Stuart Chale

I needed spacers to center the wheel in the opening between the two pieces of ply. The MK wheels are asymetrical. The outboard side is recessed to hold the wheel collar. On the inboard end I just needed 1 number 8 washer. On the recessed side I used a plastic spacer from an electric APC prop. I used the one with the smallest opening and drilled it out to the right diameter. Although not shown in the pictures I ended up adding a metal washer to the outside of the palstic spacer for a better fit. The spacers were glued to the wheel hub to allow easier installation and removal. On the wheels, the 4 mm bushings needed to be drilled out slightly to allow easy passage of the 8x32 bolt.

Stuart Chale

The wheel pants are attached to the gear with the 8x32 screw and an additional alignment screw. There is limited space on the gear leg for this but I was able to fit a 5x56 cap head screw into a blind nut mounted into the same piece of ply as the main axel blind nut. I drilled a hole into the gear leg first and then aligned the wheel pant and continued the hole into it. There is still a slight bit of play in the angle of the wheel pant if you loosen the two cap screws. With both tightened it stays quite firm. I do not think it will be necessary but Loc-tite could be used if needed.

Stuart

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

Well, I have to disagree about saying that a plane is TOO heavy at anything under 11 pounds. It just depends. Although light is good and most times better its not always better. You judge a plane by how it performs, not how much it weighs. I would take a plane that performed perfectly at exactly 5kg's over a plane that flew ALMOST as well at a lesser weight. Furthermore if flew perfectly at 5kg's on the money but I had room to shave weight,, I might do it, but not at the expense of structural or componant intergrity. Shaving weight just so I can say I have a 9-10 plane would be silly.

Adamg-RCU

Mike, who are you disagreeing with?

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

this.. I dont think heavier is better, I just dont agree with judging a plane by its weight. He says " too heavy for my taste" and I understand that.. but then generalizes that "a glow plane the size of a pinnacle should not weigh more than 10 pounds". I just dont think its a fact and I respectfully disagree with that opinion. Fly the plane and see how it flies.. If it flies great and weighs less than 11 pounds why mess with it just so you can say it's <10pounds?.

By the way, I love the Pinnacle and seriously considered it when I bought my Genesis, I just didnt think I was going to get $1000 better flying for the extra $1000 on the pricetag.. But its a REALLY nice plane.

dflynt

My Feedback: (48)

Sure, I see your point -- a large plane with large wing area can and will carry more weight compared to a small one. I was mostly comparing apples to apples. My Supreme at 9.0 pounds, versus Troy's at 10.5. My Partner at 9.75 versus mine at 10.5 versus a Pinnacle at 10.5. (The Partner has a 1007 sq. in. wing. The Pinnacle 1038. That is a very fair comparison to pass judgments on weight. The Partner and Pinnacle are really the same design). There is a whole lot of difference in flying characteristics with just 3/4 pounds of weight, and I much prefer the lighter version (try adding 12 oz lead to your favorite plane). A heavier plane feels very heavy after a long downline making the turn to horizontal, or the landing and stall speed. Rolls are different and a little less forgiving. Horizontal flight speed can be slowed down with a light plane, or flown fast, whereas a heavier one must maintain sufficient speed. The context of what I am saying is based on a particular plane, not all pattern planes of all sizes. Oh, if you take off with 24 ounces of fuel versus 16, that will really increase the wing loading. So 9.0 pounds with 16 ounces fuel versus 10.5 with 24 ounces fuel. Quite a difference.

I really believe that an 18 ounce panel is too heavy for the Pinnacle. Wouldn't you prefer each panel 3 or even 5 ounces lighter if you did not give up structural integrity? I sure would. A lighter panel carries far less momentum. Snap and spin recoveries are faster. Landings are slower. If each panel weighed 13 ounces, you would save 10 ounces on the airframe. It can be done with sufficient strength. I do not think it can be done by painting over a balsa skinned wing. That just adds unnecessary weight.

It is something that I would like to see corrected. I would like to see a Pinacle at 3/4 pounds lighter. If you are saying they are good enough, then I disagree. The manafacturer can and should correct this. Or at least provide a foam core, unpainted option.

But the thing that really compelled me to say something about this, was that Troy seemed to be comparing the Oxai Pinnacle weight to his Supreme weight -- as if a ZNline plane is no lighter than the Oxai. Here is the quote by Troy: Of note I flew ZN Line Supreme models 2 years ago and these models completed at 5.75lbs each with landing gear struts no wheels or pants and the models flew at around 10lb 6oz. But my Supreme flies at 9.0 pounds. Sure, you can build a ZNline heavy and say it is heavy, but what I am saying is that the Oxai is in fact heavy, whereas the ZNLine kit is made to come out light. I personally like the lighter airframe. I would be more interested in the Oxai if it were lighter, and this information should be useful to the manufacturer if they want to create a better product. If the demand already exceeds their ability to make them fast enough, then it probably does not matter, and you guys will keep on buying because they look nice. And they are really nice, but could be better at 12 ounces lighter.

I say do not be ashamed to tell the manufacture what you want. It is your money, not theirs until they provide what you want. Perhaps I am a little too blunt. I don't mean to hurt anybody's feelings, but perhaps the manufacturer will pay attention and take on the challenge of creating a lighter product. It bet it would increase their sales and profits.

Sorry to ramble. I won't post more. I like the thread the way it started -- a build thread. The plane looks very nice BTW.

David

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

You arent too blunt, nor did you offend. [8D] Just talking about what you enjoy just like me,,,, and I like light planes too.. However, I think that most of the better widebody designs are going to fly really well in the hands of a good pilot at anything under 11 pounds. My Genesis weighs 10lbs 3oz and it flies like a feather but really holds a line well. I have seen a lot of Impacts and 2M planes in general right at the 11 pound mark, the ones I have flown are exceptional,,,

bwick

Is anyone else here wondering how the hell you get a 2 meter pattern ship down to 9 pounds?

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Helium injected balsa.

can773

My Feedback: (1)

I am simply wondering why they are having a nice discussion on glow weight models when the thread is about an E powered model

10.5 lbs E-model is really, really light...and not comparable at all to a 10.5 glow model.....the glow would have to be sub 10 lbs to feel as light.

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Hmmmmmmmmmm doesn't 10.5 pounds equal the same wing loading no matter what type engine it has in it?

can773

My Feedback: (1)

I have yet to see a 10.5 lb glow takeoff with 0 fuel in it So no it wouldnt

Figuring 20 oz of glow, then your 10.5 lb model at takeoff would need to weight in at about 9.25 lbs to be the same as the 10.5 e-model on takeoff.

mmattockx

So a Black Magic, in other words? And part way through the flight the glow model is lighter and just keeps getting better?

Just funnin' ya, Chad. I haven't flown any of the 2M planes and they are all better than I will ever be, no matter what. But it's a good discussion. Even if we hijacked the thread...[8D] Sorry, Stuart.


Mark

bwick

Yikes, sorry about the hijack. Let's get back to that beautiful Pinnacle...

Stuart Chale

Any discussion is always helpful. It is just that, a thread on RCU.

I will continue to add to it as the build continues. Even though the plane is about as complete as they come unless you really pay someone to install the equipment and test fly it for you, I have found the build threads very helpful and hope someone will look at this one at some point and feel the same.

Now in regards to weight Even though I have been out of the hobby for over ten years the discussions are still the same. There are always proponants of lighter is better and those that think heavier is better based on their experience. I have built them both ways My planes got lighter and lighter as I gained experience. My desire was built from plans, and all of the foam parts are honeycombed, epoxy weighed etc. Somewhere in the past is the article I did for the K-factor on making a light wing panel using the desire wing as an example. I will say it is too light for its size. Lighter is fine and certainly has advantages in aerodynamics and reduced power requirements. The tradeoff is increased sensitivity to wind and turbulence. To show this drop a feather and a brick. The feather goes off course with imperceptable breezes. It would take a hurricane to blow the brick off course. It will also take a stronger engine to fly a brick. But as someone said about the F4 fighter, it just proves that given enough power even a brick will fly. My thoughts are that most planes will fly to their potential up to a certain weight. Above that weight and angles of attack and aerodynamics etc will suffer. A 20 pound 2 M pattern plane will fly but it would need to do so at a high angle of attack or at excesive speeds to produce enough lift to counter the 20 pound weight. I have never noticed a change in flying characteristics from full tank to empty tank and that could have been a pound difference with a "smaller" plane. Maybe I am not good enough to see the difference but I never noticed that my maneuvers were obviously better at the end of the flight compared to the beginning. On the other hand I have certainly seen how a lightly wing loaded plane bounces around more in turbulence than a heavier plane.

So my thoughts would be that given enough power (which does not seem to be the issue) I would prefer a plane that bounces around less, but still flies as well aerodynamically at that weight. I believe there is a definite sweet spot where the plane will fly best. Heavier and aerodynamics will suffer, lighter and for me it would be too light. I wouldn't want a 9 pound 2 M plane nor would I want an 11 pound plane if it didn't fly well at that weight. I didn't buy the Pinnacle because I thought it was heavier I bought it because the reports have all been good in regards to the flying qualities, and the build quality is up to my standards. I considered many other planes, some much cheaper. Most of the other planes I considered had some issues or were simply not available in a reasonble period of time. In fact it was almost a fluke that I was able to add the E pinnacle to Oxai-US's order and Oxai still had one available.

Stuart

Troy Newman

David,

I never intended at all to take anything away from the ZN Line kits. In my opinion if you want to build it. Then The ZN line stuff is the only way to go. I know that ZN stuff can be built very light. I have considered building another ZN line model. I have built 5 ZN planes since 99, and 3 PL Prod models as well in the time. I personally chose the ZN Line kits for their quality. I spent some time with the Oxai stuff and found that they did things right and made me happy with the way the models are built. Naruke a 2 time world champ, and the Wolfgang Matt a 2 time world champ in his own right choose to fly the Oxai stuff. These guys have specific requirements on their models and require Oxai to meet certain standards. Weight is one of those standards that these guys demand.

I choose the products I choose based on their performance and some of that is weight related and some of that is durability related. Not all my choices in equipment are the lightest in all my models.

I applaud your efforts on the Supreme. The Supreme is a great model. I really enjoy mine. I am not willing to compromise the looks of the model to go with Ultracote lite Transparent with the wood grain showing on the sheeted surfaces. I'm also not as good as you at painting. My models are lighter than the limit and I'm happy with their performance where it it is. I have flown lighter stuff and I have flown heavy near the limit pigs. My opinion is anything in the 10-10.5lbs on glow is fine.

It is very difficult to tell the difference in the model between 10.25-10.75. Down around 10lbs you can tell its pretty light and up above 10.75 you can tell its heavier. BUT let me ask this question: When was the last time you were flying and it was 10mins into the flight and you kept saying man this model flies so much better now than it did 10mins ago? Well the difference was about 1lb of fuel or maybe more. I know for a fact there are very few out there that can tell the difference from beginning of the flight to the end of the flight in how the model performs. There is a difference I having flown a ton over the last few few years when I'm connected and flying the model on a daily basis I know when things are changing. But the question to the guys in the masses when was the last time you forgot to start a timer and landed only how the model felt (weight wise) based on fuel used?

Oh and to set the record straight CPLR in Florida 99' had a lead weight on his CG to make the model weigh up near the 5kg limit. I heard he did the same in Ireland in 2001 and, and Poland in 2003. I have heard that CPLR's models are 9-9.25lbs before the ballast and I believe that. But you know he is a 4 Time World Champ. So I think maybe he has something on us. Why would he be loading up dead weight in his model.....? Could it be the windy conditions at the worlds? Could it be something else?



I look at the weight limit like the noise limit. If you pass you pass. With todays' powerplants its not an issue. This sport is great in that it inspires design, building, and piloting. You bring your stuff and I bring my stuff and in the end we see who has the best score on the sequence. You do it your way and I do it my way and the end result is we keep score.

BY the way I have a huge amount of time on my Supremes and would like to fly yours to see what a 9lb version flies like....However I don't think I could get over the 2 stroke motor. Again a choice (YS DZ's) that is based not on weight but personal preference.

One thing to really think about in building an electric model is you need to be as absolutely light as possible. Most of the setups out there are pushing the weight limit. In fact at the NATS last year most non FAI finalist electric models flew without wheel pants, some without spinners, and I know some even didn't have a switch on the RX battery pack. This is all weight and when the model is 1-3oz over weight you have to get it to the limit however possible. I feel Electric models will drive the technology even further in terms of model design and materials. You have to weigh absolutely everything to make sure you electric pattern model makes weight. A good builder and a ZN kit will make it if proper choices are made. A Pinnacle Electric will make it too if proper choices are made.

Troy

dflynt

My Feedback: (48)

Ok, I have to come clean on one thing -- CPLR is a better pilot than I am! You got me there. I don't know why he would put ballast in his planes. And what is up with that little tee-wing Teletubby thing on top of his canopy?

I have added 3/4 pounds to my Partner, and I really felt the difference at take off in particular. When a plane starts getting heavy, I notice the difference. On the same day comparison with the same airframe, with added ballast, I really notice the difference. I am little skeptical about the benefits of ballast for high wind conditions. In an F3F plane, ok. But a pattern plane with a fixed pitch prop -- I don't get it. It definately has more momentum, so maybe it is easier to finess the crab angle or rolls are more predictable. Perhaps it is just personal preference, or perhaps it is no myth that a higher wing load is more stable in the wind.

One thing I will say about my Supreme, is that it is the most solid tracking plane I have flown. In heavy wind, it is as if there is no wind at all. It is pretty awesome to fly, and while it feels responsive, it penetrates and tracks like nothing else I have flown. I will try to get to a few contests this year so you can try it out. I am really struggling with time lately. Crazy me, I decided to get in shape and learn how to play the piano. Something had to give.

Troy, great post. I respect your experience and thoughts. Oh, and I prefer the DZ too.

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

Are they weighing the electrics with the packs in or out?

can773

My Feedback: (1)

FAI weighs models with the packs.

Individual country rules can be different though...in Canada only FAI needs to be weighed with the batteries...all other classes do not. Allows Nicd/Nimh etc to be used to keep the costs lower for those who want to fly big electric but without lipos.

mwick

Mike:

In the U.S. all classes weigh with the packs in.....but they can be discharged packs

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

hehehe.... those electrons can get heavy!

PS I Think that is a dumb rule, shouldnt have to weigh in the battery packs in my opinion.

ExFokkerFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Isn't this thread about the Pinnacle?

Anyhoo... had a chance to fly a DZ powered Pinnacle today with an all up dry weight of about 10.75 lbs... Though it was the glow version, and this thread is about the electric version I have to say... wow, what a beautiful flying airplane! Absolutely smooth and positive... after the second flight I wanted to walk over and kick my Genesis. I still want to actually, but instead I'm going to wipe the slate clean and start retrimming.

I don't care how heavy the wings are on the Pinnacle... it's a great airplane. You could always use lighter servos if need be and save an ounce a side if that's your concern.

KeithB

My Feedback: (1)

It seems to me that weighing electric planes without the batteries would give unfair advantage to electircs. On the other hand weighing them with batteries compared to a dry glow plane isn't fair either.

Seems like a good compromise would be to give a weight allowance to the electrics equal to the number of ounces it takes to fly a YS 1.60 for 10 minutes (the time limit of the FAI pattern).

I'm anxious to see how the weight turns out on this new electric version of the Pinnicale. Please keep us updated.

Keith B

Scorpio

My Feedback: (3)

I agree it is unfair,

I don't have a problem getting under the weight with electric. However I do think it is unfair to weight an electric with its batteries in it, and have a weight limit of 5kg. After all a glow plane with 20oz of fuel in it will have a flight weight of greater than 5kg.



The weight limit should not be a dry weight but a flight weight.

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Weigh all planes RTF, and go to a 5.25kg limit

That being said I personally have no problem with the rules as they are now. There are plenty of electric models flying well below the limit RTF.

I dont think we should be adjusting rules to fit technology, but adjusting technology to fit rules.