Saw this thing go in hard. The plane was on a maiden flight. Take off was good and on the second pass, it sound like the rolling of a tongue and litteraly blew apart. A couple of IMAC pros were around and saw the whole thing.

After looking it over they felt it was the cheap control rods which came with the plane which caused it. You know out of all the nice Arfs I built, I have not once used any of that crap. You would think the MFG would just leave it out of the box.

Maybe on a trainer or some insignificant plane but not when your total cost RTF is $1200. Now granted some people may not have any trouble but your rolling some serious dice.

I upgraded my linkage to 4 40. proper throttle management is crucial with this plane. Thus far I havent had problems with one servo/wing/moki 1.8. What size motor did it have?

I think it was MAN that did a review on this plane and had the same thing happen on maiden flight. They use an engine that was too big and voided the warranty. Also, theirs was not the first ailiron flutter problem, but I heard there was some changes made and that was fixed.

Mine had a moki 1.8 when I got it, no flutter. Then I put a 50cc gas motor on it, no flutter. There have been a rash of them going in, do a search and you will find more info.

Why is it, after lord knows how many posts on the subject with various aircraft and manufacturers describing the lack of strength in the kit included control rods, people use them anyway?

They are designed to be the minimum required to fly the plane. I didn't say to fly the plane in 3D or radical aerobatics, but just to fly the plane.

Now, how many of those same users will set the plane up with maximum control throws and minimum strength, cheap servos? They are probably the same ones that have large gaps between the flight surfaces and don't use gap seals. They are likely the ones who will switch over to high rate control throws at high speeds and yank full stick, then wonder why the plane broke up in flight.

Next on the list are the ones that install an engine so large that the plane takes 6 ounces of tail ballast to counter the nose weight. Now the owner is complaining about how fast the plane lands, when everybody elses planes land so much easier and slower.

Now, I agree that high performance arfs should come with a minimum of 4/40 hardware, and not that small metric crap, but the cheap and the non-thinking can install the 4/40 stuff incorrectly and destroy the plane just as easily.

Bottom line is that if you are stepping up to high performing aircraft, first be qualified to do so. Next, do some research on what works, and what doesn't. Now, be prepared to spend a few extra dollrs for materials, radios, engines, and hardware that you can depend on.

Just my opinion.

I KNow it was a Gasser but not exactly sure of the size

Was all the stock hardware used or were ball links installed? I have one with a a hundred or so flights on it. It's got a 42cc motor. I fly it fast and hard and I've had no problem with flutter. I replaced all the hardware and I do NOT use ball links anywhere.

-Ben

This has me a bit worried. I have a DP Ultimate 120 still in the box and I'm planning to outfit her with all the good stuff - YS 140DZ, Hyde mount, Futaba 9550, 9650, 9541 coreless digitals...

I hadn't planned on upgrading the connectors, but this makes me think. Are ball links and clevises bad? What do you recommend for the control rods connections for the aileron? This is my first bigger plane, I'm more used to the .40-.60 sized planes.

Thanks for the heads up.

There is nothing at all wrong with ball links and connectors. IF you use good ones. There are some that use a screw to hold the ball link in the housing and to adjust the pressure on the ball. DON'T use those. The 2/56 size ball links are fine for a throttle, but take very little side load to pop the housing off the ball.

Always think 4/40 as the minimum size hardware on a gas plane. It saves a lot of heartache. It's a lot cheaper to spend a couple of extra bucks on quality hardware than to replace the entire plane after only a couple of flights.

Nelson Hobby, Dons Hobby Shop, and others market ball link hardware that used to be made by Rocket City. The Nelson part number is RCL70, and they are bullet proof. Take a look at them at nelsonhobby.com/newsite. It will take you to a site that isn't quite finished yet, but will let you into it and gather information. It may also let you order.

When you enter the site, click the heading that will take you to the main page. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "items of interest". When you get there, look for a topic called "customer linkage installations". You will see the linkage installed on a plane.

The stuff works great. I've been using the RCL70 linkage and others similar to it for years, and have never been let down by the hardware or linkage.

Has anybody used counterbalance's on the ailerons yet?Can someone post a pic of Their aileron set up,and describe the length of you servo arm and control horn.I am trying to maintain perfect mechanical advantage an welcome others thoughts.I have done the usual,Sealed all the hing gap,I have h-9 servo arms wth titanium links as well as robart ball link horns.Just wish i could know that this plane isn't going to be a lawn dart

This is the set-up I have for a year and no problem.

Hangar 9 8-32 Swivel Clevis Horn (2)
Hangar 9 Titanium Pro-Links 4-40x4-1/2" (2)
Hangar 4-40 x 4-40 HD Ball Link (2)
Dubro Large Servo Arm
Hitec 5945
6 volt battery
Mounted in the original position. I did add 3m double sided 20 lb. test tape between the servo and the mount to add strengths to the servo mount.

There was a MASSIVE thread a year or so ago on RCUniverse. Yours truly lost BOTH ailerons and managed to land it inverted in tall grass with rudder and elevator. I switched to dual ailerons and beefed up the servo bays. See if you can find the thread. It has tons of info about that problem. Some Extras fluttered badly, and others had no problem. I had strong servos and carbon fiber rods with rocket city ball links when it came apart, and it wasn't going over about 60 mph.

JW

WOW! That WOULD tend to indicate a serious design flaw. Super job bringin' her back in.

Thanks for the pic fly3dnyc

Well, not sure what you mean by "perfect mechanical advantage" but as a general rule the control horn (as measured from the center of the hinge line to the pivot point) should be equal to or longer (preferred) than the servo arm. When the CH is longer than the servo arm you have a mechanical advantage at the servo. When the CH is shorter than the servo arm you have a mechanical disadvantage, not good. When they are both equal in length, you have neither. The longest CH that will give you the total desired amount of surface travel is usually the best route. A plane that is set up for precision flying only can afford to have much longer control horns than the same plane that is set up for 3D.

This is an old issue that has been addressed by Dave Patrick. Dual aileron servos were added to each wing. This effectively elimated the problem. Now if you decide not to use this setup you are on your own.

I have to agree with the 2 servo setup. Have a BME 50 in mine with a high torque on each inner and a standard on outer servo's. I believe somewhere around 146oz/in. per side. I fly it hard and no flutter. I guess about 120 flights.
Have to say that I'm building the Edge now with the same engine but single servo's in each wing at 133oz/in. per side. These pushrods are so short that I have a hard time believing that they are the problem. I have used the supplied pushrods on both planes. The outer servo's on the Extra are not easy if you use high strength servo arms, takes some manipulating to get them in so make sure your arms are in the right place before they go in!

Thanks stick jammer,thats just the explanation i need.

i have a gasser on mine Brison 3.2 swinging a 22 x 8 mejzlik with updated 4/40 hardware and 8411 on the rudder and ailerons she has been not but great for me this is the 1st batch.

man, that pic makes me miss mine!!

I read up all a lot of the threads about the Dave Patrick, and one interesting thing was the length of the aileron. The ailerons had no cross bracing and were easily flexible. Allowing a plane with a servo so close to the inside instead of the middle of the aileron to flutter.

A good solid linkage set up seen a ton on the 35-40% planes is no ball links. The side force created from them can break the arm itself. Use titanium 4-40 hardware, with 2 Steel clevises, one on each end. Like someone else noted, the shorter the servo arm, the more torque but less throw, that can go vice versa as well. The longer, the less torque.

For mechanical advantage its actually better to have the pushrod when at neutral on your radio or at "idle" to be not perfectly perpendicular to the surface but slightly angled or slanted inwards to allow maximum mechanical advantage.

believe it or not,mine is from the first batch as well.I put 90% of it together,and then on the back burner it went.All my hinge gaps are sealed,im using titanium push rods with h9 servo arms.Ailerons feel pretty stiff imo.Not much more i can do except counter balance them.Guess im just a little paranoid

the 1st batch of kits came in heavy so DP went and redesigned the ailerons and save some oz off the plane so the 1st batch are hanging better than the other kits afterwards plus our servo is centered in a good spot compared to the edge design...

hey all, does anyone have an extra painted cowl?

Are youall sure it is not the alieron it's self that is failing and not the linkage, I have had large ailerons set up with single servo fail at speed, once the flutter starts they self distruct, we then blame the hardware when in fact it is the material in the aileron that fails. In a large aileron application I now always use 2 servos per side, the slightly extra weight is cheap insurance.