Has anyone used an O.S. 70 Surpass on the Great Planes 1/4 Scale Spacewalker and had good results? I want to use my 70 surpass but it is too big for my GP Cessna 182 and I am concerned that it may be too small for my new Spacewalker.

hi freeshot.

i have a fs 70 on mine to .It won't be a speed deman but should fly it well.I'll be putting maiden flight on it real soon.i just have to install rx and tank.then ck cg .

ken .

Can you say underpowered. The 70 will get you in the air and thats about it. It really needs the 91 to perform as intended. IMO.

Pete

Thinking of getting the Space Walker myself, I like those 'retro' looking planes. Any comments about the plane, building and flying that is ... thanks.

Had a .91 surpass in mine, flew great.

i have one that im selling but the plane flys great i have a magnum 120 on it. the only thing that i did notice is that when i built it i used 4-40 rods and 2 standard servos on the elevator instead of the split rod they give you and the plane was very tail heavy with my 91 four stroke on it so i installed the 120 . the plane flys at 1/2 throttle and takes off in 15 feet or less , on landing it floats for days so you really have to come in slow. i took it to the airshow last summer for display and got a lot of comments on it
check my gallery for a picture of it

did any of you guys find yours to be very tail heavy ?

I put an os 91 on it and installed servos exactly per the instructions. The plane was very tail heavy - needed 12 ounces or so in the nose, but it still flies great even with the extra weight. It only needs about 1/2 throttle to take off, but there's not enough juice by the standards of most folks who like to overpower their planes. I still think you'd be way underpowered with an os 70.

I put a Saito 120 in mine and needed no extra weight. I also reduced the wing incidence from +3 to +1. The plane flew GREAT with these changes. Enough power for uplines and loops without falling out. If you place a 120 in this plane with the +3 incidence it will want to climb with anything above 1/2 power needing constant trim changes. Go with the 4-40 rods too.

Pete

when i put the 120 on mine i needed no weight but i did with the 91 on it about 10 oz if i remember right as far as the wing mine is stock and i dont seem to have any problem with trim at differant speeds but i have only flew it a couple of times

Mine started life with a Saito 100, but was an absolute dog, switched to an OS 120, removed 10 oz. of weight from the front end and am much happier. Mine has the stock 3 degrees in the wing and does not climb at any throttle setting and the 120 will really pull it along. The only thing I dislike about the plane is that it takes forever to slow to landing speed and on a 300' paved runway, that can be a real pain.

i bought mine used and the fella had a 70 in it .it does have a chunk of weight in the nose.
thought i would try it with the 70fs first since the mount is already drilled for it and might find that i'll have to put a 91 in it.I could also swap out the 70 with the mvvs 61 that i have in my bingo 60.

thanks .ken

OS .61FX in mine with only 2 ounces of lead in the nose and built stock. Flies very scale and draws plenty of attention doing just that. It seems that most people wind up with a very tail heavy plane, wasn't the case with mine but my CG is a bit aft of the recommended setting. First few flights had an additional 2 ounces (4 total) in the nose which IMO made it tougher to slow down on final. By design this plane just wants to keep on flying and too much nose weight can make that worse. Definitely one of the nicest ARF's of it's type and the price is good too.

jammar,

what is the recommended cg for the spacewalker?i did not get a manual with mine when i bought it used.on a constant chord wing ,rule is 1/3 back from leading edge.I usually balance on the main spar.

ken

Mine has the leading edge lowered about 3/16 in. and is powered by OS .91 Surpass. Pull-pull rudder control. Magnum aluminum spinner. The servos were moved forward, rx and battery under the tank, no ballast. We fly at 6300 feet and the plane is strong for traditional scale-like aerobatics. I love the way it flies! I'd say if you keep the weight down by moving the radio forward, lightweight tailwheel, etc. and you're below 4000 feet the .70 will be enough. The plane isn't an Extra.

Would a Saito 72 do the job or will that be too small too?

Saito 72 is TOO SMALL !!!! You will not enjoy it at all !!! Will be a D O G !

kroflite54,
The recommended CG is 4 1/4" behind the LE. The range is stated at 3/8" either way of that. At 1/3 of the chord you are right in the ballpark.