow landing which was so predicatable it made for a picture perfect first outing. I'm thinking about moving it to around 5" though to maybe aid in the heavy feel of the elevator.
Question, to the guys out there flying this plane, where did you CG it at? Just curious to see where everyone else is running, the Cermark manual stated like 4.5" back from the wing leading edge and the manual for Tams said like 6" which I thought to be two widely spread numbers for similiar aircraft. I'm running mine level with gear down and UAT full at 4.5" and it flies like a dream, easy rotation on takeoff, and flare for a slow landing which was so predicatable it made for a picture perfect first outing. I'm thinking about moving it to around 5" though to maybe aid in the heavy feel of the elevator.
#2
My Feedback: (57)
RE: Cermark F-16
Hey congrats!
At 4.5" I found it very heavy on the elevator at flare. Try 5" and see how it feels. I think I ended up between 5.25 and 5.5. Different people like different values, so make the incremenets at no more than .25" at a time to keep it safe.
I absolutely loved that plane. So simple, affordable, and nice looking. I flew it with a 12lb engine out of a 450 ft runway, and rarely ever used more than half of the runway. With time you will learn you can lift off very soon for a scale like takeoff. It doesn't stall, if it lifts off....it's going!
David
At 4.5" I found it very heavy on the elevator at flare. Try 5" and see how it feels. I think I ended up between 5.25 and 5.5. Different people like different values, so make the incremenets at no more than .25" at a time to keep it safe.
I absolutely loved that plane. So simple, affordable, and nice looking. I flew it with a 12lb engine out of a 450 ft runway, and rarely ever used more than half of the runway. With time you will learn you can lift off very soon for a scale like takeoff. It doesn't stall, if it lifts off....it's going!
David
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bowling Green, KY
Posts: 1,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Cermark F-16
Sounds great, about what I figured.. It already comes right off the ground in about 300 feet, it's a sweet flier for sure.. Only had a chance to put 2 flights on it and even with the cg at 4.5" I was able to get a good feel for some high alpha as well.. I have flown a buddies 1/6 Skymaster a few times and it's just as rock solid as that puppy in the air, just smaller..
#4
My Feedback: (2)
RE: Cermark F-16
Hey Justin,
Good to hear you got it airborne. If you haven't done so, take a good look at the main gear plates in that jet. They are a common failure point. The bonding adhesive fractured on all the surrounding joints in mine, and the mounting plates began to crack after a few mildly rough landings. It doesn't take much to damage the structure here... I was told to bond in a piece of 1/4 ply perpendicular to the gear mount plates to up the stiffness. I replaced my cracked plate, chewed out the old adhesive and re bonded with a stiffener bracket and it was tough enough from there on.
Might be able to dig up a photo if that's clear as mud...
Good luck,
Kelly
Good to hear you got it airborne. If you haven't done so, take a good look at the main gear plates in that jet. They are a common failure point. The bonding adhesive fractured on all the surrounding joints in mine, and the mounting plates began to crack after a few mildly rough landings. It doesn't take much to damage the structure here... I was told to bond in a piece of 1/4 ply perpendicular to the gear mount plates to up the stiffness. I replaced my cracked plate, chewed out the old adhesive and re bonded with a stiffener bracket and it was tough enough from there on.
Might be able to dig up a photo if that's clear as mud...
Good luck,
Kelly
#5
My Feedback: (3)
RE: Cermark F-16
I lost my Cermark F-16 afyter only 5 flights due to forward CG. Flying out of short field did not help at all... I was not able to slow her down by achieving High AOA. As a result, when attempting to land fearing to run out of fuel, I bounced at 1/3 of the runway and overshot passed it .... down in a deep valley.
Was lucky to recover turbine and a few servos. Plane totally disintegrated!!!
If i was only able to get hold of another kit i would gladely rebuild one and would definitely not hesitate to move CG backward!!!
Was lucky to recover turbine and a few servos. Plane totally disintegrated!!!
If i was only able to get hold of another kit i would gladely rebuild one and would definitely not hesitate to move CG backward!!!
#9
My Feedback: (162)
RE: Cermark F-16
If I remember right, wasn't Tam making them for cermark? + wasn't there a version with monokote wings and then glass wings? It seems they were in the $700 range?
I did a search and found this...
http://www.hobby-zone.com/f16j.php
I did a search and found this...
http://www.hobby-zone.com/f16j.php
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bowling Green, KY
Posts: 1,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Cermark F-16
Yup thats it. Mine has the covered wings and ailerons. I was a little skeptical about how it would fly, but I love it... Even a little nose heavy I was still able to get the nose up and get her slow for landing. My only complaint is the fuel tanks were weak, needed alot of reinforcing so they would not crack during fill up.