Again I want to say that, I am not dissing Nitroplanes. I have several and like most of the ARFs I purchase, I find that I must modify them to fit my taste. What I attempted to say about their Gee Bee is that its scale appearance is not on par with that of the Great Planes model. IMHO, it looks rather cheap. I can not speak to how well it flies, as the owner wasn't able to get it air-borne the day I saw it.

GaGeeBees, I'll have to try out that Pacific Aero Monocoupe if things don't work out with the Gee Bee/170 combo. That is a beauty of an Airplane.

Hey mrcasey - Good luck with your Gee Bee. I'll look forward to hearing how it flies. You certainly won't be short on power!

Hi Beverly - great picture!

Yes, model obviously destroyed on her second flight. Cause... who knows. I suspect possible metal-to-metal interference due to the glow-ignitor cap (brass vs. aluminum should not be a problem) or a new JR 821 digital servo went south. Coincidentially, while setting up the radio gear on the bench I isolated a nasty glitch from one faulty 821 servo. Replaced it and everything appeared fine.
Real shame, as I was just taming the beast.
In retrospect, I should have utilized 2.4G components. Being I've got a half of dozen JR 349 receivers not in use, I thought I'd use one here...

So, I've got the second Gee Bee in the garage awaiting an assemble. Ahhh, I think I'll enjoy my warbirds for awhile.

Thanks guys...

NICK

Yeah I purchased me another Gee Bee but for now it is for looks. It is ready to flew but I am going to soak this one in for a while . I bought a staggerwing and am trying to get me a hellcat and a world models p-47. Hopefully when I go to this swap meet on 1-17 they will have a H9 Hellcat. I missed one a few months ago, a gentleman was selling one for $140 , but I did not have the money then, and it sucked that I could not get it. I am like you going back to my warbirds.

Hi Gang...
I have a brand new 120 III with pump ( I also posted this in the engines forum)
maybe better luck here,

I was wondering if anybody might be able to tell me
how much run time might this engine get with a 14 or 16 oz tank?

or what might the average run time be per OZ?

Thanks for any input. not sure if there is a chart for this on-line or not.

I have a Hayes 16 oz and was thinking of replacing the 14 OZ in my
Gee Bee I am building. I was wondering if it is worth the extra 2 OZ trouble?


Jeff

The rule of thumb I've always used for estimating fuel consumption for a properly tuned 4-stroke glow engine is 1 ounce per cubic inch per minute at full throttle. So a 1.20 ought to use ~1.2 ounces per minute. A 14 ounce tank should give you at least 11.67 minutes of run time. 16 ounce = 13.33.

I've got one of these engines on a Great Planes P6E with a scale Keleo Creations exhaust and it's been great. Enjoy!

Thanks Mr GaGeeBees ,
That is what I needed to hear . 16 OZ's it is
Jeff

My Gee Bee's. Notice none are done except one that did a cartwheel. That one is in repair.

Charles

You are the king of framed up Gee Bee's !!!

Hey avaiojet what plan and span is that gee bee z model?

Pencon,

Which one?

In the photos are 33% Don Neill Gee Bee Z's. These span 90". I framed one up, covered, from his plans years ago. The other, standing on end and striped of covering, is one I'm repairing. It actually flew. I traded a couple of NIB Rossi engines for it.

There's two 25% fuselages part framed.

The bottom photo is a Adrian Page kit I bashed. This model is 1/5 scale and actually has "close to scale" outlines. Span is 58". I have an OS 80 2S in in for the benifet of the larger prop.

I may still have drawings of the fuselage and wing changes someplace. These would be the changes to Page's plans. I made the glass cowning and the spats can be purchased. At least back then, this was years ago also.

Everything I have seems to be years ago?

Great kit BTW even without changes.

http://www.cfcgraphics.com/1930_s_Racers.html

Thanks for the interest

Is there a plan for the Z that would come out at roughly 70" ? I'd like to frame one up for my Saito 170r . The only Z out there that would fit the 170 seems to be the seagull version but it doesn't look very scale at all . No stringer detail at the back half of the fuselage . Could the page plan be scaled up ?I guess it would hve to be 1/4.5 scale ?

A 25% Z would be 72" in span. I have two fuselages, of this size model, partically framed. See photo. Plans are from Henry Haffke, and are available but don't know from who?

I picked up a copied set.

Charles

Here is my Hafke 72" that I picked up. Needs to be completely recovered and gone over structurally as well. I have a great planes that I fly regularly.
Working my way up to it.

How much did the hafke 72" end up weighing? What scale is that plan? I thought the z was a little longer than the r2 , that photo makes it look just as stubby. Is it easier to land than the r2 or about the same?

I'm told these 25% models can weigh in at 18 lbs. or there about. Guys do like to brag about how light they build.

I personally believe a reasonable amount of weight is necessary for a better flying model. Hey, it may not go verticle, but the Gee Bee's wern't designed for that.

http://cfcgraphics.com/Gee_Bee_Z.html

harles

Mebe the world famous Gee Bee Jim could solve some of your problems on this here thread ? He is reputed to fly a Gee Bee with great perfection. What ever happened to him ?

So the Wing on the GP Geebee has no built in washout? If that's the case I think that's the main landing culprit right there. It would almost be a plan to build another wing for it with built in washout. The gopher wheels in my head are spinning . Maybe non scale horner tips as well

The wing can be heated and twisted to achieve 3-4 degrees of washout. In my experience, washout doesn't help much. Even with washout, I haven't been able to move the CG back on my GP GB to get rid of its nose heavy flying characteristics. Still with washout, I get a deadly sudden tip stall. I think the main problem with the GB is insufficient V, stab area and the fat fuse blanking out the h. stab in side slip. The resultant, combined yaw and pitch instability at high AoA seems to cause sharp tip stalls regardless of washout. Delmar Benjamin flies his full scale replica GB at 18%. Considering that most conventional aircraft fly at 25-33%, that is a nose heavy condition, but it would help mitigate the small v. stab and h. stab blanking situation. The GP GB has a bigger h. stab than scale and smaller wheel pants than scale (ie less vertical area in front of the CG to create yaw instability) so it does tolerate the recomended CG (23% if memory serves) with the recomended, limited elevator throw to prevent the wing achieving too high an AoA that cases a tip stall. That's my story and I'm stick'n to it.

In other words, don't let it get too slow when you're landing

Well what about the 6 degree positive incidence I think I heard someone mention? The most I've heard of on other models is 2 Degrees . It seems that the 6 d is contributing to the sensitive pitch problem . I think built in washout would be better than twisting the wing because, It would be a lot more accurate with a straight leading edge and just the rear situated upwards. When you hand twist a wing and reheat it , couldn't that again spring out of adjustement on a hot day for example?Another thing that could happen with twisting is that the leading edge could twist into a negative incidence . Also would they lose twist at an even rate? I'm not doubting what your info on the fat fuse and the stab size , that makes sense . It's just that some Geebees seem to have no probs while others are really bad and they all have the fat fuse in common .

I have put my Gee Bee on the shelf for now. I rarely made it home in one piece and after the last crash landing I had had enough. I can give a little insight here though since I have witnessed many crashes of my own. As I see it there are two things going on with this model. First is it's tendency to bounce on landings and the resultant increase in angle of attack after the bounce. The second is it's flight caracteristics where one of the wings will invariably drop at the onset of a stall.
Cure either one and it would most likely survive any landings you made bad or good.
If you will notice with other models, when they bounce they generally just go up but hold their flight attitude not like the Gee Bee which instantly points north followed by a stall and cartwheel. I tried different gear but never tried a really soft tire. I had seen some tires that were air filled and very soft. If I ever put my bird back together I think I will try that. You need to find some way to absorb the energy of the wheels getting to ground. As far as flight characteristics wash out may be a good idea allowing the wing tips to keep flying and preserving aileron control during onset of the stall.

Definitely, the recomended, limited elevator throws should prevent ever being able to fly it slow enough to tip stall because you'll simply run out of elevator to achieve such a slow speed. I ignored the recomended elevator throws because I'd never flown a plane where that was so important before and bashed it up pretty good a couple of times. I'm not giving up though. This last time, I gave in against my inborn aversion to reading instructions and decided to RTFM. I've got 'er flight ready again with the reccomended elevator throw this time. This has been a good learning experience. I want to get to the point where I'm comfortable doing touch and goes.

The large amount of incidence on the GP GB wing has some negative affects on the high speed flight characteristics that I'm not too fond of, but this larger than average incidence has some benefits for low speed flight because it effectively amounts to additional down thrust. Down thrust helps prevent left yaw causing, asymmetrical thrust at high AoA that that is the result of the right side of the prop arc producing more thrust than the left. As speed decreases, AoA must increase to maintain altitude. Decreased speed also means that control surfaces are less effective, but since the AoA is increased to hold altitude, asymmetrical prop thrust increases. So, we have a situation where control surfaces are becoming less effective and left yaw thrust is increasing. If the aircraft is able to achieve a slow enough speed and high enough AoA that the asymmetrical thrust overpowers the control surfaces, there may be a sudden left yaw that decreases the speed of the left wing (decreasing its lift) and increases the speed of the right wing (increasing its lift). The result can be a wing drop or even a violent snap roll. This is why I think that adding washout didn't prevent the left wing dropping that I experienced. It wasn't the left wingtip stalling that caused the wing drop, but rather the whole left wing losing lift at the same time the right wing gained lift at the point when asymmetrical thrust overpowered control surface authority. Come to think of it, the washout that I added may have made this situation worse because the washout reduced the average incidence of the wing, thereby reducing effective down thrust and causing a need for increased overall AoA to maintain altitude at slow speed. Increased AoA produces more asymmetrical thrust. The fat GB fuse may have contibuted to this loss of lift of the left wing by blanking out some lift on the left wing in the left yaw situation and also by blanking out some (already compromised because of slow air speed) control authority of the left h. stab. Given all this, I'd have to say that the only way to stop the GP GB from dropping a wing is to keep the speed up. I think maybe that the GB's that you've seen that didn't have wing dropping problems probably had owners who followed their instructions properly.

As to the method that I used to add washout to the wing. I just thought I'd give heating and twisting the stock wing a try before doing something more complex and its held for a couple of years so far. I didn't just reshrink the covering to try to hold the washout in place. I turned the iron on high and appied a lot of heat through the covering to the balsa D-tube construction of the L.E.. I also measured the washout with an incidence meter to keep things accurate and symmetrical.