My flying buddy just ordered the GILES 202 from WILD HARE PLANES.
Has anyone purchased or had the pleasure of flying one?
If so, what engine and servos did you use and what was your thoughts?

I thin your buddy will need a 327 chevvy to pull that thin and one of them tanker trucks to fill it.

If you was a good buddy you would have ordered one first so you could tell him about it.

Hey don't want to give myself away but tell the little lady to send some mo of them good christmas cookies. Your buddy ate them all.

I have a 0540 Lycoming for sale for that plane your gonna need it get it off of the ground and a ballistic chute attached to safely get it back on the ground!

0540 Lycoming : HOW MUCH AND DO YOU DELIVER?

What are you guys saying here has anyone actually flown the giles from Wildhare ?? would like some actual facts and comments

I am with you Bruce! I would like to see some info so we can decide before the price goes up. I think this is 1-1-03....

Thanks......

too small and too heavy

Hi Skysnake,

Why do you say "too small and too heavy"?

Thanks

From my experience, anything under 100 inches is too small. My 35% Radiocraft Extra 300L weighs 23.5 lbs and it has 104 inch span. The G 202 has a 93 inch span and weighs the same as my Extra...bad combo. I'm not saying it's going to be bad airplane but bigger would be better.

Chris

I am new at this so I am postulating here:

Isn't the main concern not wingspan, but wing loading? So what if one plane has a shorter wingspan than another if the wing loading is the same or less than a plane with a longer wingspan. Wow, that was a lot of uses of the word, "wing".

Feel free to point out if I am wrong or not. Simply making an obersavation here.

Too small for what? And how much more did you pay for your plane than this one is going to be?

Sailor,

Yes, you are right--sort of. For general flying and aerobatics---wing loading and how much of the fuse provides lift are very important as both affect the overall wing loading. With my jets, both of these are the primary concern over wingspan alone. The Giles has a rather wide fuse and hence, will generate some lift and affect the overall wing loading when flying. The sticky part that has everyone concerned with the overall weight is in 3D performance. In a hover there is 23.5 lbs of "dead weight" hangin' on the prop. The fuse area is of no consequence when the plane is hovering other than the fact that it can act as a sail in the wind.
Weight is the enemy....The wingspan comes into play during hovering and 3D manuevers as the more of it you have hangin' out there, the more stable the plane seems to be. Just my .02 as I see it.

I like this plane though....I wonder how much weight could be saved with creative Dremeling, composite gear, etc., etc. The uncovered version would be ideal for this. I, too, would like to hear from someone that has really rung this plane out.

Kevin

I'm staying out of this except to say that I know of a half dozen of these planes that are either ready or near ready to fly, pending good weather. It's not for lack of trying.
I expect somebody ought to have something to say soon. There are plenty of them out there now but it's December.

Also, the flying weight has been under 23 pounds on every one that I have built, all with engines around 5 pounds.

Tom Fawcett
Wild Hare R/C

Tom,

I was quoting the weight as an example in my post wet as we know 32 ounces of fuel is right around two pounds. (Can't fly without fuel so I count it as a portion of the all up flying weight ) That puts this plane at 21.5 pounds MAX dry. Is this in the ballpark for any of the Giles 202's? (20 to 21.5 lbs dry?)

Kevin

Sailor, your theory here is only partially correct. A large number of other things can effect performance as well. The shape of the airfoil, the thickness of the airfoil, the leading edge shape, and one that is routinely overlooked is the aspect ratio. Long narrow wings are more efficient at lower speeds {think glider}. In a hover longer wings will reduce the roll moment. Also remember that as the "Reynolds" numbers increase {simply put its the relation in size between the wing and a molecule of air}, the higher the acceptable wing loading.
I think we should get some flying before we pass judgement on this airframe, I would love to do a sise by side comparison with my laser. :idea:

Kevin and Outcast,

Thanks for the information. I will file it away in my head for later use. This is what is great about this hobby, a wealth of experience that can be passed onto those who need it!!!

Tom,

I have found you can buy your G202 at:

http://www.rcsuperstore.com/wild_hare_rc.htm

for $599. Is this a goof, or a valid price?

Thanks,

Dave

No manufacturer that I know of quotes weight with fuel, so for apples to apples the dry weight is usually just under 23 lbs.

TF

I have one - and it has --for all practical purposes a wing loading at or less than the H9 33% stuff- The wing is also slightly smaller -
So - having flown a number of The H9 33% designs - I see no problems for anyone who builds it "as is" and does not add lots of extras - which could bring the weight up a few more lbs --and make no mistake - some guys throw in POUNDS of extra stuff.
It will be a month at least before this one is airborne-- with a ZDZ80 and a muffled pipe -
The first biggie snow storm is supposed to hit here in a couple of days --and the field could be out for a while ---
Now then -- for those who actually don't mind some real hands on ,actual model building--
The kit is built very well and solidly--- and has foam surfaces - So-- If you like to also cover - the 202 could be stripped and the foam parts all cut and lightened -and the fuselage could take some Dremel work- But once you do it - it is your responsibility-
Personally I typically redo every ARF I get - some rather extensively - BUT- I do this to ARFS - for one simple reason:
They are a bargain-- and with a bit of careful work - I can make my own personalized setups - and still save money over almost current kits.
Even the highly touted kits fro the 40% guys can take a lot redoing and lightening -- to suit me .
There were some ARFs at the TOC this year and these were "hand carved" after they were built and before they were used.
Not a wild guess -- fact.
If you want to see some stuff that is "off the weight mark"- check out the rash of stuff which supposedly was for large glow or small gas.

Dick is correct, even the hot rods can be made better.

Dick is there anyway you could share with us some of the changes you make to your G202 as construction progresses? I have my G202 now and will start on it in a week or so. I have a Taurus 4.2 that I plan to use. This engine wt is 5.25 with everything except the prop.

Thanks for any help you can share.

My change was one that really did not remove any kit weight -- I opened the belly of the model - added a lite ply trough , which accepts the tuned can -- The ZDZ80 single mounts at 8:00 angle - this permits the header to make a single sweep --ABOVE the landing gear into the trough and the muffler can sits directly behind the gear plate and angles slightly downward -- the exaust outlet just clearing the aft end of the tray -- which ends at the second bulkhead.
I detest internal muffler setups on all but models with large amounts of room internally for a can and easy access to it.
This setup allows the can to stay cool -- the system is extremely easy to access and on the ground - you can't see it - in the air - you can only see it in a close up slow fly by.
If you want to see a identical setup - there is a pic of one on my web page -- in a H9 Cap-in the Workshop Hanger.
I do have pictures of the 202 setup - but they are not on my web page -yet.

Just talked to Fred Lumb, LumCo Machine Works in Pennsylvania - he braved rain and near-zero visibility to fly he G-202 yesterday. I've been anxious to hear, as his is set up exactly as mine is going to be - ZDZ80.

Here's his remarks:

Now, can't wait to get mine together - hope winter doesn't kill me!!

Roger

Roger thanks for sharing this with us. It sounds like this G202 is going to be a performer.

I have seen Fred's Wild Hare ARF and can honestly say it is one gorgeous airplane, extremely well built and finished.

Having talked to Fred and listened to his flight experience with it I am very excited about the airplane and seriously considering buying one.



Dick Hanson,

I currently own a NIB H9 33% ARF. I am very interested in hearing from guys who have flown both the H9 and the Wild Hare.
I am so impressed with the Wild Hare I will most likely wind up owning both but would still be very interesting in hearing how both aircraft compare.

Which ARFs were represented at the TOC and who flew them (even if they were heavily 'disguised')? I have not followed coverage from the event closely and haven't seen who flew what.

David McCutchen