Please provide size in lengths/span/area and actual weights.
Also any other site or links to info on these specs
So far I see 18 lbs or more as realistic, ready to fly weight.
No fights please -just info.

Hi Dick
You can go to Great Planes at this address http://www.greatplanes.com/airplanes/gpma1218.html[/URL]
all the info on the Pitts is there. I just got mine yesterday. Looks real good. Don't know what engine I'll use yet. But it will be a gasser for sure. Good luck. Joe

I just got e-mail yesterday, My pitts was shipped on the 23rd. I'll get the digital camera out and take a bunch of pics if anyone is interested. Just let me know what part you want to see! I've got a Brison 3.2 to put in mine.

rbeck

P.S. If anyone is interested, Bruckner Hobbies has the GP Pitts
in stock. Saw them at the WRAM show.

www.brucknerhobbies.com

I have received a weight breakdown from one new owner .
9 lbs 4 ounces total inc spinner.
so----add to that the radio and engine and bits and pieces.
The lightest engine which will fly it around represents a 2.5 lb package.
The lightest engine developing enough power for some good aerobatics will go higher.a 3.5 lb package.
A rip snorter will hit 5 lbs all up.
Best guess is a 16-19 lb model - depending on who does it - realistic weights.
Pitts really suck up power if you want solid aerobatics -so - go for the lightest -strongest power setup you can find.
It looks like it wil be a lot of fun.

My ready to fly GP Pitts with a Moki 1.8 and on-board glow weighs 15.4 lbs dry. I saw another GP Pitts with a G-62 and only 2 aileron servos fly just fine, weighing 17.8 lbs. Can you say "unlimited vertical?"

I weighed them both myself on the same scale.

Sounds as if a 4 lb engine setup may be fine!
The wing loading at 16 lbs is 28.4 oz sq ft-
At sea level -should be quite a blast.
Us-ens (we-uns?) in the high country , need lower numbers for good bipe performance but the plane sure looks to be a great ARF.

You may want to calculate the wing area again. I used 1" square grid lines for the wing tips to subtract that area from the total wing area and I came up with 1408 sq inches, over 100 sq in more than GP states.

The center of the lower wing lifts too, so you have to count that too in the area. I even subtracted out the semi-circular cutout in the top wing.

This makes the wing loading down in the 26 oz/sq.ft.

That is a plus-inasmuch as bipes have a reduced efficiency character due to a fair bit of blanking which can occur at higher anges of attack.
Our old SWAG was a 75% efficiency.
This is up for argument tho as the effective very low aspect ratio of the whole mess is an advantage also-for stability.
My own bipe -a big Bucker ,can be settled in at an absolute crawl .

I got to ask what size and/or kit is your Bucker. I am not too far from starting my 1\3 Pilot Jungman with a Taurus 62.

It was one I did for TOC-1990 1790 squares aprox
17 lbs-As I recall-
Your kit is a nice one -it was a model of the same plane I modeled. yours was done first -from Jim Moser's (dec) plane - After Jim re did the plane -he sent me a stack of info -and I did it He called it the Super mann

pettit :
Are you doing this arf as a future review for the mag, if so when will it be published or could we get a sneak (p)review in this thread. How did the Moki compare to the G62, would a G45 work out too.
Thanks
RORO

Dick Hanson Was that the one Dave Patrick flew? I had the Goldberg with a Webra 1.20 and it was without any question the finest flying plane I have owned in my 11 yrs of modeling-Dave told me it was a scaled down version of the one he flew in the TOC--(flutter is a horrible thing -may it rest in peace)Anyway if this one flys close to the Goldberg I am already excited!

Are we talking ZDZ-80 single for this bird, Dick? :-)

I was speaking of the ones Rojecki flew -but I also did the fuselages for Patrick's.40%
His model was simply a scale up of my original plans. No changes -
He needed more power tho -
The ones Rojecki had -31%- (he still has one -I have the other) were powered by Tartan twins on pipes and had good power. for then.
Mine has had a 40/80 and 80 twin ZDZ-in it -
The funny part is that the 80's weighed just a bit more than th 2.4 Tartan setup -
The performance on the 80's is "quite brisk".
The Pitts is quite a bit shorter and about 400 squares smaller and about the same weight - we were at 16 lbs 9 ounces originally.
But I am keen on seeing how these workout!
The ZDZ80 twin would be a perfect twin -it is 4 lbs even and very smooth runner.
The 60 is cheaper-same weight!, and almost same power 24x10 props running -6000 -6500.
There are a bunch of engines that should work.

I remember when Dave Patrick was advertizing his 40% TOC Jungman in an RC mag--All I could do was dream. You are certainly correct about better choices in power these days. I have changed my mind on the ZDZ 40 for my Pitts and ordered a Taurus 3.2 for power--a little more weight and power. I figured the airframe can stand a few more ozs.