Not surprised. As you can see, I'm biased and snatching at straws. And having fun with it.

Do you have 4 aileron servos? Or two with the sides coupled?

Where did you do the equalizing?

Did you use the ARF hardware to couple the pairs of ailerons?

2 Aileron servos, futaba 9202 servo's(6 volt pack), and no, there isn't a shred of stock hardware on the thing. Wait I lied, the control horns themselves(cut off and hardened so they are stiff as a rock) are on there for the aileron interlinks, but the control horns for the ailerons and what not are dubro HD stuff). I also used ball links and stiffer rod for the connections.

I'm confused as to what you mean by equalizing? I set mine up like this, I set up the bottom wing ailerons to match side to side and up to down perfectly. I used my angle pro to match them to within a 10th of a degree, and the neutral is the exact same also.

I then attached the upper ailerons, and matched them to the bottom. The left one set up perfect, I struggled a little with control horn placement to match the right side, it was throwing a tenth of a degree more up then down originally, moved it around and got it matched up nicely now.

The only reason this sparked an interest from me, is if I can change something to make the ailerons more efficient, I would really like to know what that is . I spend a lot of time trying to make my planes the best they can be, and would like to know what the setup secret is to make your ailerons twice as effective .

Couldn't it just be I had less throw in my ailerons which required a higher percentage to mix out the coupling? I use a 7C, and am not sure if its mix percentage is off of total throw or just what d/r you are on....... something to think about at least.

Hey, I been having fun with this, so don't get worried. Opjose and I have smoked over this deal a couple of times. And it's not a simple thing to explain. The situation arose with another biplane that coupled the ailerons. And the coupling design actually has a flaw that appeared to be more theoretical than real. Of course, we really don't have many (if any) ways to test rigorously any of our aerodynamic deals. But what it's about is the rigging done to connect two ailerons on one side of a biplane.

Did you build your connections between the lower and upper ailerons with horns top and bottom. With the top aileron horn on the underside of the aileron pointing down, and the lower aileron horn on the top of the aileron pointing up. Just like the plans show?

You know how almost every building instruction has the advice to have 90degree angles from your servo horns to the pushrods. And to have a 90degree angles from the pushrods to the horns on the surfaces, and that 90degrees going straight through the hinge lines.

There is a reason for all three of those suggestions.

Any divergence from 90degrees in all those places winds up creating differential movement at the control surfaces.

It's not something people are trying to figure out, it's figured out. And proven. And easily measured. OK, not so easily measured. But there ain't no doubt about it. Except from people who haven't understood it yet.

Just curious. Go with four servos or two? I am building the kit and at that stage now. Who out there thinks which is better and why?

Depends on how you use the two. But before getting into why, I'd like to make a couple of observations.

There is no need for 4 in order to get more servo power. Two provide more than enough power.
The placing of servos in the top wing is unnecessary, but if you're going to do that for 4, which is a waste of time and energy, go with 2 and rig the airplane differently. That is worthwhile for one reason (soon to be described) but unnecessary.
The airplane operates excellently with two servos. Airplane response to ailerons is almost instantaneous. There is normal battery drain. The airplane even operates very well with two that are rigged in a way that gives 3 different amounts of deflection from the 4 ailerons with any aileron movement.

If you want to do the extra work to place 4 servos in the airplane for whatever reasons, then the work of placing two, with one driving the top ailerons and the other driving the lower, isn't going to be anymore wasted than placing 4. And it will be very slightly less work.

What do you gain with 4? More accurate movement of all 4 ailerons in unison. And whatever minor gains you would pick up from having only one short pushrod for each aileron. Since the airplane works very, very well with the stock arrangement, the gains from the last sentence would seem to be of no real value. It's pretty hard to justify something that isn't needed.

But having all 4 ailerons moving the same amount from the same stick commands would be worthwhile, at least in theory, and possibly in practice (see the immediately preceeding posts about trimming out rudder roll couple). And you can get that with the original location of the two servos, but with a different rigging scheme, a scheme that actually takes no more time and possibly less to do than the mfg's method of installing the provided hardware. So why go to extra work placing the two perfectly adequate servos in different locations just to avoid a rigging scheme that you can avoid very easily another way? Beats me.

But having two servos, one top wing, one bottom wing has a benefit. It just happens to be the same benefit that better rigging will do. All 4 ailerons moving the same amount is the benefit.

And people testify that the airplane flies excellently with the original setup. So what's to gain with 4? A number of things that can be bragged about but won't show in the airplane's performance. What're the costs? Time, work, money, a heavier airplane.

Want the worthwhile gain of 4 without the costs, go with 2 and rig them so all 4 ailerons move the same amounts with any stick movements.

What is my magic rigging scheme? It ain't magic for one thing. Lots of people can't even see what it should be doing in flight compared to the OEM rigging scheme. But if you understand and believe the value of a rule the RC world has preached forever, you will understand the problem with this ARF's rigging and see the value in doing it differently. And possibly consider that you're doing it "correctly". The old rule is right. No argument there. But apply it to the ARF and people seem to think it doesn't matter. Anyway, in a nutshell............

The rigging scheme in the ARF Skybolt gives you 4 ailerons that don't move the same with whatever command you've input to your TX stick. You actually wind up with the bottom two tracking the same but each driven aileron moves different amounts. And one top moves different than the other as well. And there is actually more. Give a left-aileron command and you get a different mix of movements than you get with a right-aileron command. How is this possible? Remember the rules you've seen everywhere.......... Servo arm to pushrod should make a right angle. Pushrod to horn should make a right angle and the 90degree line from the connection point should go through the hinge line. Do you believe there is a basis of truth to those rules? Well, the concepts apply even when the pushrod connects two ailerons.

Here is a discussion on the issue. It was started when I ran into the rigging on a World Models 40size Ultimate biplane. The airplane has staggered wings (don't they all) just like the Skybolt. Both airplanes use the same hardware layout and rigging scheme. Pictures provided........

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_35...tm.htm#3599034

I will show you guys what I did on my CG Ultimate. The rigging setup gives you equal throws on all 4 ailerons and does so using only 2 servos.

Bipes have a lot of strange tendencies. FWIW here is a list of bipes I have own and flown:

DP Ultimate
GP Christen Eagle 2 (had 3 of these)
Wild Hare 29% Ultimate
Goldberg Ultimate

You need to use proper mixes to get the most out of them. They will knife edge if you fly them correctly.

I like what you did Rock, but since you slit the ailerons anyway, why not do it like this? It looks a little cleaner and you don't have the horn and clevis sticking out the top of the wing.

Rock, my reason for contemplating using 4 servos instead of only two was that I have had a servo die on me inflight which made for a 'dirty shorts' situation, and yes it was a brand new servo, st47 mind you and it happened on my trainer which was an H9 RTF Alpha two weeks after I got my wings. I just don't want a repeat performance of that situation. I have always been a little gunshy of servos since then. I use st125's now except for my throttle and am a proud owner of a DX7. I have good equipment but I am in need of building skills. I am finding out now that kits are a whole lot different than ARF's and RTF's. The one thing that I learned this season is that if you build it well you land on the ground instead of in it.

The flip side is that instead of two things which can possibly go wrong, you now have four.

Unless you short the servos or stall them so long that they overheat the motors... more often than not the problems tend to be with stripped gears or loose plugs.

These can easily be checked for prior to starting your flying day.

That's not to say that I haven't had a flat out "bad" servo, ( I've had about 3-5 thus far ) that behaved strangely etc... but these are the sort of things that you tend to find out about on the first flight...

e.g. I had one that worked perfectly on the ground, that is, until you ran the engine up, then it would go nuts...

( Replacing the servo with another of exactly the same make and model fixed the problem... )


... but a plane crash every once in a blue moon is unfortunately a fact of RC life.

Forgo loading the plane down, taxing the power system more, and introducing new variables if you can.

DaRock,

Thank you for all your input on the aileron-connecting pushrods. You have me convinced. I will cut the slits and epoxy in the horns as you did and showed in your picture. I can't believe how much I am learning through this website. It's like being at a club meeting all the time.

Actually................

That works great when there is no wing stagger. Remember the rule, "the pushrod should make a 90degree connection with the horn, with one line being the pushrod and the other going directly through the hingeline."

When we're connecting two hinged ailerons with one pushrod, we ought to be able to draw a line from the hingeline of one aileron to the hingeline of the other aileron. And that line ought to have two right angles in it. Or the two connected ailerons wind up with differential deflection.

The solution for both the Ultimate and the Skybolt required that the upper pushrod connection be above the top aileron. Because the top wing was significantly forward of the lower wing.

I had originally laid out the pieces for the Skybolt so the pushrod didn't run through the meat of the aileron. But since the easiest way to place the horn (and the strongest) is to slot the aileron anyway....... Less horn and glue = less weight. And I'm silly enough to count the grams. And placing the pushrod outboard the TE moved the connection points so far aft that the horns were appreciably larger, and I use the original hardware provided. I simply cut the T base off the horns provided and inlay the uprights. And they're only so large.

OH! 90 degrees to the HORN. Now I get it

Hey, I knew you would.

This deal of mine has been a real crusade. So many very experienced modelers have missed the subtle details and trashed me for BSing that I've spent half my life trying to explain.

In truth, the real problem selling the idea is that so many Skybolts and little Ultimates are flying with the OEM design, and the benefits of the changes aren't obvious to most flyers. Heck, most of them wouldn't know what to look for if they even understood what was happening with the surfaces. The fact that what happens doesn't have it's own symptoms hides the problem too. Lots of us fly really screwed up airplanes every day with perfect happiness.

But it's been humorously entertaining to me from day one. No bigger biplanes have been rigged with the screwy design. Servo power aside, I wonder why that would be? [sm=wink_smile.gif]

The OEM rigging actually is a case study in WHY. And the fact that it works differently going UP than going DOWN adds to the WHAT lesson. It's actually fun to put an accurate throw meter on the uppers and see them lose a bit going one way BUT gain a DIFFERENT amount going the other way.

This stuff really ain't sound byte simple.

"Unless you short the servos or stall them so long that they overheat the motors... more often than not the problems tend to be with stripped gears or loose plugs."
"stripped gears"...ahhhh, the fate of it all!!! [:@]
I had that happen on my GP Skybolt not long ago while I was in an inverted flat spin. Talk about helpless feeling [:'(] the stripped tooth jammed the gear into full lock and all I could do was watch my plane pancake into TERRA FIRMA, but a quick call to Tower Hobbies fixed the plane. I liked mine so much that I bought another.

We are aware that there have been complaints about the color match of the Skybolt cowling and complaints about the checkerboard covering on the bottom of the wings. The cowlings are being checked to see what the difficulty happens to be, and what solution we can present. The product manager responsible is currently overseas talking to our ARF factory and will present this to them.

The checkered covering on the bottom of the wings is not MonoKote, but a different material specified because such a pattern is not available in MonoKote. The rest of the airplane is most certainly MonoKote.

At this time, we need your patience while we determine what is happening with the factories, and to resolve any issues that may exist. We apologize for any inconvenience to modelers and will stand behind our products, just as we always do. If anyone has a concern or is displeased with the covering on their model, they should contact Product Support- (217) 398-8970 - 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Central Time M-F. You can also return to us any item you believe to be defective in parts and workmanship of the original manufacture. Here's how:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1154095/tm.htm

Anyone have an opinion on using a 1.20 AX or a 1.60 FX on this bird...?

IMHO it would be too much

I've seen this plane fly with a Saito 125 and it was extreme power.

Anything more would be overkill

Not only overkill but even with serious re-inforcement of the firewall, you are likely to find the engine ripping off in flight from the torque.

The Skybolt is not built heavily enough for those engines.

Ya flyfanatic, why don't you stick a D.A. 50 on the front of this thing... hahaha. BTW, the guy who put your skybolt together didn't know what he was doing, you should check it over twice.

Anybody flown Ultimates AND Skybolts? I am looking for a good comparison of flight characteristics.

I have flown Ultimates extensively but have found myself very interested in the Skybolt ARF.

I have owned the Goldberg Ulty, the Dave Patrick, and the Aeroworks 100cc.

I sold my trailer and don't know if I want to fool with another one.... think I might want something that would fit in my car.... the Skybolt would fit.

Thanks for all the great posts guys
SDS

The Ultimate is a bit more agile and can get a little more radical that the Skybolt. But the Skybolt is a bit smoother and more stable.

That's not to say it can't do aerobatics

My brain is still swimming from watching what trixer was doing with his last month!

Hahaha Minn, that is the one that flyfanatic is buying.

SDSTICK: The best way to describe the skybolt is to call it a more graceful ultimate. For it's size, it is easily the most "graceful" plane I flown. It floats like a dream, will do inverted flat spins like no other in its class, and lands very easy. The snaps are not as precise as the ultimate, but I would owe that to the size of the ailerons between the two. The skybolt is also not a 3D candidate because you lose aileron control in high alpha maneuvers. Mine came in at 8lbs 1 oz (Fly I know I told you 8lbs 12 oz but I lied, that was my Extra, the skybolt is even lighter ) with a saito 1.25 on the front which makes it a GREAT candidate for smoke. It could handle the weight EASILY.

Sounds perfect guys.... getting older and looking to get less radical.... don't really care about fooling with a trailer anymore... and my IMAC days are behind me. I really appreciate everyones input on this forum... It really helps when your trying to decide what to buy.

A sincere thank you to one and all

I've been pretty good this year.... I think I will ask Santa for a Skybolt