35% 260 QB CG issue
#1
Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Williston,
ND
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
35% 260 QB CG issue
Was there a design change in the second production run of the 35% 260 extra? The CG on the first one I had came out perfect with a DA 100 engine and all recommended accessories. I then hit a power line on a flight and had to replace the fuselage and again, the CG came out right on. A stall on landing on the fifteenth flight took care of the fuse and one wing. Ordered a whole new plane. Installed all of the same gear, plus a instrument panel and pilot which were behind the CG point. Upon checking the CG, I find that I'm way nose heavey. Moved the reciever battery and ignition battery as far back as the gear tray would allow ( just aft of the ruuder servo). Still nose heavey. Replaced carbon fiber prop with wood prop. Still needs more tail weight. Am trying to achieve 3.5" CG back from leading edge at the wingtip. I thought with the dash panel and the pilot, I would end up tail heavey if anything. I taped lead weights to the tune of 3.5 ounces next to the attachment point of the tail gear to balance but do not want to glue anything to the outside of the aircraft. Could there be that much difference in wood density from one production run to the next? Anybody else haveing the same problem? By the way, Aeroworks is still the best!
#2
My Feedback: (4)
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
I am not sure how old your other planes were, but I do know that they went with a higher grade, lighter balsa on newer runs. My buddy just finished his with the hundy and stock muffs, and had to put his two Duralite 3600Limag batteries as far back on the gear tray as possible and is still about 1/8" noseheavy. I would not be suprised if you are in the same boat. Still, it's easier to bring a CG back than it is to bring it forward!
#3
Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Williston,
ND
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
Bodywerks,
My first planes were bought in 2005. I may try carbon fiber spinner and landing gear. I am not sure how much moment weight I would gain with them. Another option would be to fill the stabalizer mounting spars with lead shot from shotgun shells. Or build an extension similar to what you did on the front of your plane and hang the batteries off the rear of the gear tray.
I see your address has changed from Colorado to Arizona. Looks like you have gained over 6000 feet of horsepower. Thanks for the reply.
FLSTN95
My first planes were bought in 2005. I may try carbon fiber spinner and landing gear. I am not sure how much moment weight I would gain with them. Another option would be to fill the stabalizer mounting spars with lead shot from shotgun shells. Or build an extension similar to what you did on the front of your plane and hang the batteries off the rear of the gear tray.
I see your address has changed from Colorado to Arizona. Looks like you have gained over 6000 feet of horsepower. Thanks for the reply.
FLSTN95
#4
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: , MI
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
Im having the same issue, too nose heavy with two 2400 nicads right in the ass end of the radio compartmant. Aero works said I was nuts, so I m glad someone else has brought it up. I talked to a rep at toledo, and they said it never been heard of before
HH
HH
#5
Member
My Feedback: (54)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Madison,
CT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
Same here. Got a DA 100 in the nose and everything as far back as possible. Put a lighten spinner backplate in. Built a battery tray in the turtle deck and mounted my 2 1950ma nmh batteries back there. Call Aeroworks in Jan about it and they said never heard of that prob. Looks like they don't want to address it. There seems to be many people experencing a very nose heavy design.
#6
Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Williston,
ND
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
Hey everyone. Let's try to narrow this down a little. My first 34% 260's were 2005 models. They balanced right on. After my last wreck, Aeroworks was sold out of them and I had to wait for the next batch. In the above statement by bodywerks, he has stated that a higher and ligher grade of balsa was used in the newer models. Bodywerks always tells it like it is so there is no doubt in my mind that the balsa lightening could be the problem. I have the yellow version. Is your guys the red or the yellow one? Aeroworks is correct when they tell you they haven't had a problem with balancing issues, however it seems that that is not now the case. I have been to their store and can tell you they are good people and as they see more than a few of us are having the same problem, they will look into it. I still have one of my old fuses and will put a tape measure to it to see if there is any difference in length or wing tube placement and let you all know what i find out. No matter what, it's still going to take a little lead in the tail section to balance. Aerworks can probably correct the problem on futrue production. Thanks for your input. flstn95
#7
My Feedback: (4)
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
ORIGINAL: flstn95
Bodywerks,
My first planes were bought in 2005. I may try carbon fiber spinner and landing gear. I am not sure how much moment weight I would gain with them. Another option would be to fill the stabalizer mounting spars with lead shot from shotgun shells. Or build an extension similar to what you did on the front of your plane and hang the batteries off the rear of the gear tray.
I see your address has changed from Colorado to Arizona. Looks like you have gained over 6000 feet of horsepower. Thanks for the reply.
FLSTN95
Bodywerks,
My first planes were bought in 2005. I may try carbon fiber spinner and landing gear. I am not sure how much moment weight I would gain with them. Another option would be to fill the stabalizer mounting spars with lead shot from shotgun shells. Or build an extension similar to what you did on the front of your plane and hang the batteries off the rear of the gear tray.
I see your address has changed from Colorado to Arizona. Looks like you have gained over 6000 feet of horsepower. Thanks for the reply.
FLSTN95
Anyway, are you sure you didn't accidentally get a steel version of the DA-100?
JK...
#8
My Feedback: (4)
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
ORIGINAL: flstn95
Hey everyone. Let's try to narrow this down a little. My first 34% 260's were 2005 models. They balanced right on. After my last wreck, Aeroworks was sold out of them and I had to wait for the next batch. In the above statement by bodywerks, he has stated that a higher and ligher grade of balsa was used in the newer models. Bodywerks always tells it like it is so there is no doubt in my mind that the balsa lightening could be the problem. I have the yellow version. Is your guys the red or the yellow one? Aeroworks is correct when they tell you they haven't had a problem with balancing issues, however it seems that that is not now the case. I have been to their store and can tell you they are good people and as they see more than a few of us are having the same problem, they will look into it. I still have one of my old fuses and will put a tape measure to it to see if there is any difference in length or wing tube placement and let you all know what i find out. No matter what, it's still going to take a little lead in the tail section to balance. Aerworks can probably correct the problem on futrue production. Thanks for your input. flstn95
Hey everyone. Let's try to narrow this down a little. My first 34% 260's were 2005 models. They balanced right on. After my last wreck, Aeroworks was sold out of them and I had to wait for the next batch. In the above statement by bodywerks, he has stated that a higher and ligher grade of balsa was used in the newer models. Bodywerks always tells it like it is so there is no doubt in my mind that the balsa lightening could be the problem. I have the yellow version. Is your guys the red or the yellow one? Aeroworks is correct when they tell you they haven't had a problem with balancing issues, however it seems that that is not now the case. I have been to their store and can tell you they are good people and as they see more than a few of us are having the same problem, they will look into it. I still have one of my old fuses and will put a tape measure to it to see if there is any difference in length or wing tube placement and let you all know what i find out. No matter what, it's still going to take a little lead in the tail section to balance. Aerworks can probably correct the problem on futrue production. Thanks for your input. flstn95
Bottom line, I am sure that proper balance can be achieved without major modification or adding lead to the tail. Also, it has been the general consensus that the best all-around CG is about 3-1/2 to 3-5/8" at the wingtips, which should be easier to achieve.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: ,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
I have the red version with BME 110, CF spinner, PT models prop (as light as wood), tuned pipes which add weight aft the CG. I removed some wood here and there but nothing major. During the build I always thought as if I was going to be tail heavy. Batteries are right behind the cowling inside the plane. I have a smoke system in the cowling which should have helped a lot in the CG (battery, pump, etc... for about 9 oz total).
CG is on wing tube. I don't know how it compares in inches from leading edge at wing tip but the thing flies really well!!
CG is on wing tube. I don't know how it compares in inches from leading edge at wing tip but the thing flies really well!!
#11
Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Williston,
ND
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
Rest easy Bodywerks. I ordered the carbon fiber spinner and landing gear yesterday. The problem is definately the lighter balsa wood. I measured my old fuse and everything matches the new plane. My old plane was balanced at 3.5" and all of the gear that was in my old plane went into the new one and is mounted in the same place. Hopefully the carbon gear and spinner will bring things into line.
flstn95
flstn95
#13
Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Williston,
ND
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
Well Bodywerks, I know that I'm going to get an attaboy from ya. Got it balanced with NO LEAD!..Went with the CF gear. Took one look at the CF spinner and decided that it would be a big job cutting the prop cutout and then drilling a prop to perfectly match the backplate so the prop would not touch the edges of the prop cutout. So will put the spinner for sale on the classifieds. I made a 1/8" ply battery tray and mounted it right in front of the first bulkhead rearward of the canopy. Installed the batteries and came out at 3.5" on the CG. Went with a 26 x 10 zoar prop. Have not weighed the plane yet so I am curious how much the lighter grade balsa is going to impact the total all up weight. Later.
flstn95
flstn95
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: ,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
Just a quick note about CF spinners.
The last thing you do with them is to cut the prop opennigs on the cone. This way, you don't have to line up the holes of the prop to the actual openings.
The last thing you do with them is to cut the prop opennigs on the cone. This way, you don't have to line up the holes of the prop to the actual openings.
#15
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: , MI
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
I had considered a tray in that location, before you posted your thaught. Ill probably do that just to get rid of the lead on the tail, and so boderwerks doesnt have a hart attack. I guess Id still like to know why so nose heavy from the factory. Are me and flsnt the only people to experience this. I know its not unusual to encounter an out of balance kit built plane because of peoples different methods. The lead i have put on the tail wheel is temporary. I wanted to see if a quick fix was the answer. Now that I know it is, I will try something else. Most likely the rear battery tray. Ill stay with the ni-cads, I like ni-cads. 6 oz seems like an afull lot of weight way the **** back there, but thats what it took
H
H
#16
Senior Member
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: kensington,
CT
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
I had the same issue. I have one 2400 battery on a small tray I built right behind the former at the rear of the hatch and two 2400's on each side of the rudder servo's. This put the Cg almost 1/4 inch behind recommended Cg. Seems to fly fine.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
I had the same problem so I maiden mine at 3.25 in and the airplane flew flat as a pancake with NO trim added!! (this past Sunday). I'm leaving the airplane as is.. My set up is 3W-106 cs with cans. This airplane is a keeper for sure! Without a doubt this is the best ARF I've owned to date. And I have had many. AERO-WORKS will have my busniness form now on. The QB series is really leaps and bounds ahead of the field. Outstanding quality to say the least.. I quess it's correct to say you get what you pay for.
#19
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: StCastin, QC, CANADA
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 35% 260 QB CG issue
Having the same problem, red version DA-100 with cans, smoke system the thing is way too nose heavy I moved the 2 batteries back as far as i could and still too nose heavy im gonna move the ignition battery back there too see if its enough.