Great Planes Reactor 160?
09-08-2008, 09:18 AM
#51
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Idaho Falls,
ID
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 120-160?
The Servo Programmer can help match the servos, but you also can adjust the linkage manually to eliminate any "servo fight". Just set them up as close as you can and put power to them. If you have any "buzzing", determine which servo is buzzing and adjust the linkage to eliminate the buzzing. But you are worrying too much...not that hard to do. Probably not an issue at all.
Thanks
Barry
09-09-2008, 10:53 PM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Barrie,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
Great .... Now how am I gonna get this in my car? If ever there was a reason to go to Gas/50cc ..... October can't come soon enough and 2009 flying season look even brighter now.
09-10-2008, 12:24 PM
#55
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Osceola Mills,
PA
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
You guys that are complaining about the two wing servos may not have an appreciation for just how big those ailerons are. I have a Bling 3D which also has monster ailerons and two servos for each. I was worried about servo matching at first also, but as it turned out, hand matching them worked out just fine.
One thing to watch out for is power distribution. Severe voltage sags are possible with a gang of high torque servos pushing those huge control surfaces around. A power box of some kind is really a necessity.
One thing to watch out for is power distribution. Severe voltage sags are possible with a gang of high torque servos pushing those huge control surfaces around. A power box of some kind is really a necessity.
09-10-2008, 07:10 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Barrie,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
Kamikazi
I don't recall saying I've had issues with duel servos. You're likely referring to prior comments from someone else but they're likely thinking more about the extra $150+ in servors that you usually don't even see on 30% planes.
Still your right regarding the size of the aileron. This is an 84" span, 1556 sq inch wing and the Aileron is about 1/3 of the wing. That's quite a step up from the .46 size plane and more aileron than on the average 35% bird. So we shouldn't be entirely surprised that they went with two 100 oz/in servos. You could make a single servo mount for a 333 oz/in servo but this needs more structure which is more weight in exchange for redundancy and response of two servos.
I'll likely try out 4 of the new Hitec 7985 MGs on the wings, 2 of the 7965s MG on the elevators that I'll likely configure as Elevons and a 7955 TG on the Rudder.
I don't recall saying I've had issues with duel servos. You're likely referring to prior comments from someone else but they're likely thinking more about the extra $150+ in servors that you usually don't even see on 30% planes.
Still your right regarding the size of the aileron. This is an 84" span, 1556 sq inch wing and the Aileron is about 1/3 of the wing. That's quite a step up from the .46 size plane and more aileron than on the average 35% bird. So we shouldn't be entirely surprised that they went with two 100 oz/in servos. You could make a single servo mount for a 333 oz/in servo but this needs more structure which is more weight in exchange for redundancy and response of two servos.
I'll likely try out 4 of the new Hitec 7985 MGs on the wings, 2 of the 7965s MG on the elevators that I'll likely configure as Elevons and a 7955 TG on the Rudder.
09-11-2008, 12:29 AM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver,
BC, CANADA
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
ORIGINAL: Kamikazi
You guys that are complaining about the two wing servos may not have an appreciation for just how big those ailerons are. I have a Bling 3D which also has monster ailerons and two servos for each. I was worried about servo matching at first also, but as it turned out, hand matching them worked out just fine.
One thing to watch out for is power distribution. Severe voltage sags are possible with a gang of high torque servos pushing those huge control surfaces around. A power box of some kind is really a necessity.
You guys that are complaining about the two wing servos may not have an appreciation for just how big those ailerons are. I have a Bling 3D which also has monster ailerons and two servos for each. I was worried about servo matching at first also, but as it turned out, hand matching them worked out just fine.
One thing to watch out for is power distribution. Severe voltage sags are possible with a gang of high torque servos pushing those huge control surfaces around. A power box of some kind is really a necessity.
If the rudder can make do with a single servo then so can each aileron. I've seen a number of 50cc and large planes that have two rudder servos but only a single servo per wing.
I may still buy the Reactor 50cc, but I will wait for the reviews and only buy if it is the best in class. So far it seems more like the Giant U-Can-Do, a scaled up version of a great plane that also had some poor design decisions.
09-11-2008, 07:14 AM
#58
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: berlin hts,
OH
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 120-160?
i have a Bling also,it's a fun plane to fly at 14.2 lbs. with a DA.on the two servos per aileron on the Bling it is built so light that it takes two servo's to keep them straight.this may be the case with the Reactor.
09-11-2008, 08:09 AM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Barrie,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
No arguement from me. Like I said... they could have made this a single.
Note though the SU-26 wing area of 1762 sq in and the slightly more than standard 1/4 size airleron to the 1556 sq in 1/3 size aileron of the Reactor. The area of the Ailerons come out almost the same. But the SU-26 is a 21-24 lb bird where as the Reactor is a 14-17 lb bird. That a lot of structure to handle that difference and the Reactor is a thin wing foil design making it a very big thin aileron.
To structurally support that airleron over a much wider span than a rudder but not adding weight via structural lumber or composites to avoid twisting at the ends of the aileron tips .....
It was likely just easier and less expensive FOR THEM to make it a dual Servo aileron than to build around the problem. UNfortunately that defers the expense to you the end user.
A Rudder to a Aileron is not just how much servo power you put in. Rudders are structurally stronger... shorter, thick cord etc. Rudders can handle the twist forces without being beefed up. The main reason too for more servo on a Rudder is its forward profile in full deflection is usually more than that of an aileron. With the Reactor again the aileron is bigger making the profile larger needing almost as much in full deflection which works out to our flying enjoyment.
Still by adding two servos you add about 6oz. That's why I said they could have gone with one but it would have taken a little more design/structure/building for them to have done this on so thin a member. That's probably why page 8 of the manual says, "DO NOT use only one aileron servo per wing, no matter what the torque rating." The Airlerons just aren't built to handle a single hard point.
Note though the SU-26 wing area of 1762 sq in and the slightly more than standard 1/4 size airleron to the 1556 sq in 1/3 size aileron of the Reactor. The area of the Ailerons come out almost the same. But the SU-26 is a 21-24 lb bird where as the Reactor is a 14-17 lb bird. That a lot of structure to handle that difference and the Reactor is a thin wing foil design making it a very big thin aileron.
To structurally support that airleron over a much wider span than a rudder but not adding weight via structural lumber or composites to avoid twisting at the ends of the aileron tips .....
It was likely just easier and less expensive FOR THEM to make it a dual Servo aileron than to build around the problem. UNfortunately that defers the expense to you the end user.
A Rudder to a Aileron is not just how much servo power you put in. Rudders are structurally stronger... shorter, thick cord etc. Rudders can handle the twist forces without being beefed up. The main reason too for more servo on a Rudder is its forward profile in full deflection is usually more than that of an aileron. With the Reactor again the aileron is bigger making the profile larger needing almost as much in full deflection which works out to our flying enjoyment.
Still by adding two servos you add about 6oz. That's why I said they could have gone with one but it would have taken a little more design/structure/building for them to have done this on so thin a member. That's probably why page 8 of the manual says, "DO NOT use only one aileron servo per wing, no matter what the torque rating." The Airlerons just aren't built to handle a single hard point.
09-11-2008, 02:07 PM
#60
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Idaho Falls,
ID
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
I for one am fine with the 4 aileron servos on this plane. I've got a 33% Yak with 4 aileron servos. It was not a problem to set up and I've got along with them just fine.The manuals states that the Reactor will weigh 16lbs with the DA50. I'm assuming this is with the 4 alieron servos. Soooooo.....this makes this a very light plane indeed. Most of the other 50cc planes are coming in at about 17lbs. Even with special carbon fiber gear and light batteres, etc. most still don't get to 16lbs. The only known exceptions are AirWild Extra and Edge which come in at about 15lbs. All others that I know of are at least 17lbs. Many are more than that. Extreme Flight is 18 or more and I even saw one report of one that was 19lbs. The QQ Yak is about 16.5lbs and the Wildhare Edge is almost 17lbs. And the latter two are with carbon fiber extras and light gear. My Aeroworks Yak was over 18lbs and that was with carbon fiber extras also.
This thing has more wing area by 100 inches than any of those. It will fly "light as a feather". I imagine it will not be the more precise plane of the bunch, but I'll bet it will hover great and do waterfalls, flatspins, flips, rolling maneuvers, harriers etc with the greatest of ease. IE: It will be a very fun airplane to fly. That's what I'm looking for and that's why I have one on order.
I can't wait.
Thanks
Barry
09-11-2008, 04:47 PM
#61
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: berlin hts,
OH
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 120-160?
it is nice to see a plane come along and kind of take the place of a Bling,being that you can't get them anymore.
can't wait to hear some flight reports and AUW.
it will have some big shoes to fill,rite now i have not seen many planes this size that flatspins,blenders,waterfalls and hovers like a Bling.or it could be that weight to power thing that makes it fun.
can't wait to hear some flight reports and AUW.
it will have some big shoes to fill,rite now i have not seen many planes this size that flatspins,blenders,waterfalls and hovers like a Bling.or it could be that weight to power thing that makes it fun.
09-13-2008, 08:42 PM
#63
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Peters, MO,
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
ORIGINAL: Barry Cazier
I for one am fine with the 4 aileron servos on this plane. I've got a 33% Yak with 4 aileron servos. It was not a problem to set up and I've got along with them just fine.
The manuals states that the Reactor will weigh 16lbs with the DA50. I'm assuming this is with the 4 alieron servos. Soooooo.....this makes this a very light plane indeed. Most of the other 50cc planes are coming in at about 17lbs. Even with special carbon fiber gear and light batteres, etc. most still don't get to 16lbs. The only known exceptions are AirWild Extra and Edge which come in at about 15lbs. All others that I know of are at least 17lbs. Many are more than that. Extreme Flight is 18 or more and I even saw one report of one that was 19lbs. The QQ Yak is about 16.5lbs and the Wildhare Edge is almost 17lbs. And the latter two are with carbon fiber extras and light gear. My Aeroworks Yak was over 18lbs and that was with carbon fiber extras also.
This thing has more wing area by 100 inches than any of those. It will fly "light as a feather". I imagine it will not be the more precise plane of the bunch, but I'll bet it will hover great and do waterfalls, flatspins, flips, rolling maneuvers, harriers etc with the greatest of ease. IE: It will be a very fun airplane to fly. That's what I'm looking for and that's why I have one on order.
I can't wait.
Thanks
Barry
I for one am fine with the 4 aileron servos on this plane. I've got a 33% Yak with 4 aileron servos. It was not a problem to set up and I've got along with them just fine.The manuals states that the Reactor will weigh 16lbs with the DA50. I'm assuming this is with the 4 alieron servos. Soooooo.....this makes this a very light plane indeed. Most of the other 50cc planes are coming in at about 17lbs. Even with special carbon fiber gear and light batteres, etc. most still don't get to 16lbs. The only known exceptions are AirWild Extra and Edge which come in at about 15lbs. All others that I know of are at least 17lbs. Many are more than that. Extreme Flight is 18 or more and I even saw one report of one that was 19lbs. The QQ Yak is about 16.5lbs and the Wildhare Edge is almost 17lbs. And the latter two are with carbon fiber extras and light gear. My Aeroworks Yak was over 18lbs and that was with carbon fiber extras also.
This thing has more wing area by 100 inches than any of those. It will fly "light as a feather". I imagine it will not be the more precise plane of the bunch, but I'll bet it will hover great and do waterfalls, flatspins, flips, rolling maneuvers, harriers etc with the greatest of ease. IE: It will be a very fun airplane to fly. That's what I'm looking for and that's why I have one on order.
I can't wait.
Thanks
Barry
09-15-2008, 07:22 PM
#64
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Victoria,
MN
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
Yep....
50cc comes in at 16lbs....
What gets me excited is that if I placed my 40cc in there with a CF tuned pipe it would weigh the same as the
Glow setup (1.60 fx) at 14lbs...... This would be pretty good......
Flip side of all this I may just go into the Extreme flight vanquish 2M that they are going to produce.... But, then I wouldn't
be able to have this plane and flip it around like a black lab on steroids...
50cc comes in at 16lbs....
What gets me excited is that if I placed my 40cc in there with a CF tuned pipe it would weigh the same as the
Glow setup (1.60 fx) at 14lbs...... This would be pretty good......
Flip side of all this I may just go into the Extreme flight vanquish 2M that they are going to produce.... But, then I wouldn't
be able to have this plane and flip it around like a black lab on steroids...
09-16-2008, 04:43 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Barrie,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
Which 40cc and what will it turn at what RPM.
Wonder what the numbers are for a 50 cc on a CF tuned pipe. I like the tuned pipe idea for this bird. If there is enough room on the bottom like the battery bay on the .46 it'll be the perfect place for one.
Hopefully the wheels are in the right place. Nosing over on a big wood prop can get pretty costly. If the gear looks like it'll cause the same nose over issues of the little brother, I'll put the Graphtech #215 gear on it, cut down the middle. I happened to have one from a mis-order. Turns out to be the right width and height. If not turning around the gear should do the trick.
Wonder what the numbers are for a 50 cc on a CF tuned pipe. I like the tuned pipe idea for this bird. If there is enough room on the bottom like the battery bay on the .46 it'll be the perfect place for one.
Hopefully the wheels are in the right place. Nosing over on a big wood prop can get pretty costly. If the gear looks like it'll cause the same nose over issues of the little brother, I'll put the Graphtech #215 gear on it, cut down the middle. I happened to have one from a mis-order. Turns out to be the right width and height. If not turning around the gear should do the trick.
09-16-2008, 05:53 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Santiago, CHILE
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 120-160?
Well, just the perfect plane for a homeless DA50. I was waiting a non scale plane for 3d and presicion, around the Da 50 that my LHS could bring here at a good price.
I think that 2 servos is a good thing in a plane with thin and big ailerons. They may flex, so matching the servos would not be that difficult, there is no need for a "perfect" match.
I think that 2 servos is a good thing in a plane with thin and big ailerons. They may flex, so matching the servos would not be that difficult, there is no need for a "perfect" match.
09-24-2008, 08:33 PM
#67
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Victoria,
MN
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
ORIGINAL: MaxThrottle
Wonder what the numbers are for a 50 cc on a CF tuned pipe. I like the tuned pipe idea for this bird. If there is enough room on the bottom like the battery bay on the .46 it'll be the perfect place for one.
Wonder what the numbers are for a 50 cc on a CF tuned pipe. I like the tuned pipe idea for this bird. If there is enough room on the bottom like the battery bay on the .46 it'll be the perfect place for one.
Well, I should have known better..... I looked at the manual.......
Wishfull thinking on our part.....That GP would actually think that people in this hobby like to put cannesters, and tuned pipes on there planes!!!!!!
(Just look at there hX, Even the 150cc extra has NO PLACE FOR IN COWL MUFFLERS)
They most likly omited that to:
make more room in the fuse for that BIG 600CC gas can
Didn't want any excess weight....
Too bad,
if they made the front a little longer, (cowl included) they would have room for that shinny 50cc engine, instead of having it falling out of the cowl,
and satisfy the users that are sound studious.. or rather, neighbor frendly....
They placed a awfull lot of resources to make all these electric planes because they want to be doing the (in thing) and it sells,,,,
One would be thinking that there are other benifits to electric, and that Gas engines can benifit with tunnels to place our mufflers in , Thus, giving us the oportunity to quiet our engines .... Just like the Electrics....
bummer...
09-25-2008, 12:16 AM
#68
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Idaho Falls,
ID
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
I'm gonna use a pitts style muffler on mine. It will be better than the stock exhaust but not as good as a canister. I agree, it should have a tunnel for a canister. Maybe that'll be an improvement in the future. In fact...I'm gonna go on Great Planes website. I think they have a place for suggestions.However, I do believe the lack of tunnel, shorter cowl and narrow fuse are a couple reasons the plane is light and has a huge wing area.
If it flys as good as I think it will....maybe the extra noise will be worth it. Maybe I'll have to go to Jtec "snubbers" to reduce the noise. That would work...
Thanks
Barry
PS: I think they said they are going to ship these the first week of October...Can't wait
09-30-2008, 07:22 PM
#70
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Goodyear, AZ
Posts: 1,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
George,
Thanks for posting the video. It looks like it flies very well. Didn't see much, if any wing rock in a harrier. My credit card is starting to shake.
Chuck
Thanks for posting the video. It looks like it flies very well. Didn't see much, if any wing rock in a harrier. My credit card is starting to shake.
Chuck
10-01-2008, 12:05 AM
#71
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Idaho Falls,
ID
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....that's nice. Waterfalls look great. Wasn't impressed with the flat spin...but I'll be I can get it to do one...maybe evening a rising flat spin...no that'd be to much to expect. Very "locked in" look about it. I can't wait to get mine and try it.
Thanks
Barry
10-01-2008, 08:10 AM
#72
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Idaho Falls,
ID
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
Where'd this video come from? I looked on GP website and Tower and can't see it. Yet, it looks like a GP video. Any ideas?Thanks
Barry
10-01-2008, 09:23 AM
#74
RE: Great Planes Reactor 160?
ORIGINAL: Barry Cazier
Where'd this video come from? I looked on GP website and Tower and can't see it. Yet, it looks like a GP video. Any ideas?
Thanks
Barry
Where'd this video come from? I looked on GP website and Tower and can't see it. Yet, it looks like a GP video. Any ideas?Thanks
Barry
10-01-2008, 11:48 AM
#75
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Great Planes Reactor 120-160?
LOL
I like the potential viral marketing assumptions!
http://www.greatplanes.com/gallery/index.html
The kits have passed our QC here in Champaign.....enjoy!
cheers,
George
I like the potential viral marketing assumptions!
http://www.greatplanes.com/gallery/index.html
The kits have passed our QC here in Champaign.....enjoy!
cheers,
George