I think by looking at the manual you have ailerons only on top wing and flaps only on the bottom wing. Page 9 and 10 shows the flap push rod setup the control horn is even mounted backwards. Is this how you guys understand it?

I found this picture look at the top wing the aileron is up and the lower wing the flap is in the nuteral position.

Correct. Ailerons on the top wing and flaps only on the bottom. I have a Byron Staggerwing with the same arrangement.

Well, that explains it. Does it appear a G36 will fit in there?

If the RCS 180 fits, then looking at the dimensions in the manual, it looks like the Evolution 35GT might fit too! Can't wait to get my paws on one of these beauties.

Russ

Ailerons on the top wing and flaps on the bottom wing is correct fore the "G" series of the Staggerwing. Earlier versions had these reversed, and some were split flaps.

If you are interested, you can read the whole story in the book: "The Staggerwing Story," by Edward H. Phillips - Flying Books International. Check your library, book store or Historic Aviation (www.historicaviation.com). It is a great book with the whole history of the Staggerwing.

Jim K.

I got mine monday, I am working on it now (Waiting for glue to dry) I'm putting a Moki 2.10 (Inverted) in mine. Has anyone flow theirs yet.

I believe that the flaps are to be seperate unless you wanted to do it that way. I would think full scale didn't operate that way.

lear31A

Are you referring to a G-38 Zenoah? If yes then look at length and height . The plug and cylinder may protrude a bit. A G-26 Zenoah might be a good choice.

Mr. Pettit,

I'd very much appreciate your thoughts on the Saito 170 radial as an alternative to the OS 160. Both are rated at 2 HP but the radial weighs 8 ounces more. I own a couple of the OS Gemini engines and they're outstanding but I think this airplane just ought to have a radial.

Thanks in advance.
Paul

You're right. The full-scale "D" and "G" models had the ailerons on the top wing and the flaps on the lower wing.

The full scale Staggerwing had ailerons ONLY on the top wing and flaps ONLY on the bottom wings.

No programming needed.

Let's wait and see what kind of roll-rate people experience. Some of us prefer Waco rates and will therefore mix in the lower wing, some of us will prefer lower rates and only use the top wing.


hob·by1 (h�b'ē) pronunciation
n., pl. -bies.

An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.

To Paul:

I'd consider the Saito radial, but since I am writing a product review on this plane for R/C REPORT Magazine, I have to use a recommended engine.

And the "other" engine is an OS 160 4 cycle twin, which I just happen to have.

That'll sound OK too.

Does anyone think that the combo Tower OS 1.6 2 cycle will not work well on this machine, I now think maybe a 4 stioke would be better. It seems that everyone on here is making different engine choices, I just went with the combo package in hope that the model will be easier since it's shown in the manual, I'm hoping minimal cowling mods.

I dont know....I will be going with the Saito 170 radial 4stroke. This will be my first bipe and I rather have some extra torque, plus you cannot go wrong with the sound.
But since it will be over a month before I make an engine purchase I will eagerly await everybody else's information, opinion and so on in order to learn from those who DO know for sure.

I definately want a gas engine. The bigger prop, the sound, the cheap gas, but mainly, the reliability and ease! The radial would be pretty and sound good (when it ran right), but I have had really good experiences with gas engines. I had a G62 on an Eagle it was perfect every time.

Thank you, Lear31A!
I'll keep my eyes open!

And I'll be going w/ the OS 160 2-cycle. Primarily because that's the engine TF recommends and shows in the manual; for me, the fewer complications the better. (I'm not installing the retract tailwheel, either, for that reason!). When I talked w/ the Top Flite reps at Toledo they said that it's a pretty tight fit under the cowl and that's why they went w/ and recommend that engine. I don't have any reason to dispute them, and am just repeating what I was told. The prototype didn't need any cowl surgery to fit the engine/muffler in there. I did notice today while reading the manual that it calls for 6" from firewall to prop hub. I'll be interested to see what others come up with.
By the way, guys. If you haven't already gotten your kits, when you look at it for the first time, you're really gonna be impressed. What a job!
Al

Is any one using a Pneumatic system for the tail wheel. The book has it as servo operated. The robart cylinder for the tail wheel is only $21.00 have looked any further about installation. Just your thoughts.

Of course Mr. P will need to use recommended engine for his evaluation of Top Flights product. After all his job is to report to us on how well they did in egineering this product. In order to give them and us a fair evaluation, his bird should be built, or assembled, in accordence with the instructions.

If Mr. P made a habit of not sticking with recommended equipment neither he or R.C. Report would get many products to review from the manufactuers. Let's take a moment to consider what a review like that would look like..... Dear readers, I must report to you that my latestest project was a failure. My instructions recommended that I should use a 160 glow engine, but what the heck, we all know that more power is better, right? I installed a 80cc gasser. WOW! You should have seen that baby take off! She went Vertical after a 10' roll. Climbed like a homesick angle. Unfortunetly, after about two minutes, that darn ol airframe shook itself apart. I lost the plane in a terrible crash. The engine will be sent in for major repair. I just hope that new radio I am supposed to evaluate for next months column still works!

Now, a report like that would tell us very little about the plane we were considering purchaseing, except that maybe a big gasser wasn't such a good idea. I for one would much rather have a thourogh evaluation of the product with recommended equipment.
If she flies well as designed, goes together well etc., then I can make my own decisions on how and what I might want to change.
However, if she does not fly well as designed, or there is a major flaw in workmanship or material, then maybe I might want to spend my money elsewhere.

The place for experimentation is with us, here in this forum. We will be the ones changeing the model to suit ourselves and our flying styles. We will tell each other what we like and don't like, what we made better, what works and doesn't work.

So please don't fault Mr. P. for following the manufactures recommendations. What we need from him is a true and honest report of
the quality of the product he is evaluatiing, as it was designed.

Thank you for your attention,
Craig

Thanks Dick. I understand that you have to use the recommended engine and wasn't suggesting that you do otherwise. And yes, the OS twins sound terrific.

i just wonder what would happen if you used a 5 cylinder saito radial? would it be way nose heavy?

For those that are interested, at the Toledo Show I talked to the pilot that flew the two prototypes. He said that the OS 1.60 two cycle was almost too much engine, and the 1.60 four cycle twin was adequate.

Jim K.

Tower is already out of stock on these!