Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Has anyone flown or seen the Cermark Ultimate 40 in person? It looks like a nice design, but I can't seem to find any reviews for it. As a matter of fact, I can't seem to find many reviews for any of the Cermark aircraft (although there are plenty of discussions about the Banchee). Anyway, is this plane 3d capable if you give it enough power? Its hard to tell how big the control surfaces are from the picture on Cermark's web site, and I can't find an online manual for it. If anybody's seen it, what engine/prop combo was used? It was designed by Dave Patrick, so I'm assuming it was built with 3D in mind.

Thanks,
Clay

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Clay there is a review on here which is the Dave Patrick ultimate .40, or the Cermark ultimate. I bought one while on leave from the Army and fly it with an OS .50sx and a 12.25x3.75 prop. I honestly think a 4 stroke might get more torque to hover down on the deck, its hard to hold a hover at low altitude as it just wants to pull out of it. I will let you know how the experience goes though, the plane nearly met an untimely end with some engine problems early on which were since resolved. Be careful with engine choice as certain engines like the OS two strok will require a perry pump in order for the fuel to flow with no problems.

I will let you know as I fly it more and wring it out. Still programming it in my 9 CAP futaba. Here is my exact setup:

TX Futaba 9 Cap

RX hitec 7 channel rx
600mah 4.8v rx battery
4 x GWS mini servos (42oz of torque)
2x s3004 Futabas in Ailerons (had to modify setup to fit)
OS .50sx with bisson pitts
APC 12.25 x 3.75

Dave recommends a YS63, I am thinking a 13x4 Wide would work really well. I flew it on my plane once, but it loaded the engine too much.

Word of caution, this thing is bulit light, so be careful in engine choice. Fuel tank is tiny also. Landing gear is really weak and will bend easily, and you will want to throw out the wheels that come with it. I fly on a grass field so went to 2.25 foam wheels which caused me to lengthen wheel pant openings. Stock tail wheel is a real joke. I might add a heavy one to help the CG move aft for better hovering. It flys so nice now though that I dont want to change much. Slowing it down would help with 3d though. Thus far I have not been able to throw it around like a Twist or Funtana.


Regards,
airborneSGT

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

I have to make a comment about the Cermark Ultimate. I am not sure if the Dave patrick was the same, but this thing is real flimzy is some parts. I must warn everyone on here, that the sheeting on the wings was so fragile that just by picking it up in some cases would case it to crack. In fact twice I have had to peel some skin back to re enforce the sheeting with some thick and thin CA. The bad things they dont tell you about this are the flimzy landing gear, stock wheels which are really a joke, and having to drill the opening holes for all the pull-pull cables. Althought I am happy with the way it flies, I am honestly going to contact Cermark to find out if all of them are like this or what. I would honestly think that after a season of flying this particular ultimate I might have problems with airframe integrity.

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Thanks for the honest comments. I've held off on purchasing a nitro plane because I'm having so much fun with my 3D electrics. While I still like biplanes, I'm leaning more towards something like an Edge 540 or an Extra 330 when I finally take the plunge.

I've heard so many good things about Dave Patrick's larger planes, I'm surprised the 40 size is so flimsy. Maybe thats why Dave doesn't sell it on his web site.

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Well I am not familiar with Dave's larger planes. I have heard all great things about those. Regarding larger Extras and Edges - I highly recommend the Yellow Aircraft Edge 540 T. Its 25%, very scale, and such an awesome flier. Its well built, but takes time to finish. I have a Roto 25 gasser in mine. It has unlimited vertical, but once you get lots of power you want more...so once I ger more funds thinking about a ZDZ 40 which should let me hover at 25% throttle and is about the same weight all up. Regarding other large Ultimates, besides DP. There is a 27% and 33$ from both World models and Aeroworks. Yeah I love these forums, found out the dirty details on everything!

Regards,
airborneSGT

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Im just finishing assembling mine, I didnt find any of the parts particularly flimsy on my example must be a quality control problem I guess in fact I commented to my LHS owner on ow nicely the plane was built. As for the task of drilling six holes for the pull-pull wires a dremel sorted it in a few seconds. The only problem I have encountered in the whole build is that the hole for the lower wing locating peg was slightly undersize, I wish all the artfs Ive assembled were tis difficult:)

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

I have one and its the only glow plane I have all the rest are large gassers. This is a great little plane. It is the Dave Patrick Ultimate, they are just being distributed by Cermark, they put a Cermark sticker over the words Dave Patrick. I have a Saito 72 in mine. Here is the link to the review with video done by RCU.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...?article_id=49

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Thanks for the link to the review. I had searched for a review on RCU, but wasn't able to find it for some reason.

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

I guess mine was just not a perfect example :( From the box it looked like it had sat a long while, not sure why this would make any difference. I plan on contacting Cermark though to hopefully get some replacement or fix at least. Could be as simple as a replacement set of wings. For some reason the sheeting on the my plane were so fragile they would crack if handled.

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Just got back from the first flying session with the Cermark Ultimate 40. Set it up as reccomended, throws, expo etc My honest opinion well it flies fine on the high rate settings but is a tad sluggish at low rates, maybe my example is a tad nose heavy as i installed an OS FL70 which according to the manufacturers figures is 90 grams heavier than an OS46. Flies well at below half throttle on 12x7 APC, didnt throw it around much as had a bad attack of the glitches and it unnerved me a little, think I'll slip PCM reciever in it before next flying session. Overall I think Im going to like it, takes off and lands real sweet not as twitchy in roll as I expected and sure looks nice purring past at low level.

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Has anyone had cg problems. Tail heavy- Engine OS52- 4 stroke. Tail Big time. Mini servo's. Before I remount the engine and move forward. Also whats with no decals. Instruction tell where to place them but the kit come without. Called Cermark and they told the kit dose not come with decals> Hmm- something sounds a little off,

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

The plane came with decals when Dave Patrick Models sold it the instructions are still the same, they just put a Cermark sticker over it. Cermark doesn't give you the Dave Patrick Decals since cermark is now the only one selling the .40 size Ultimate.

I used standard size servos in mine and only used pull pull on the rudder. I made a fork type pushrod for the two elevator halfs. No problems with the CG.:D

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

I used mini servos for the throttle, elevator halves and rudder. Standards for ailerons and battery is mounted just about under the canopy. With an OS .50sx and this setup I have had no CG issues. All the servos are mounted per instructions. I called DP Models a few months ago and they sent me some decals for the Ultimate. Having never setup pull-pull for the elevator halves and rudder made it an interesting install.

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Thats guys for reply's. .
Ok I must be doing something wrong. According to the instructions 3/8 to 3/4 from leading edge of rear cabane. I place fingers there -tail heavy. If I extend out to wing tip will come more into balance. Broke gp cg balancer. Have pull pull all around with mini sevos. Its just some dump thing Im doing. I think I going back to my Pitts .
Bob

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

What I will do later on tonight is take a picture of what I use as the balance point. I also have the Great Planes CG machine but simply balanced it with my finger at the stated CG location in front of the Rear Cabine. To make this clear I will take a picture for you tonight and it should help you out. This is a great little bird, however, I guess mine had a few issues which you can read about in this posting. Hope this will solve your CG issue.

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Here are the pictures that I promised. There is one view each; looking from the leading edge of the top wing and also looking from the side. I simply used the finger method as stated to balance it out. I found I had to move my battery pack to about under the canopy to balance it out nicely. If you need more weight in the tail, you might just try a heavy tail wheel. I am using larger foam wheels up front and a Klett tail wheel because I fly from a grass field. I hope these pictures help you. For anyone interested I have another one of these NIB I might be willing to sell.

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Thanks for the infro. At least I known I'm not losing it completely, but that is what I was doing. So I moved the engine up 1/4"and moved the battery up to the firewall even doing that' it's not really nose heavy. Oh well I guess I'll test my flying skill.
Thats trouble!

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

At all costs I try never to add weight to my models. I think I have had only had two out of all my planes where getting a good balance would not happen unless I added weight. I just dont get how the that plane would still be tail heavy if you had the servos in the stock location. The only thing extra I have on my plane is a perry pump which added like no weight at all. Let me know how it goes. At least when you fuel it up it will make it more nose heavy! Of course it will get tail heavy as you fly, so just be careful when you land :)

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

airborneSGT

I am looking to ge my first Biplane.. Options I am looking for

-DP Ultimate 1.20 size (my # 1 choice due to great reviews)
-Cermark Pitts
-BME Challenger

Who can give me some feedback on what would be the choice to go with..

RE: Cermark Ultimate 40?
 

Myself I own a .40 size DP Ultimate, as well as 1/3rd GP Christen eagle.

Here is my take on all of these planes:

DP Ultimate - Awesome plane and even in the 1.20 size it only gets better. I have heard of some people putting a gas engine in this plane. Suitable gas engines would be an RCS 1.40, Roto 25, or even an MVVS. I would choose your engine wisely and do not just overlook this area. Your engine is what will be pulling your model around and putting it through its paces. Get something reliable.
Now on the Ultimate, it will knife edge very easily. It will flat spin like a dream. Torque rolls are no problem. So long as you keep it light landing is cake. Ultimates also like to fly a little fast so you may need to get used to that.

Cermark Pitts - Another winner as far as I am concerned. Never owned one myself, but it is also designed by Dave Patrick. I have read a review of people using both the Roto 25, and a modified Zenoah G26. From what I understand the modified G 26 will allow you to hang it from the prop a little. You may have to put some time in this bird to get the ailerons working right from what I have read.

BME Challenger - With a BME 50 the thing seems to fly awesome! I would suspect a DA 50, ZDZ 50 would give you the same results. You have a larger airframe with this bird, and more wing area. This would allow easier setup for smoke and you probably could get away with a heavier engine, but I would not recommend it. You can see the plane fly on BME's website. Does some basic hovering.

Price is a big thing you must consider. The BME Challenger will probably be the most expensive overall. Flying a gas engine however means much cheaper overall operating costs vs. glow on say a YS 1.40 for the DP Ultimate. Also consider servos and the like. You wont get away with weak servos in any of these planes. I would recommend something close to 90oz of torque at least and metal gears as well. My economy setup for my GP Christen eagle is HS645mg (133oz of torque at 6 v.) for servos. Although lighter and digital would be best.

If flying 3D stuff is what you plan on doing, then I would go with either the DP Ultimate or the BME Challenger. I think both would make you very happy. If you want just acrobatics, then the Cermark Pitts would fit the bill. Now I know someone out there will say the Cermark is the way to go, but this is my opinion.

I have actually seen both the DP Ultimate .40 and 1.20 size do 3D. From the forums on here and the BME website I have seen the Challenger do some neat 3D (although not all that crazy). Biplanes will need some mixing to fly with no tendancies, so I recommend a computer radio to handle that.

Whatever way you decide to go, plan out your plane first. Start with the airframe, then consider a power source. Choose your servos wisely and dont get cheap there either. Dont want to loose a nice plane you just put close to a $1k in to servo failure.

If you have any other questions I would be happy to help. I also have another NIB .40 size DP Ultimate I am selling, but it sounds like you want the bigger ones. The bigger they are the better they do fly :)

My choice of the lot would be either the DP Ultimate if you wanted a more affordable choice, or the BME Challenger if you wanted a plane built for gas. Speaking of which, the Challenger is on sale right now. Still a little pricey though in my opinion.

p.s. Wild Hare has a 50cc Ultimate on its way:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Utli...2720071/tm.htm

Tom from WH is probably the best guy out there for support as far as I am concerned. Will answer all your questions.