clarkj

My Feedback: (26)

I have a saito 180. how will this fly with that engine. i will not be doing any 3d just sport flying.

bubbagates

My Feedback: (32)

OldFart1,

Though it's been a while since I had mine, I can tell you that I had that problem on a few other planes and all I did was use a thinnier nut and star washer and some blue loctitie, worked well.

clarkj,

I would thing the Satio 180 would fly it fairly decent for general sport flying. Without looking, the 180 probably has the output closer to the OS160 and should do well. If not you can always up the nitro ratio to 30% oon the Saito, they love that amount of nitro, but it's not cheap

Inyosi

There is a website that specifically shows the best place and way to do the smoke tap but for the life of me I cannot remember it. The key is to get it as close to the engine exhaust port as possible but you need to be careful to not allow the smoke oil to "backflow" into the engine as it wil flame it out quite quickly

bubbagates

My Feedback: (32)

I actually found the website for doing smoke.

http://www.rcdon.com/html/the_ultimate_project.html

Way back in this thread Maudb posted a picture of where he did the smoke tank and pump locations. I'd look for it but time is a premium right now

Oh yea, be sure to check out the video on his page at the bottom of the link I posted, but just in case, here is the link

http://www.rcdon.com/html/super_smokers_part_ii.html

OldFart1

I used the magic blue Locktite

getting closer !

twn

I would go the extra mile to reduce weight anywhere you can. I wouldn't burn anything but 30% heli and Saito actually recommends the 30% on their engines and still warranties them after using the 30%. I bet with reduced weight (13lbs) if u can get there it would be good sport flying.

I don't know if u would have any "get out of trouble" power but...

I wonder how many pounds of thrust the 180 will produce on 30%?

foundryratjim

My Feedback: (93)

How do you think an OS 240 twin would do in it?

twn

No idea, but if you look back through this thread somebody was running a Saito 300 twin and I believe it was good. LOL probably sucks the nitro though!!

A saito 220 would have no problem so I bet a 240 would too?

foundryratjim

My Feedback: (93)

I can't stand the sound of the gassers, i love the sound of the 4-strokers. With what i have in this hobby fuel costs are my least concern!!

clarkj

My Feedback: (26)

i ordered one today and will be watching this thread is there anyting i need to change ....landing gear etc.???

twn

If yer just running a 180 the gear in the kit will be fine. Do the wing joiner mod, but go with a light one like use pine or split the kit ones and re-enforce with cf. Personally I would just use some pine. Cut them from a good chunk of 2x4. Double up on the hinges, I used the heavy duty dubro pinned. At least fiberglass the join of the bottom wing, do the top if you can too, I did. I carefully pealed back the covering and then put it back down when I was done. I put some balsrite on the cured fiberglass to get the covering to stick better. Some 2" 2 oz tape will do fine. Go thin with some zpoxy. Keep the weight down, don't put a pilot in, it will add tail weight.

I hope u can balance it with that light 180 on it. I had to move my dl50 forward almost 1/2" from where the instructions say to place to get it to balance and the dl50 is a bit more than 3lbs...

twn

I am just the opposite. I love the sound of a loud gasser ripping by wide open. But one cool thing with the 4 strokers is that when you idle it down and pass by nice and low the sound of the wind whistling over the wings is neat. It is really noticeable with the bipes!

Running 30% in a Saito makes a HUGE jump in power. I ran a pumped Saito 100 in my 7.3lbs 60 size extra 300. Most people were shocked when they found out it was only a 100, they figured it was a 150 for sure. With 15% I had about 300 feet of vertical with a 14-6, with 30% and a 15-6 I could leap off the runway, immediately go vertical until it was a spec. The pump was helping a lot too.


clarkj, run a pump too. It will boost the power a bit.

codfish

ClarkJ,

I would recommend upgrading to the Graphtech landing gear. They make one just for this plane (see attached pictures of Graphtech gear un-installed and installed) The stock gear is marginal on this plane and can ruin your day if it collapses. I weighed them both and I think it was about 2.5 oz more than the original gear and is easily 10 times stronger. (no kidding) You can call Graphtech to get exact weight measurement.

Codfish

slopoke

My Feedback: (16)

I have a 2.20 in mine. I used a dual battery setup with the batterys under the cowl to get balance. Depends on the weight of servos in the tail too. Just over 14 lbs.

I have a friend who has a YS 1.70 on his and he has great power with light weight too.

slopoke

foundryratjim

My Feedback: (93)

I am just old school, i like to build planes that look, fly and sound like the real thing.

maineflyer

My Feedback: (44)

You can also get the GP Extra gear. They bolt directly on and are much stronger than the Ultimate gear. I have flown mine with a 50cc and actually bought a second set as backup. I think they are under $10..
Jeff

OldFart1

I went with the GP Extra gear on mine. Replace the 1" bolts that come with the kit with longer ones - the 1" don't even get to the bottom of the blind nuts

clarkj

My Feedback: (26)

The great planes extra 330 landing gear?? I want to think everyone for their help here too

clarkj

My Feedback: (26)

or can you specify which extra?? they show 3 the wagstaff the extra 300 160 arf or the extra 330 3d

codfish

Just some notes I took about the GP 300S landing gear:

The stock landing gear for the ultimate weigh 6.6 oz. The Great Planes 300S Wagstaff gear weigh 10.8 oz. Quite a bit heavier and they don’t win any awards for their sturdiness either, although may be sturdier than the stock Ultimate gear. The caster angle of the Wagstaff gear is a couple inches off compared to the Ultimate gear, and 1 inch shorter. Not saying it cannot work, I’m sure it does.

Basically you get what you pay for. Use regular aluminum gear and expect more weight and less sturdiness than carbon fiber. There are different types of aluminum that are much less likely to remain bent on impact, but then you are getting into the price of carbon fiber. Main gear is one of the short cuts Great Planes makes on most of their models, I suppose to keep cost down, but it's a weak link in my opinion. The fiberglass gear they provided look nice and are much lighter, but reading through this thread it is eadsy to see they pushed it too far.

Carbon Fiber (like the Graphtech) can be painted if you don't like the black and rid yourself of the bent gear problems. Of course if you land well all the time that’s not an issue. We never have rough landings though do we?

twn

Here is the GP part# for the gear GPMA3066, from the Perfomance Series Extra 330 1.60 ARF

I just looked at the ones I ordered. Costed me $15 canadian. They are thicker in the center and are identical in shape & holes as the ultimate gear. The ones that come with the ultimate are quite thin and flex a lot.

maineflyer

My Feedback: (44)

twn,
Those are the gear that I bought also. They are identical in size and shape to the ultimate gear, just thicker and sturdier. I think GP knew of the issues with the ultimate gear and built these a little better. They work great so far.
Jeff

OldFart1

Boy do I feel small. I was all ready to pull the ZDZ 50NG off the Ultimate - would NOT start! (even after CH ignitions changed it to a CM-6 plug, put a new ignition on it and test ran it). Last night I was sure I had flooded it so I ran the throttle stick all the way up, flipped and low and behold! - she started (at about 4K). Moving the stick down just increased RPM - yep, I had the &^%$$$ throttle reversed (and even at "high" was about a third throttle).

Moved the clevis to the end of the horn, a bit of travel adjustment in the 9303 - Voila!, we have a running ZDZ!

Damn, this 50cc pulls a LOT HARDER than my 26cc birds!

Moved the ign and RX batteries to the motor box, when I had them behind the RX I was at the farthest "rearward" recommended CG.

Should fly in another week. Right now I'm recovering from "touch up" LASIK on my left eye. Anyone that tells you that you can do anything with one eye that you can do with two is full of it, I've bumped into stuff tonight I didn't even know I had

OldFart1

Few more progress pictures, and a question. Is the CG point (6-3/8" back from the leading edge of the top wing) what everyone is using? I used Bill's (bubbagates) method of balancing with the "carrying handle" on and no wings - was a bit tailheavy so relocated the batteries forward

Used to be here:


Put them here:


I was now a little nose heavy...or so I thought....

Put the wings on over the weekend, had to add 18 oz to get back to CG




Opinions?

repinfl

My Feedback: (40)

I just finished my GP Ultimate 160 today. I am 70 years young and have build MANY model airplanes in my time but this bird is the BEST, IMO. I did everything according to the instructions including using a Fuji 43 for power. This was the second build and the first ARF that came out with the CG perfect! Of course the ultimate (no pun intended) test will be the maiden flight, which is going to have to wait until my cataract surgery next month.

Uncas

My Feedback: (1)

Old Fart,
Plane looks good. I do not understand why you are so tail heavy. I used bubbagates method which is 1 inch in front of the rear bolt on the handle. I have a DA-50 and put my receiver battery in the tail and my engine battery in the fuse to get it to balance slightly tail heavy. Are you balancing with the cowl on and the spinner and prop? Looking at your engine mounting, I think I had my engine more forward than yours, but it is really hard to tell.

This plane flys great, I wish I hadn't wrecked it.