HDR Photo of Gee Bee ready for take off. Chickened out again (15mph crosswind)

Wow Casey beautiful pic can't wait till ya grow a pair Calgary looks a lot like Texas.. kidding of course ,I know I'll be nervous when mines ready to go.

Pencon, i hope to try again this weekend. My video guy is getting tired of these false alarms as well. The weather looks good. Spring here is quite rainy/windy and cold. Causes certain things to shrink from time to time .

Almost like you were in the pool . Well we're having a very wierd cold spring over here in BC as well . I've been to Calgary , it's pretty wacked out weather too.

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>

Hi!
RevGQ!
You put the balsa in wrong!
The balsa fibers should be in the other direction ( axial )to add strenght. The way you have placed them will compress them easily and will not fill any function.

Thanks Jaka, will reverse.

Hey Guys</p>

I did the plywood mods to my landing gear, and yesterday did some taxi tests. I only have one run on the engine, OS120FS, so was just playing. The plane did a small ground loop, and one of the gear folded sideways. Anyone else having this problem? I have serious doubts that this plane will land on the factory gear.</p>

Ron.</p>

I have not had the factory gear fold on me&gt;

jaka, could you elaborate on that muffler set up a bit. i see that you used an aluminum type air tank. you guys have a DB problem over there? what did you use to fuse parts together? thanks bird.

I havent had any issues either with a dozen flights on it. In fact its for sale here if anyone is interested.
[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemID=527917]HERE[/link]

Well I maidened the Gee Bee today. It went a lot better than I was expecting. Take off was a non issuue, the plane flew great. The landing was not the best that I have ever made, but it didn't tip over and I taxied it back to the pits. It don't get much better en that. I think I need more throw on the rudder. It takes a lot of field to turn it around. I have it set up per GP specs, has anyone else noticed this? I did put the plywood between the gear legs, and also opened up the front of the wheel opening in the pants about 1/4 inch and I did not have any problems with the wheels hanging up on the pants. There was a tiny bit of cross wind when I landed and the plane was crabbing pretty good, so it is probably a real good idea not to fly it in any kind of cross wind. I'm pretty happy with how mine flew, and I think you guys don't need to be too afraid of ti.

Ron

Hey guys Has anyone ever tried the CMP/KMP version? I'm currently building one and wondering if they fly any good ?

CMP and KMP are not related companies. They do not build the same planes. Are you asking about the CMP version of the GeeBee??

Yeah It's the Cmp 71" span GeeBee which is exactly the same as the KMP was . I realize they're not the same company but the Gee Bees were all the same model from Esm in China

I have a buddy with the CMP version, 38cc gasser IIRC. Flies well, royal PITA to land

Well I adapted the robart gear and I put tiny model train bearings in the wheels so hopefully that eliminates a lot of the hassles. I guess I'll try setting the ailerons up so they are both a little up to simulate washout as well . Do you folks figure a YS120SC will have enough pep for this plane? I suppose the pain in the ass to land is part of the allure of this plane . People who buy them like a challenge roit?

What happened to the Saito 170 Pencon????? I was hoping you would try it first.

Hey Mrcasey , I realize I now want a better flying Geebee . The Saito is cool and all but I'm thinkin of selling it . Just too heavy for the GB although I'm sure It'll work good on some other scale plane.Definately an awesome sound . I'm actually considering selling it along with the Keleo ring and Mcdaniel onboard Glow .

Pencon, I agree, I was just bugging you. My current plan is to pull the 170R off and install my Saito 125 on the Gee Bee. The 125 has a much better power to weight ratio. The Gee Bee is hard enough to fly without adding all the weight associated with the 170R. There are several planes better suited to the 170, like the Kangee Waco etc. I would offer to buy your Saito 170 but I just bought the JR 12X transmitter last week and my "toys" budget is blown for a little while. Let me know if it is still for sale next month, I may be interested. I will keep you posted if I fly the Gee Bee with the 125. I have a few other projects on the go first though. Good luck.

If your plane turns out way tail heavy with the 125 you could always build a balsa framed up Rudder and maybe elevators and the plane would be even lighter. I plan on putting another layer of fiberglass inside the cowl to toughen it up since the GB will need nose weight anyway

Here's a perfect airframe for your 1.70R3. Pacific Aeromodels Clipped Wing Monocoupe. Flies great and lands like a trainer.

I've got two of the Gee Bees, one with a Saito 1.25 and the other with a Saito 1.30 twin. Both have plenty of power.

Nice plane but unfortunately not my style . Id rather do the Gee Bee Y pacific models version

Yeah I got one of those too. G-26 with smoke for power. Great flying airplane. Much better on landings than the R-1 or R-2 (also better than the Z in that respect)

GGB, since you own both - contrast the Gee Bee Y with the Pacific Monocoupe. I have a G26 (Magneto) left over from my PA-18. Am pretty much decided on the Monocoupe - but my buddy has the yellow/black Gee Bee Y (with a 40cc on it)