3d Passion .60
06-21-2004, 09:41 PM
#2
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 3d Passion .60
"Don't do it" is my advice 
There's something seriously wrong in the design of the tail. I had one with a 61FX and APC 13x4 prop. It will flutter either the tailplane or the elevators. I had no bindings and two servos in the tail and no hinge gap and every flight I had flutter problems (flying really slow and level) which the last flight killed it. I believe the tail is not aerodynamically balanced to support the large tail surfaces.
If you go through the posts, I think at least 1 other person had the same problem.
My friend had the 140sized Katana, and the build quality is quite questionable as well. It's structure is very weak and lucky he spotted the break on the ground. I personally would not get another CM Pro again.
Bill.
There's something seriously wrong in the design of the tail. I had one with a 61FX and APC 13x4 prop. It will flutter either the tailplane or the elevators. I had no bindings and two servos in the tail and no hinge gap and every flight I had flutter problems (flying really slow and level) which the last flight killed it. I believe the tail is not aerodynamically balanced to support the large tail surfaces.
If you go through the posts, I think at least 1 other person had the same problem.
My friend had the 140sized Katana, and the build quality is quite questionable as well. It's structure is very weak and lucky he spotted the break on the ground. I personally would not get another CM Pro again.
Bill.
08-02-2004, 12:01 PM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cranbrook,
BC, CANADA
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 3d Passion .60
Not everyone feels this negative about this airplane or CMPro planes as a whole. Have a look at http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_12...tm.htm#1209858
and also at http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_12...tm.htm#1258207
I think you will like it.
and also at http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_12...tm.htm#1258207
I think you will like it.
08-02-2004, 01:55 PM
#4
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Round Lake,
IL
Posts: 3,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 3d Passion .60
I have one and it has taught me how to 3D. I was doing harriers at 200' them parachuting to 10' off the ground and popping up to a hover and I am by no means a 3D flyer. My only beefs with the plane are the flimsy landing gear and the motor they reccommend is way under powered. I had a older Saito 80 in it at first and it was so so. I then switched to an OS 91 and the plane came alive. I used a APC 15-4 prop and never had any issue with flutter. This plane is designed to fly sloooooooooow. The plane comes out tail heavy so a bigger motor helps.
08-09-2004, 02:34 PM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cranbrook,
BC, CANADA
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 3d Passion .60
Here are some pics of mine. A simple wire support for the landing gear made all the difference - it lands so slowly in any way. I also wire boxed the tail section - ? ? not needed but it is nice and strong and I like doing this mod on airplanes where airframe stress is expected. No flutter issues here. It is tail heavy so I installed a glow driver and mounted it's 2 cell battery pack and the receiver pack ( 5 cell 6 volt ) both under the tank in the nose. I like glow drivers in inverted mounted engines - especially in a plane like this where the engine spends a lot of time at very low throttle settings. I also beefed up the firewall a bit. Fitted a Sullivan 14 oz flex tank. Engine is a GMS .76 - measured just more than 8 lbs of static thrust while running rich - good vertical but not spectacular - an OS .91 FX will be awesome. It might need a bit more right thrust - just a bit. IMHO this plane is built very well from laser cut wood. It's well covered - I don't know with what but it is strong stuff. My cg is at approx 120mm - a bit further back than they suggested. It flies very neutral and seems well balanced. My hardware bag was not complete - so I used some parts from my spares box. I have read some negative comments on this plane ( it might just be folks bashing GSP/CMPro in general ) but have to say that I like this plane - a lot. I modify ALL my ARF's in any way - the mods I made here were in response to comments by others in RCU threads and seems to work well. I recommend this plane to anyone looking for a UCD3D alternative ( and that comment is not meant to knock the UCD3D at all - it is a great plane as well).
