I just recently build and maidened one and here are my quick observations

The covering job is really quite good with no real wrinkles.

The quality of the checkerboard covering is unacceptable. Simple lifting the tape they put on to hold ailerons in place creates an ugly separation of clear and lower layer that can't be fixed with heat.

It went together perfectly in about 15 hours. No build issues at all.

Balances perfectly with an OS61 fx on the nose.

The OS61 flies it very nice, more power would be welcome but it is hardly underpowered.

Field setup is really not too big of a headache, but the little 4-40 screws a bit of a hassle

Finally, it flies awesome. Flights have been uneventful. Needed 3 clicks of elevator trim and nothing else at all. It really glides nice and doesn't have the power off brick like character of some bipes.

Anyway, I'm looking to enjoying mine for a long time....

Be carfull! Go over the glue joints. I had about 10 flights on my Skybolt And noticed that I had to keep adjusting the elevater trim. Turns out the servo tray had worked lose. Lucky me I didn't crash! As for the fire wall, I've had no problems and am using an OS 91 4 stroke. It doesn't really need anything bigger and has the power to pull it throughalmost any manuver.

Fokerfly,

I believe you are on to something. I have had the same problem with my Skybolt as well only it happened twice. The first time it came loose I reglued and used trangle stock to beef it up only to have it pop loose again. Also see K4nkc,s post #491 on page 20 of this same thread. I'm not sure what is going on here, but everyone should periodically check the security of their servo tray just to be sure this isn't an isolated problem.

On my 13th flight, my servo tray broke loose in mid flight. Every time I used elevator it pushed the tray in such a way that it moved rudder and throttle at the same time. I managed to set it down level with only a squashed landing gear and the firewall that came loose. The firewall had hardly anything holding it on

I managed to fly my skybolt into a fence at the end of our runway during landing. When I brought it in to the pits and inspected it, the rudder was broken, the cowl and wheel pants were cracked, and the font bulkhead that the fuel tank presses against was broken. Thank goodness I had reinforced the firewall due to reading this thread. The firewall is still solidly attached. Everything is fixed except the bulkhead. Having a hard time getting into it even though I cut a hatch in the bottom where the air exhaust is and the muffler exits.

Howard,

Sorry to hear about your mishap with the fence. Based on your damage report, I am fairly certain your firewall would not have taken the impact without your reinforcement. Good for you! Just a thought about the bulkhead - since you have cut a hatch, you can see that there is lots of open space up front behind the firewall if you cut through that middle former. You could just move the tank forward and surround it with foam. Then it won't be so "tricky" to rebuild the bulkhead. Get that puppy back in the air! And watch for fences.

my firewall didn't hold up well at all after my Futaba R6014FS 2.4 Rx stopped communicating with my 12Z............really hit me hard as it was the plane that brought me out of a 15 year layoff, and the 2.4 technology that is so great...........Futaba isn't doing a thing for me.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7908536/tm.htm

That really sucks.

Great info here guys.. After years and years of wanting this plane.. ever since the days of the Sig SkyBolt.. I have a NIB GreatPlanes SkyBolt ARF coming my way, due to a good buddy discount and some karma that's been bestowed on me I guess... anyways... I'm very excited about it, as I haven't had a new glow-plane in a way long time..it's been mostly electric, and some larger gassers for well over 5yrs I think... and this plane looks like just the ticket to burn some nitro.

In reading this thread(yes, I've read the whole thing over the last few days).. there's a few things I see this plane worthy of for sure(at least for me).. the first is a 4-stroke engine.. in one of the larger displacement sizes, which leads into the next "want".. which is a smoke system of some sort. MinnFlyer.. you really got some great info on your "how-to" article, and I'm sure I'll visit that again soon.. and I'm also going to study darock's aileron differential issues.. very interesting you saw that too.. as I wondered about that issue even before I read your interesting posts.. and then your thread you started on it..

But I am thinking about something around a 1.10(YS)-1.20(OS) 4-stroke.. #1 is that's really my style when it comes to unlimited aerobats(I am throttle concious, experienced flyer).. #2 is I'm thinking it would provide plenty of power to compensate the weight of a smoke system.. but with larger displacement would generate the heat/pressure for smokey in a bit more efficient manner then the smaller .91 counterparts.. another reason is.. I don't have either one laying around right now.. and never even owned a 1.20. I went from .90size planes right to the 1.8-2.2 size planes.. and this is a good opportunity to get into something new and different..
So... just keep this thread alive.. keep flying your SkyBolts.. and have fun.. A good design is timeless.. and this has just got to be one of them.. Does anyone even remember the Sig version anymore?.. dang I always wanted one.. This ARF looks like a real winner though.. I'll know in a few days when I get my kit..
"

dgrant,

the one thing you really want to watch out for is the covering on the bottom of this plane. it is not genuine monokote and it will shrink really well (better than monokote actually) but will pull away from the edges in a nano second when using an iron or even the typical heat gun when you get things too hot...............it's actually the only thing you'll run into while building this awesome airplane that will leave you with more than foul words of wisdom should you get a shrinkage along any of the edges...........my warning comes from the experience of having put together 2 of these and even on my second one it got the best of me on the upper wing just in front of the aileron opening. it pulled, but i caught in just in the nick of time.
just go around the edges first with medium heat and make sure all the edges are good and tight and you'll be fine, and yes, you are really going to enjoy this plane.....it lands like a high wing trainer.
BTW, here is a good review that was done by a nice guy over on RCG,

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=538651

[sm=wink_smile.gif]dgrant... My Skybolt is my first bipe and I LOVE IT !!! I just built it this year and I have a Saito 1.00 with a Sullivan onboard glow (dedicated 4.8V battery), a 4.8V receiver battery, XOAR 15x6 prop and it flys like a dream. Awesome on 25% nitro but still plenty of power (unlimited vert) on 15%. I'm constantly being asked what engine I have because people can't believe the power. AUW 7lb. 8oz. (I think that's what it was ???) Now I'm hooked on bipes !

Some friendly advice / suggestions for you... (some are just reminders about what others have said in this thread and which are very true)...

1/ Highly recommend the Saito 100 on this plane but DO reinforce the firewall before mounting-up your engine;
2/ Reinforce the servo tray for sure ! I C/A'd narrow (1/2") pieces of ply along the front of the tray and the back of the tray from one side of the fuse to the other effectively making the tray like an 'I-beam'. Very easy and rigid;
3/ Don't just glue in the receiver / battery mount in place... Secure it with two small screws on each side too. Remember, when you're building the plane and the fuse is upside down on your work bench it looks fine but when you're flying and perhaps have a hard landing, all the weight of your receiver and battery pack(s) are now hanging from the mount and could yank it off;
4/ I understand the aileron differential thing but honestly, you'll never notice it;
5/ Don't put much heat to the covering on the bottoms of the wings. It's junk and even Great Planes doesn't know where it came from because apparently, the factory sourced it from god only knows where. So much for "expertly covered in Genuine Monocote" ??? Personally, I wasn't happy with the covering job at all but then again, my last ARF was an Aeroworks and it doesn't get much better than those;
6/ Don't be afraid to put the CG way back. Still easy to fly;
7/ Remember, your ailerons are out toward the edges of the wings where the prop blast doesn't hit them so no air speed (or very low air speed) = no roll control !;
8/ A friend of mine had the lower wing alignment dowel (the little knob in the center of the lower wing that hooks into the fuse) break on his SB so with mine, I mounted two more 1/4" ply blocks in the fuse with blind nuts in them just under the leading edge of the wing so I can secure the lower wing on with four nylon bolts instead of just two. Two at the back (factory) and two at the front (mine). Just a little extra insurance;
9/ Don't epoxy the knurled nuts to the threaded rods which hold the interplane struts to the wings. Instead, drill and tap a hole (6-32) in the side of each knurled nut and secure each to the rods with set-screws. If you every have to get them apart for some reason (post crash rebuild), you can.

The plane is a blast to fly. You'll love it. As for me... GP Ulitimate (50cc gasser) is on my build list for this winter.

Have fun[sm=wink_smile.gif]

Ditto

This means WAR !!!!!!!

Nah, it don't. But it is worth an observation.
No matter how wonderful anyone thinks what he is doing works, if he hasn't even seen the alternative in action, he honestly has no idea if the alternative even works, what it does, or much less how well it works.

It has been said many times that almost everyone who has flown the stock Skybolt loves it. And that the aileron rigging improvement does not cure problems that happen throughout the flight envelope, but do SEEM to give the airplane a bit cleaner response and appears to not do some of the things others who own Skybolts have seen.

It's also less work and a stronger installation to do the suggested rigging improvement setup. There are two motives. Have all 4 alierons move equally to equal stick input, AND the new rigging arrangement actually takes less time to do. And doesn't cost anything at all since it uses the supplied hardware with simple and quick modification.

I have actually flown Skybolts without the modification. And unlike the detractors of the rigging mod, HAVE flown the "differential thing". And I did notice that the OEM Skybolts seemed a touch "muddy" in response to tracking when ailerons were effective.

As for labeling it "the differential thing", that naming suggests whomever calls it such seems not to have understood the better rigging removes differential, not causes it.

But hey, this really isn't war over a little thing like that. We fly ARFs, and when you do, you accept a lot of little things you might or might not build into your model if you did build it. This is another, like getting a LitePly firewall, that is supported around the upper third by nothing but a 1/2" foam fuselage top sheeted with 1/16" balsa. If you only have time to improve one thing on that Chinese ARF interpretation of an excellent old US kit design, then put the time on the firewall improvements. Since you probably won't be building two Skybolts to compare the aileron response, and the OEM users are perfectly happy with what they did, doing the rigging improvement won't prove anything to you, but it will reward you with the knowledge that you do have an airplane where all 4 ailerons move the same amount at the same time. For whatever that's worth to you.

da rock... You seem a little put off by my reference to the "aileron differential thing" and I appologize for that if you took offence to my wording. What was intended by my comment to dgrant was to say that if the plane is built according to GP's instructions, it will still fly just fine. Maybe not perfect but nevertheless, just fine ! You're absolutely correct when you state that I (or anyone) who hasn't seen the alternative has no idea if the alternative works however, I never said anything about it not working as you seem to think I did. In fact, when I read about it (the aileron linkage mods) in this thread, I was quite intrigued, interested and very impressed ! Let's face it, the Skybolt is not a high-end, high-performance aircraft but I would suggest that most that own it do a lot of casual flying with some simple aerobatics and would be more than happy with it just the way it is. The problem with forums is that there much like e-mail... People get 'bent out of shape' when they read other's comments without stopping to think about what is being said. They're too quick to judge and fire-off a 'snot-a-gram' when they're a little offended for no good reason. Enjoy your aileron differential !

Not put off at all. That's why I kidded about "This is war".

Lots of people see what they see, no matter what is said. Same with an airplane in the air, only in that case, some don't see. And that's especially kewl if it wouldn't matter to 'em anyway....... see?

But I would like to try to make it clear once again that the "aileron differential" isn't mine. The OEM rigging gives 3 different deflections every time the 4 ailerons move. And they don't actually give the deflection that is usually rigged on purpose to help some models bank-turn that everyone calls "aileron differential". I'm basically trying to make sure everyone understands that this isn't about the "aileron differential" everyone talks about. And that the OEM doesn't give that aileron differential, and that my suggested rigging removes any differential so the airplane will actually see all 4 ailerons move the same amount.

You intended in your comment to dgrant exactly what a number of us have said a couple of times over about the OEM rigging. The Skybolt flies great for many, many people with that OEM rigging. And most flyers won't see the difference.

Wow.. great info here guys... thanks for all the input... and I didn't mean to start any flames... it's all good mates. I'm not going to go into the aileron diff issue right now, but it is good info regardless.. and it's free info.. regardless... so.. with that said.. I've got to keep an eye out for a power-plant for this plane now.. I've got most if not all the flight pack already, unless I want to go with new digital servos.. which probably isn't a bad idea.. I know first hand there is a distinct advantage there in precision alone.. and this plane is definatately worthy of them. I've still got to get the plane in my little mits(read hands) first.. I'm going over the end of the week to get it, as my good friend that's hookin me up is out-of-town on biz.. I'll get back here and post my finding's/opinion on what's in the box.

well i don't get it at all Rock............i set my Skybolt as per GP instruction and i don't see any differential at all........i get the same up and down deflection with the stock setup.............

With the stock setup, there will be differential, and it will vary on the uppers depending on whether they're going up or going down.

The basis of that is the basis of a major cornerstone of our R/C world. If you do not have a right angle from the pushrod to the servo output shaft, the pushrod will move a different amount one way than the other, and the same for a right angle at the hingeline. That one idea is a cornerstone. The pushrod at the servo should make a right angle and the pushrod at the horn should too. We all preach that, don't we. And it applies to rigging that is one pushrod connecting two horns.

In the case of a biplane, and that OEM configuration, the wing stagger causes most of the problem. And the Skybolt has a stagger. In the case of the Bolt, the critical stagger is where the two ailerons are joined. And there is stagger there. But you can solve that minor problem if you place the horns where the pushrod connections give the right angles at both top aileron and bottom aileron.

When I first mentioned what I'd done and how easy it was, it wasn't well accepted on these forums. And just the explanation of what "should be" by the "right angle rule" wasn't good enough. So I made up a display/test setup. The actual measurements of the airplane were used. You can see that layout in one of the attached pictures. It shows what I got when the lower ailerons are the drivers. My little Ultimate and my Skybolt both are hard to measure with dependable accuracy so the getup solves that problem Plus a picture is worth a thousand words. (Unfortunately, I often spew out at least a thousand words as well.....

I never tried to measure on the airplanes, 'cause I never had them rigged the OEM's way. But I have looked closely at the other Skybolts I've been lucky enough to test fly. And I could see what they did. Truth is, at least one owner never did see it. And I'm not sure the others did either. The beauty of our hobby is that very often, there are two ways to do something and the worse of the two ain't bad. And the beauty of the Skybolt is that the stock built one is a heck of a good flying model. I won't say that about the little Ultimate, because I have flown stock ones that were treacherous as hell. And mine is only a bit sneaky.

BTW, I don't get royalties out of this deal. And I'm not selling my patent on the design. Another beauty of the hobby is we can do anything we think works. And I'm not suggesting otherwise.

BTW, I do offer a guarantee with all of my priceless advice. If you are not entirely satisfied, there will be no additional charge.

Good flyin' wid' ya' today.

Oh yeah, that first attached picture above isn't a depiction of either the Skybolt or the Ultimate. I made it up just to show what the ideal right angled rigging would need to be. The green dotted line would be a rigging that has a right angle for the top aileron and a right angle for the bottom. And the discussion was about linking ailerons at the TE. Which also works pretty good.

The point of the right angles on the green lines would be where you'd want the horns to connect to the pushrod.

To tell you the truth, I'm completely baffled why a manufacturer would do what they did with the Skybolt and little Ultimates. Eventhough it's been done by others, it's never been done on purpose for larger biplane models, and for a pretty good reason. Have you ever seen a big bipe, or any bipe with individually driven ailerons where the mfg wanted you to adjust the upper servos to give such wierd deflections?

royalties eh?....i knew there was a perk or 2 going on here...j/k

thx for the response. i'll be going over my 2nd Skybolt soon to ready it for it's maiden, so i will probably dial in or out any differential with the Tx this time.

Unfortunately, the differential comes from the rigging. With either the OEM rigging or my suggested rigging, the lower ailerons move equally both up and down. The differential results from just what has been shown in the pictures, rigging that changes how much the upper ailerons move. No way the TX can dial that out.

Here's what happens with the OEM setup.

When you move the TX stick, both the aileron servos in the lower wings move the aileron they're rigged to whatever your TX stick movement tells them to. Lets say the TX movement says 20degrees. Both those ailerons on the lower wing move 20degrees. One moves 20 up and the other moves 20 down.

When the aileron on the downgoing side moves 20 degrees the OEM rigging pulls the upper aileron it's connected to 26 degrees.
When the aileron on the upgoing side moves 20 degrees the OEM rigging pushes the upper aileron it is connected to 23 degrees.
The OEM rigged Skybolt sees 3 different aileron movements from your one TX stick command. And that is caused by the way the pushrod is connected, mostly from the way it's connected to the upper ailerons. The lower aileron hardward actually is pretty close to giving the prescribed 90degree setup.

Summer,
In case you haven't noticed, this is Da Rocks favorite food fight. I'm your average Sunday sport flyer and I vote for just setting up your Skybolt the way the manufacturer recommends. Mine flys great. There's no other way to discribe it. Yours will too. So do hundres of others that were set up "incorrectly". Unless you can actually sit in the airplane with a turn and slip indicator monitor how the plane is flying I seriously doubt you will notice any difference in this model. No, I haven't flown one set up "correctly". That's my humble opinion so take it for what it's worth.

Blah humbug!

What Da Rock shows is trivially easy to set up, produces good results, costs no additional $$$, and only needs a few more minutes of time.

It is somewhat foolish NOT to do it if you are in any way interested in KEEPING your plane for a while.

Then call me a fool.

I had my original GP Skybolt (Kit-built) for over 10 years - and would still have it if I had not given it away to force me into building another one.