I purchased the Great Planes Gee Bee about two years ago and also got the Robart struts.  Its been in storage untill now that I have some time to put it together and finally attemp to fly it.  I have read this tread with much interest as it has enlighten me as to how this airplane flies and what is wrong with this airplane.  I am thankful to all the people who have written their experiences with this model because it has been very helpfull to me.  It has given me a plan of action on how I am going to build this model.  </p>

  In the past I have built  and flown the Adrian Page 20 size semi scale Gee Bee which flew and landed superbly.  I then purchased and flew the Adrian Page 40 size Gee Bee Z.  I flew the GB Z with a O.S. 46 fx and a Jett in cowl muffler.  It is with the GB Z that I learned the problems with nose over on landings.   I flew the Gee Bee Z with the included wire landing gear wich is very long in height and puts the propeller hub height at 12 inches from the ground (a scale height).    Adrian Page explains in his website that in order for the Gee Bees to be successful they need to be built very light.  His design wich includes planking and stringers along with quality balsa produced a light, strong, and excellent flying Gee Bee which did not tip stall (a comforting attribute on landing approach).  With my GB Z, I experimented with different landing approaches.  Landing on a smooth asphalt long runway, I would try to grease it in on the mains which the plane would do fine untill the tail came down and the long wire landing gear would start to flex and bounce until it managed to flip over.  The only successful landings were accomplished when there was a head wind and the plane would come on a low and long approach.  Which the plane could do so well because of its low wing loading.  The glide would be smoth and slow, the tail would drop and a three point landing could be made at that point.  The airplane would then roll on the groung about six to ten feet and that would be the only way to not flip over.  I still have  this model which I don't fly in fear of totally destroying the airframe with nose over landings.  I flew the model about twenty times in all and manage to land on the mains about five times.  I am planing on doing a few modifications like shortening the nose about an inch which would make it more scale in appearance.  I would also like to design a brass or aluminum landing gear with a strut rear spring loaded scissor type suspension.  This type of landing gear would not change the landing gear moment rearwards at the time of landing strut compression which is a fault notable to the spring inside the strut compression type gear.  This gear design was brought to my attention by Darel at Sierra Retracts.  Adrian Page also recomended to keep all radio gear and engine mass as far down as possible to as not make the airframe top heavy which would make it easier to flip over.</p>

The only way for the GP Gee Bee to be successful is to shave some weight.  I will do what some modelers have suggested previously on this tread.  Which is to build my own rudder out of balsa and cover it with monocote.  The supplied rudder comes in at 3 3/4 ounces.  I could assume a rudder made of balsa could be as light as one ounce.  The stock fiberglass belly pan weighs 7 ounces (ouch!).  If I build it from balsa it could be no more that 2 ounces.  These two modifications could shave 7 3/4 ounces.  I am planning on using a OS 91 fx for power.  The stock muffler weighs 7 ounces.  If I replace it with a Macs Muffler which weighs only 3.6 ounces I could shave an aditional 3.4 ounces.  I will use the robart gear only because I already have it and it will give the plane a solid platform which is superior to the stock landing gear.  The weight trade off for the gear is plus 8 ounces more for the Robart.  Even though it cancels out the saved weight from the rudder and belly pan, it will be able to take tougher landings and not bounce and flex like the stock wire gear would.  Considering that the rudder will be lighter by 2 3/4 ounces and the muffler will also be lighter I am planing on placing all my radio gear in the cowl below the engine.  I will build a light balsa box to house the receiver, battery, and servos and cover it with monokote to fuel proof it.  Placing the radio gear below the engine will help balance the airframe and allow me to keep the weight as low as possible below the thrust line.  If It comes nose heavy I will replace the radio battery with a lithium pack saving an additional 3 ounces.  I also plan to use pull pull for rudder and elevator control.  I find it more accurate, slop free, and lighter than push rods.  I will not use a dummy pilot head and exclude the decals.  The supplied wheels are light but hard so I will replace them with Dave brown lite foam wheels so as not to bounce.  I will use the dummy engine baffle because it will improbe cooling and reduce drag.  I am hoping that these modifications could produce a decent flying model and not be a waste of money.</p>

I am disappointed with the GP GB design because I have read in this tread that this airplane does not glide and it tends to tip stall or snap on slow flight; which is needed to land in a three point attitude.   Some people blame this to the wide body  of the gee bee but I have read in the Benjaminm Delmar and Steve Wolf  "full scale" Gee Bee project book that the body design was chosen by the original design engineers because it was a very aerodynamic shape with low drag which allowed them to enclose a radial Wasp engine.  It is basically the shape of a tear drop or fish.   My Adrian Page Gee Gee Z glides better than any plane I have owned, including a lightweight Extra 300.   The reason that the GP GB does not glide is probably because of the heavy wing loading and the also the previously mentioned negative wing insidence (which helps on take off).   I love the Gee Bees and cosidering the available retail choices the Great Planes Gee Bee is worth the modification effort.  If I had my choice I would buy and build a Adrian Page Geebee 1/4 scale but sadly he is not selling them right now.  I hope he decides to produce them again soon.   His design of the 60 size GB which is slightly smaller than the GP GB by 8 inches (in the wingspan)  only wheigs 6.5 pounds;  compare that to the GP GB at (11 to 12) pounds.</p>

Best regards, Cardona</p>