BoneDoc

My Feedback: (1)

Nah, this plane has a big speed envelope.

Jimnie

Hey Man,
Send me the model. This is absolutely the best flying model I have ever flown. I can't believe the problems people seem to dream up. Mine went together perfect. Total all up weight at 5.25 lbs, JR9411 servos, Saito 82, 4cell pack. 4 nights assembly and NO Problems!

The first flight I found it was way different than any normal flying model. If you have ever flown an E-Flite Tensor you know what I mean. If you have any coupling with the rudder you have something messed up. It flys on its side like it was on its wing, knife edge everything, harrier, loops, inside or outside. I was performing knife edge with my right hand off the tx! Rudder inputt only!

I can imagine that a lot of people can't fly a model that performs like this. But if you are an accomplished aerobatic pilot you are going to go wild! It makes manuevers so easy it is crazy. If you can't look like an expert with this airplane you better go back to boats!

The Saito 82 is perfect power. This is maybe a 60 sized airplane at 730 square inches but it is a 46 glow size at 5.5 lbs! The YS 63 would be perfect. I put the tank where designed and used the Cline pump and regulator and man what a combination that is, it really works.

This airplane performs like it has SFG's on it but they aren't there! I guess if a person doesn't like the colors that is their problem, in the sunlight the metalics just glow in the air, it is about as photogenic as they get.

Send me that airplane I need a second one. Fliton designs airplanes the way scratch model builders would love to build. If you are a hacker and a basher then they are going to be to light for you.

I only wish I could design models this cool. If you don't believe it knife edges (what a joke that guy is) then look at the video on HorizonHobby.com search for Fliton then Inspire and pick the video off the page. The whole thing is in knife edge!

Jimnie

CafeenMan

Jimnie - The problems I've had with this model aren't "dreamed up." A lot of them are of my own making which I think I've made very clear. In any case, I won't be giving the model away. It's put aside for now and at some point I'll come back to it and make an honest effort to make it right. If after that it still isn't then I will destroy it the most violent way I can imagine at the time. There's no freaking way I'm going through all this frustration with this turd only to give it to someone else who might actually enjoy it.

skycarcass

Not asking you to give it away, but I may be interested in purchasing it from you. I'm in the process of building one and converting to electric. I'd like to have an extra for spare parts (I hope I don't need but I'm also realistic).

CafeenMan

Well, after I work on it some more, if I can't get it right and I'm not feeling violent I'll get back to you about selling it. It's way on the back burner though. By the time I get around to working on the model, Inspire will have its successor out which will be the latest and greatest and this one will be old news and a slug in comparison.

CafeenMan

By the way, it's been a while since I visited this thread and I can't remember what I've said already.

For those considering buying the model I very strongly suggest you stick with the recommended power. A very large part of the problems I'm having are due to not being able to balance the model because I used a YS .91. The only way I'll get the model to balance with that engine is to put lead in the tail or perform surgery to move the battery way back.

That's another stopping block for me because I already don't like the model and I don't really have the right engine for it. I have to decide if I really believe paying another $250 or more for the "right" engine will make all the difference with this model.

I have seen the videos of the model in flight and I believe the model is powered with the YS .63. It flies much better than I could pilot it. I'm not an "accomplished aerobatic pilot."

Jimnie

Cafeen,
I am sorry for coming across so contradictory. The thing is I have had such a great experience with this thing I hate to hear people tear it down.

Yes, before it arrived I had a new Saito 125 (still lighter than your YS buy a bunch) ready to put in there. But when you pick up a wing panel and think something must be left out you start thinking maybe the manufacturer actually knew what they were doing (imagine that!). The Saito 82 is still lighter than the YS 63 so I ended up with the battery as far forward as it will go. I think the next one will use even lighter servos in the tail, like JR 3421 in place of the 9411s.

At 730 square inches most people would try to install a larger engine, and there is plenty of room in the cowling to handle it. But power to weight ratios really come into play with light models and Fliton builds light models, lighter than just about any scratch builder I know. The Saito carries this thing around like an indoor electric. Actually I have now built and flown the Inspire Mini. Without battery the Mini weighs a fraction under 16 oz!!! And this is with a well, ugh, larger motor than recommended. It flies just like the big Inspire 60 but much lighter on the controls. The configuration is slightly different but similar.

Maybe you can borrow a smaller lighter engine and make a couple flights. In that video you see the model in knife edge literally falling out of the sky, it does that like a piece of cake, then add a tiny bit of power and the decent stops, it is much fun to fly this thing believe me. It does the same sort of thing in harrier/elevator/parachute mode as well.

So put it away for a while until you get a chance to put a lighter 4-stroke engine in there. I think you will like it and it will teach you a lot about aerobatics in short order.

Jimnie

wildnloose

I just love when someone posts this....I always wonder where they got their info from....

Fact #1 - the ys 63 is 0.1 oz lighter than the Saito 82 (measured on a postal scale). Now granted, the Saito 125 is 2.6 oz lighter than the ys110.

Fact #2 - I have a Global Freestyle, older design that is similar in size, weight, wing area, and style as the Inspire. My ys 63 has plenty of power to perform all types of 3d on this plane with room to spare. There have been guys who put heavy 91 4-strokes on this bird without issues. It has enough wing area to fly well with the extra 6 oz. I do not see why this plane would differ so much.

Fact #3 - I have personally witnessed a guy who had similar issues with another design. He bought an arf like his friend. Both plane had similar setups. One flew great, the other a dog. Several guys (even seasoned pattern flyers) tried to help him trim this bird, but nothing any of did helped much. The guy ended up selling it (said life was too short), then turned around and bought another. This plane flew fine and had no issues.....none...

Go figure...but I understand where Cafeenmans' frustration comes from...but it still won't stop me from buying this plane

BoneDoc

My Feedback: (1)

There has to be a reason though, maybe an "expert" builder can figure it out. After all, it's all about physics right?

wildnloose

Yeah BoneDoc...I'm sure there is an answer...

Ok, I'll admit I was the guy who bought his "dog". I thought I wanted to learn how to get this plane to fly right, but in the end I shifted towards those famous words "LIFE IT TOOOO SHORT!!!!!". I sold the plane (actually made a little extra money) to another aspiring sucker...er...pilot (now, now...I told him the history of this plane before he bought it). I have not seen the guy since he bought the plane.

DHC8GURU

Oh well the cafeenman plane doesn't fly, bummer but sometimes that happens. ARF's are wonderful, I have only seen a few that had issues, but all were corrected. Lets talk about something else, this thread has hashed the problems with one persons plane, lets move on. P.S the saito 100 is a perfect for an expert, but something smaller like a saito 82 would be a better for an intermediate driver.

CafeenMan

DHC - I appreciate that you like ARF's and that's fine. But I think I can decide for myself when I'm finished discussing my topic. You're free to start a thread and discuss anything you want though. Thanks.

- Paul

BoneDoc

My Feedback: (1)

All the expertise Saito 100 owners need to have is a controlled left thumb . More power is almost always better (as long as you don't let your wingloading drop significantly)

DHC8GURU

sorry cafeenman, not trying to disturb your thread. I'll throw in my $.02 worth on your problems.
1. The snaproll problem on full aft elevator is caused by the dowl rod used to connect the two elevators. Under heavy loads with one elevator being driven by the servo and the other being the slave via the dowl rod, the rod is giving under high loads causing uneven elevator displacement. Since you have already installed the rod your easiest solution is to thin CA soak the dowl rod to give it strength.
2. The landing gear can be put on wrong. I bolted mine in backwards, then I saw that one side was pushed back and it was obviously on the wrong side and the gear did not sit flush in the gear well box.. Or it is possible you could have gotten two of the same side gear struts. What threw me was when they were on the correct way was how much negative camber there was. After several landings the gear began to relax into a more normal position. The negative camber in the landing gear forces inward pressure on the mounting surface rather than when you have positive camber, the strut can pull down on the mounting surface and cause the box to break.
Work with it you'll get the problems solved and it will become your favorite plane.

CafeenMan

DHC - The snap roll isn't at full elevator. It's in mild right turns. I didn't use the dowel. I used separate elevator servos of 52 oz/in each. I'm really hoping the snap roll is just a CG problem. The CG is in the range suggested but at the forward edge of it. I need to use a lighter engine.

I plan to spend some time with it in the future and try to work it out. I'll revisit this thead when I get there and describe what I did and what happened.

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

I just finished up a review on the Hangar 9 Tribute 4D .36 PNP and now have the Fliton Inspire 60 and a YS .63 on the way for an RCU review article. I cant wait for it to get here and to get started. From the video I have seen this looks like a neat little plane. Should be a neat plane to write about since its such a complete oxymoron being advertised as good for pattern AND all out 3D. I cant wait to find out. [8D]

RVM

Cafeenman is probably one of the most expert builders you'll ever know.

imfly123

finally maidened this plane today using the axi4130/16 with dual elevator conversion in the tails and all i can say is WOW! i am really impressed at this planes quality and performance. i took her around for about 7 minutes on two 4200packs and batteries were still cool. im just glad i can fit this thing in my 4door with the trunk down!

beautiful plane, best performance ive expreienced...

Jimnie

RVN,
Well maybe he is an expert builder in your eyes, but he didn't follow the instructions, instead making his own modifications and now he is unhappy.

Believe me when you think you know more than the designer you better post your resume. Now days models like this are designed to be built like the designer shows it. Check out Mike McConville's Showtime 90. Another example of a model you can make heavier with bigger engines but you compromize performance for what??

When you find out what you don't know initially by building a model as designed then modify it and tell us you made an improvment then I can give you some credibility, but to just go off on your own and make expeditious changes you should expect mediocre performance and it isn't the makers responsibility.

Jimnie

CafeenMan

Jimnie - The ads for the model now say it is for a .60 to a .90. So in that regard I didn't "modify" the model. Although my model could not even begin to balance with a .90. In any case I have taken responsibility for the modifications I made.

However, the CG is in the range suggested by the manufacturer and it still snaps doing gentle turns. A larger engine is not the culprit.

Maybe it's one of the defects in workman ship such as the various flat spots on the front of leading edge of the wing (that fliton built - not me). Or maybe it's some of the undulations and lumps in the wing sheeting that never would have passed muster if I had built the model. Or maybe its the sum of all the building errors and lack of attention to detail in the build that causing the problem. The design itself looks excellent. But it looks like it was built by people who wanted to slap it together as quickly as possible in a factory. There is no attention to detail at all in the build. Up close it's a really ugly build. Joints don't fit that well and there are a multitude of sins in the build

As far as I'm concerned if I really want this plane right then the only way to do it is to begin by removing ALL the covering (which is the worst crap I've ever seen - didn't even know they made covering this bad). Then pull out the sanding blocks and actually sand the structure so that the leading edges around rounded over properly and the wing sheeting is a smooth curve from leading edge to trailing edge. Then fix anything else I will probably find.

After that I can recover it using decent covering and that may fix it and it may not.

Do you honestly believe that if this model weighs 3 oz more than the mfg recommends that it should turn from the jewel they claim it to be to the piece of doggie doo that I have? I could put 3 oz extra weight in an airplane having 200 inches of wing and although it might not climb out as well it wouldn't turn it into a vicious beast.

So anyway, yeah, I'd have much rather built the model from plans so that it would have been built right because I don't see much wrong with the engineering - just the way they built it.

PS. If you want to see my resume take a look at my website and you can decide for yourself.

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

Respectfully, It takes a lot more than a lump in the covering or an ugly joint to make an airplane fall out of the sky. If there is a real "problom" with the the plane snapping then its probably an incidence, cg, symmetry or overall weight issue. That or the wing shape is out of whack or something.

I fly all sorts of planes and generally planes with tapered leading and trailing edges, sharp leading edges and thin wings are a little more prone to snap at low speed. This is also what makes them desireably less stable and more aerobatic. The Extras and Edges I have flown, if you slow them down too much with the wing loading at the high end of the range they will snap and fall out if the sky,,again if you get them too slow. Flying them is something that you get used to and it gets to where you dont even think about it.

I am not sure whats going on with cafeenman's plane but it could be the design of the plane, the setup of the plane and it could be the pilot.[]

I have read up quite a bit on this plane getting ready for the review and honestly this is the only time I have read about anyone having this problem. If its worth the trouble to you you might want to just mic everything and make sure that everything is symmetrical on both sides of the plane at least. You are hammering on the plane and Fliton pretty good here, I hope that you are 100% sure that there is something is wrong with the airplane Fliton sent you. Do you have pictures you can post up of all the imperfections you say are there?

CafeenMan

I can take photos Mike. It will be a few days before I get to it though and most it probably won't show in photos but I'll do my best.

Several pilots who are much more accomplished than I am have flown the plane and said, "holy ****!" when they saw the way it snapped to the one side.

I yank and bank most of my models and don't consider myself to be any kind of aerobatic pilot at all which is why you don't see anything on my site about how to fly. I teach how to build. And I definitely agree that the joint work isn't going to cause problems with flight unless the plane falls apart which hasn't happened.

But I did set up the plane carefully. It's probably not perfect but certainly it's not off enough to be causing the plane to snap over in turns.

And when I say I yank and bank, with this plane I kept toning down the turns until I figured out exactly where the plane would snap. When I say gentle right turn I'm talking about 1/3 - 1/2 throttle - plenty to maintain altitude and even climb out respectably and about 15 to 20 degree bank with slight elevator. It drops the right wing to about 90 and then it can be recovered easily. It's nothing to be concerned about as if the plane is going to spin into the ground or anything but it's not something any model should be doing in that flight envelope. I've never seen anything like it.

Anyway, I'll try to take photos of the leading edge of the wing. It's pretty pathetic in some areas. In some places it's right and in others it's rounded top and bottom but the very front is flat. Looks like some bozo at the factory start ripping at it with a sanding block, said, "good enough!" and then sent it down the assembly line without ever really looking at it.

The undulations in the sheeting aren't going to show up I'm pretty sure. But if you run your hand over it you can feel them easily. Some are more extreme than others to the point where I don't think they could be sanded out without going through the sheeting which I think is either 1.0 or 1.5 mm - pretty thin stuff.

Oh.. leading edges aren't sharp at all. I can see no reason for the behavior of the plane. If I could find a reason for it then I would not be griping so much. I'd just fix it or send it back. In this case the model looks like it shouldn't have any real problems but it most definitely does.

The only "mods" I made were to add strong mini servos to the elevators because I needed the tail weight any way and there was no place in the fuselage to mount them due to lightening cut outs. I skipped the wood dowel they provide because dowels are always bad unless you're flying a plane with a top speed of about 20 and precision flight isn't a consideration. If that's what's causing the problem then I guess it is all my fault and I owe fliton a big apology. What do you suppose the possibility of dual elevator servos mounted in the root of the stabilizer cause planes to snap over in turns?

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

Hmm, I dunno. Have you tried contacting Fliton to see what they think? I have talked to them several times and they are really excited about the Inspire 60. I know how it feels to just not want to mess with something that does not fly the way you want it to. I hope that you figure it out somehow, if for nothing more than just the fun of solving the problem.

CafeenMan

Mike - You've probably seen enough of my posts to see that I'm a diehard builder. This is only the second ARF I built for me. The first was built when I was stationed in Germany and didn't have a shop. I wanted something in the air quickly with a minimum of tools.

The reason I bought this one was because I saw the ad in the AMA magazine. The lines are beautiful. It's a gorgeous model. I knew nothing about Fliton at the time and frankly didn't really care. I just realized that I know nothing about 3D models and even though I mostly design my own I didn't see any point in reinventing the wheel by trying to design one and going through 15 iterations until it was right. Why not start with one that has already been developed by people who know what they're doing, right?

I also watched the video and I generally believe most manufacturers present honest videos of their models. I mean if the model were sapping over and they edited that part out they probably would fix the model instead of presenting a misleading and dishonest video.

So bottom line is that I believe the model should be good. I'm fairly confident that I can the problems worked out. Even though I'm doing it, it's not my intent to bash Fliton. I have a bad model. Some of it's probably my fault. But I don't think it's all my fault.

I think my best course of action at this point is to install the OS 60 FX I have. I didn't want to do that because it's not the right engine for the model but it will allow me to balance the model. It's a brand new engine and if the model flies well with it and that resolves CG issues then I'll buy the right engine, but then I'll have a new OS 60 that was previously unrun that I'll have to start watching for rust and pulling out occassionally to oil which I don't have to do now because it's never had fuel in it.

Anyway, this project has moved to about the bottom of my priority list so it may be 3 years before I pull it out again. But as I've posted several times already I do plan to make a bonafide effort to fix the model. If the fixes work (or don't) I'll revisit this thread and post what I did and what happened.

I'm glad others aren't having these problems. The model looks like a winner which is why I bought it but at this point I'd have rather saved the money I put into it (a few very expensive servos, an expensive spinner I'll probably never use on anything else, plus the cost of the model) and put that toward something else.

Obviously I'm very outnumbered here by people who love the model and they probably know more about this type of model than I do so they're the ones to listen to.

- Paul

CafeenMan

PS for Jimnie - This is my Sig Wonder that I've extensively modified for no reason other than I wanted to do it. The kit is by Sig but the model was designed by Bruce Thorpe. Apparently he didn't mind that I modified his design a little.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_4819854/tm.htm

In fact, on my site I always invite the manufacturer to respond to anything that I've written about their model and offer to post their reply unedited. They never take me up on it, but at least they have the opportunity to address my criticisms or add whatever they want to say about their kit.