Super Skybolt ARF
10-09-2006, 07:59 PM
#26
Senior Member
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
Just got mine finished.
The sucker weighed 7 pounds 5 ounces. I keep looking around under the workbench to see if I left something off.
Jeez, it feels light for a 60size model....
Anybody else weigh theirs?
The sucker weighed 7 pounds 5 ounces. I keep looking around under the workbench to see if I left something off.
Jeez, it feels light for a 60size model....
Anybody else weigh theirs?
10-10-2006, 07:45 AM
#28
Senior Member
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
A 24oz one, the OS61FX.
The OS61FX is 23.6oz with muffler.
The OS91FX is 24.3oz with muffler.
The OSFS91 is 23.8oz with muffler.
I figured to try the 61 and decide if I wanted to go to the 91FX or not. I figured if the airplane had such a strong reputation from it's kit version then a couple of things had to be true. It had to be very good with a 61 'cause that'd be what most kit builders would have used. (And they all thought it was a very good model.) I'm guessing most kit ones were built back before the "two engine sizes up" craze hit and the kit called for a 60. And it appears that the kit design builds an 8.5lb airplane. And when I estimated the finished weight from the weight of the parts in the box, it looked like my ARF was going to come out under 7.5lbs, so I figured.....
An almost 15% reduction in weight from the kit version oughta make for a great flying airplane with the engine size that made the reputation in the first place.
We'll see today.......
In a couple of hours actually.......
The OS61FX is 23.6oz with muffler.
The OS91FX is 24.3oz with muffler.
The OSFS91 is 23.8oz with muffler.
I figured to try the 61 and decide if I wanted to go to the 91FX or not. I figured if the airplane had such a strong reputation from it's kit version then a couple of things had to be true. It had to be very good with a 61 'cause that'd be what most kit builders would have used. (And they all thought it was a very good model.) I'm guessing most kit ones were built back before the "two engine sizes up" craze hit and the kit called for a 60. And it appears that the kit design builds an 8.5lb airplane. And when I estimated the finished weight from the weight of the parts in the box, it looked like my ARF was going to come out under 7.5lbs, so I figured.....
An almost 15% reduction in weight from the kit version oughta make for a great flying airplane with the engine size that made the reputation in the first place.
We'll see today.......
In a couple of hours actually.......
10-10-2006, 10:41 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Malaysia, MALAYSIA
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
would you kindly measure the firewall size ie length and height for me. Thanks!
I'm looking for plane with big wing area and light for my Zen G20...
I'm looking for plane with big wing area and light for my Zen G20...
10-11-2006, 10:51 AM
#33
Senior Member
My Feedback: (13)
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
What's the deal on the cabanes and N struts? Specifically, how much is involved in assembly/disassembly at the field?
I'm looking for a home for a Laser 150. FWIW, a Laser 150 is about the same size, weight, and power output as a Jap 120 four stroke.
I'm looking for a home for a Laser 150. FWIW, a Laser 150 is about the same size, weight, and power output as a Jap 120 four stroke.
10-11-2006, 11:19 AM
#35
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
MinnFlyer, I just read a review of this plane in one of the mags and the gentleman building the ARF stated that he had to add 10 oz's to the nose to balance with an os 91 fs. I will put the battery out front like you said and try the 91 fs.
10-11-2006, 05:01 PM
#37
Senior Member
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
MinnFlyer, I just read a review of this plane in one of the mags and the gentleman building the ARF stated that he had to add 10 oz's to the nose to balance. I will put the battery out front like you said and try the 90.
It's always interesting to read the stuff about CGs. Amazing stuff......
10-12-2006, 07:53 AM
#39
Senior Member
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
OK, I'll consider it.
That 1.20AX weighs 23oz without a muffler. It weighs 30oz with the OS muffler.
My Skybolt balances perfectly with the 24oz's of engine/muffler I've got in it. I didn't have to add tailweight and didn't have to add noseweight. The airplane weighs just over 7 pounds without fuel. The engine is rated right at 2 horsepower.
If I need more horsepower, I can swap out the present engine and plug one in that's rated just under 3 horsepower. It'll weigh about a half an ounce more. I shouldn't have to add a bit of counterbalance weight. A 7 pound airplane with almost 3 horsepower is going to certainly have enough horsepower.
The suggested 1.20AX is advertised to be around 30 ounces with muffler. It's rated as just over 3 horsepower. My airplane already balances perfectly with the recommended engine and with one that's the same weight yet has almost 50% more horsepower. If I add around 6 ounces to the nose of a perfectly balanced airplane, chances are good that I'm going to need counterbalance weight. It usually takes about 1/2 the tail weight to balance excess nose weight. The 6oz excess in the nose is going to call for 3oz in the rear possibly. That's 9oz of dead weight for almost no gain.
Would I consider doing that?
No
That 1.20AX weighs 23oz without a muffler. It weighs 30oz with the OS muffler.
My Skybolt balances perfectly with the 24oz's of engine/muffler I've got in it. I didn't have to add tailweight and didn't have to add noseweight. The airplane weighs just over 7 pounds without fuel. The engine is rated right at 2 horsepower.
If I need more horsepower, I can swap out the present engine and plug one in that's rated just under 3 horsepower. It'll weigh about a half an ounce more. I shouldn't have to add a bit of counterbalance weight. A 7 pound airplane with almost 3 horsepower is going to certainly have enough horsepower.
The suggested 1.20AX is advertised to be around 30 ounces with muffler. It's rated as just over 3 horsepower. My airplane already balances perfectly with the recommended engine and with one that's the same weight yet has almost 50% more horsepower. If I add around 6 ounces to the nose of a perfectly balanced airplane, chances are good that I'm going to need counterbalance weight. It usually takes about 1/2 the tail weight to balance excess nose weight. The 6oz excess in the nose is going to call for 3oz in the rear possibly. That's 9oz of dead weight for almost no gain.
Would I consider doing that?
No
10-12-2006, 09:03 AM
#40
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Blackfoot ,
ID
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
MY flying friend just got his new SB and is using a 120 saito in it .It flys the plane ok nothing I would call a real barn stormer
Were at 4500 feet here .
Darock I think you have it backwards there , it doesnt take much tail weight to off set nose heavy ,but it takes alot of nose weight to offset tail heavy.
Were at 4500 feet here .
Darock I think you have it backwards there , it doesnt take much tail weight to off set nose heavy ,but it takes alot of nose weight to offset tail heavy.
10-12-2006, 05:36 PM
#44
Senior Member
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
150flyer,
Thanks for pulling me up short. I wasn't paying attention to what I was typing after I got started. Old age is not for the weak of mind.
Yeah, 21 ounces versus 9 ounces is a big difference. But 9 ounces versus zero ounces is a bigger difference. Thanks again for straightening out the numbers.
Would I consider adding 9 ounces of dead weight for almost no increase in horsepower? No
Thanks for pulling me up short. I wasn't paying attention to what I was typing after I got started. Old age is not for the weak of mind.
Yeah, 21 ounces versus 9 ounces is a big difference. But 9 ounces versus zero ounces is a bigger difference. Thanks again for straightening out the numbers.
Would I consider adding 9 ounces of dead weight for almost no increase in horsepower? No
10-13-2006, 07:29 AM
#47
Senior Member
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
21-9=12 9-0=9 12 is a bigger difference than 9
But since I was trying to make a point, I chose to say what I did 'cause I figgered it'd make the point better.
(and hey, I wouldn't never admit to the obvious, if'n I was you....
and who said anything about smart? ) So, since I've stated it "wrong" time and again, I'll state it as simply as possible for everyone 'cause I think the point is worth stating clearly..............
The Skybolt balances perfectly with a 24oz OS61 in the nose. It has about 2hp with that engine.
The Skybolt would balance perfectly with a 24oz OS91 in the nose and have about 3hp with that engine.
The Skybolt with an OS1.20 in the nose would not balance perfectly, and it'd be about 9ounces heavier to balance but only have about the same 3hp as the OS91 that would have added no weight at all.
10-13-2006, 04:41 PM
#49
Senior Member
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
I was thinking more along the lines of a DA100.
Where else could I find that much weight to have to carry around, but still have the power to do it.
Where else could I find that much weight to have to carry around, but still have the power to do it.
11-07-2006, 04:59 PM
#50
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Super Skybolt ARF
I just finished the SKYBOLT ARF. It looks awesome! I haven't weighed it yet, but it seems light. I put a GMS 76 ringed on it and it balanced out when I moved the batt along side the fuel tank. I only have one flight on it so far. The engine only has about 5 tanks through it so it's still breaking in but the vertical was close to unlimited. Good luck!