cavandish

So is there no longer "an issue" ?
This is B#llsh#t, this is a very popular aircraft, with 2 reports on here of supposed wing failure, its sad that so many self appointed experts are keen to slam an excellent product at any given oppurtunity. Any plane will fail if you do not treat it in the correct manner. The XL is fine with a 160, as with most birds ,You just need to consider airframe stress during high G flying, You also need to maintain the covering material.

re Ballast I have a wren 160, x8 1100mah 123s in the nose, my ecu lipo sits on the tank, this set up balances perfectly with no ballast

AndyAndrews

Im flying mine now with a KingTech K-170. Flys better than it ever has.

Andy

steve2972

My Feedback: (2)

Is it the norm to have the nose leg protruding out of the fuselage when retracted when using Jet a1 /pro-lynx/pro-link gear[&o]?

BaldEagel

Yes it is, but if you make up some wedge packing piece's to go under the retract unit you can get the leg and wheel to go inside without compromising the nose gear length just needs a bit of experimenting with thickness, or mathamatics if your rearly clever.

Mike

steve2972

My Feedback: (2)

Hi Mate,
Surely if you pack/wedge under the nose leg retract, its going to sit higher so would protrude even more?I don`t get it[] Surely it would need to sit lower/deeper into the fuselage,but this would mean major surgery to the mounting beams/internal structure[&o] ??

BaldEagel

That's why it needs to be a wedge higher in the front than the back, this then angles the retract unit and leg into the fus.

Mike

steve2972

My Feedback: (2)

I see Mike,but then wouldn`t that change the angle on the nose oleo when the gear is down? Do most people not bother and just leave as is with the wheel protruding?

Thanks for your input on this

Steve

BaldEagel

It does change the angle of the olio, gives it a slight backwards slant wich helps with tracking, its just aesthetics, if you want it hidden then do it, if you aren't bothered then dont bother, its up to you.

Mike

steve2972

My Feedback: (2)

Think I`ll just leave it as it is

Thanks again for the info Mike

Cheers

Steve

TED ANTON

My Feedback: (7)

Hey Cavandish
Just because nobody reports their wing failures doesn't mean they don't happen.
I have personally whitnessed two and neither was posted in a forum and by the way both had the same issue with air delaminating the LE sheeting
I am on my second XL I love the plane for grass field flying, my first XL had 133 flights before I sold it to a buddy who put another 30 flights on it ( still going strong )both my Boomers had P160's in them, there is no question that care must be taken when using bigger engines

Good Luck

Ted

steve2972

My Feedback: (2)

Any views on maybe using the new Jetcat p100 rx with the Xl.I was thinking about the 120sx ,but this will be old technolgy in a couple of months time with the arrival of the P100

BaldEagel

I'v seen one fly with a P80, long take off run on grass and the verticals are not that special and seem to run out of puff, personally I would not worry about the 120SX becoming out of date, they are so reliable and easy to set up they are still a benchmark for most others to aspire too. Now an Elan with the P100 would be nice, a lot lighter than the P80 then 120SX I had, would allow the C of G to be set up without the batteries under the tank, wich can a problem if you use LiPo's (remove for charging) but not A123's wich you can charge in situ.

Mike

jetrichie

P120 suits it well, I have about 50 flights on mine. I have a bigger front wheel and it fly's off the grass on its own.

hpais

This question may have come up before, but I didn't find it in this long thread...

Would a P70 suit the Boomerang XL? I would accept the longer takeoff roll and limited vertical. But would it fly well?

Ian Prentice

I have a p80se in my xl and it flys great take off from grass is maybe 20meters have flown xl with p120 and Prefer p80 not sure about p70 would maybe be marginal! trick is to keep it light!

K.O.

My Feedback: (16)

I initially had a P-120 in my XL and it flew it nicely. But even then it didn't have unlimited verticle. I had a P-160 not doing anything so I slipped it in and for me its perfect. Off the grass quicker, and unlimited verticle even with full fuel and smoke tanks. Top speed probably not a whole lot of difference. For the average flyer a P-120 does a good job. IMO I don't think you'll be happy with a P70 for very long.
K.O.

jroth

My Feedback: (60)

hpais,

We flew our XLs with AMT Mercury engines; they were putting out 15 to 17 pounds of thrust. We needed 250 feet of pavement to take off, after the first few flights; we started bending the throttle stick trying to get more power. We were carrying 4 Liters of fuel and could fly for about 15 minutes.

I replaced the Mercury with a Pegasus and it is much better.

Good Luck,

John

cavandish

Re the nose wheel protruding out a little.
This has been an advantage for me, once when landing on a concrete runway, my nose wheel got tangled in the steering wires and failed to come down, that little bit 'sticking out' saved the underside of the plane from any road rash. You will not see it sticking out in the air, I would not change mine.

I landed my nano onto rough ashphalt with the nose wheel stuck up, and it made a real mess of the bottom of the nose area.

sskianpour

My Feedback: (2)

Hey All, FINAL VERDICT ON CG?

I don't have the manual. I have read through the thread and there are MANY differing CG's....

WHAT IS THE CONSENSUS FOR THE CG?

When people say measure 12" forward from Trailing Edge of wing, are we measuring from trailing edge of wing where wing touches the fuselage? ( basically where the flaps are closest to the fuselage?

12" forward from TE, so about Half inch to One inch south of the main carbon spar????

Is 12" from TE a good CG?

Thanks all!

Shaz

geh3

My Feedback: (84)

I flew mine first with the CG as specified and then kept moving it back until
when inverted, it needed little or almost no down elev to maintain altitide.
At this CG, landings were SWEETas it would slow downalmost tocrawl speed... enjoy

sskianpour

My Feedback: (2)

BUT SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS THAT CG???? EVERYBODY KEEPS SAYING "USE THE SPECIFIED CG, REFER TO THE MANUAL, Y'KNOW THE CG THEY RECOMMEND"....

for the love of all creatures great and small, can somebody use numbers instead of words? Pleeease? WHAT WAS THAT CG?????

Thanks!

p.s. did you sell that L-39??? [8D]

Shaz

geh3

My Feedback: (84)

I don't have my XLII anymore nor do I have a manual (now have TORUS)
but the specified dimension in the manual is definetly somewhat nose heavy
and initial landings will be faster at that original setting. You can easily move it back 1/2" from what
is in the manual!

GREATPLANE


Yes L-39 was sold and is now flying up at the Farview Flyers field in Hamburg Pa
It flew great but never landed as sweet as the XLII did The XLII has huge wing area
that really lets it slow down nice for landings...

geh3

My Feedback: (84)

OK Ifound an electronic copy of an XLII manual (see attached)
the FACTORY CGis 220mm from the LE or 350 from the trailing edge
SEEPAGE14

eastern

I feel I must report yet another Boomerang XL wing failure last weekned at the Leuchars airshow. We had been asked to fill in before the show started with a bit of RC flying, jets and prop planes. One of the Jets present "was" an early Boomerang XL. The pilot has flown this aircraft on many occassions before and is a very experienced RC flyer and ex military pilot. On his last flight of the day he was doing a very large loop which I had seen him do many times before, it was not a high "g" manouvere. As the plane came down off the top of the loop the wing just seemed to explode and the Jet went in with a resulting fire. The fragments of broken wing were collected and inspected and it really did look like the wing had indeed just been totally ripped apart, we don't think the covering had come away to cause this to happen it just seems that the wing failed completely. I had a boomerang and I sold it after reading the horror stories of wing failures, now I've seen it for myself I'm so glad I did, there is obviously a design flaw in this airframe and this needs to be addressed by Mr Cardash before there is a serious incident.

highhorse

My Feedback: (2)

Mr Cardash no longer owns the company, I believe.