Actually,my mistake...they both look good! I thought the 88" came in the
light blue, red, white and yellow scheme like the 47" Yaks. I like the red, silver and black
though but yeah, definitely the yellow & black for both sizes IMO. My brother (yeah the one
that offed the Bridi!) also flies so he was thinking about the 47" for his first electric
plane after he sells his T-Rex but, he's now looking to stay into glow and get the Skyshark
Edge540 with a 1.00-1.20 four stroke. Hope they get it in stock soon though!

BTW..off topic a little...where do you buy YS 4s motors? This question is for anyone
who could help.

Thanks.

Add me to the list of people that have lost their Lancairs to a wing spar failure.

On Monday my Lancair 60 ES was demolished (including engine, Tru-Turn spinner, Futaba 2.4 receiver, and four servos) in a crash caused by the failure of the main wing spar.

The aircraft had been flown only five times.

The failure occurred while the aircraft was being operated at half throttle in a left bank while lining up for final; clearly within Great Planes claims of the aircraft's capabilities.

After doing a bit of research online I find that this is a common problem with this aircraft, despite the wing being built precicely to the supplied instructions.

I have purchased many Great Planes products in the past and they have always been of very good quality, so as you may imagine, I am quite displeased by my experience with this aircraft.

I highly recommend filling the gaps in the root ribs with balsa and epoxy, removing the covering and glassing, and building a single piece main gear to prevent this from happening to other Lancair owners.

I have e-mailed Great Planes but I doubt they will do anything about it.

Chris:

I'm on your side. I hate see anyone lose a beautiful airplane like that. But....

It is obvious from the second photo that the center ribs were not glued together. The spar didn't fail, the joiner did, undoubtedly because it was the only thing holding the wings together.

Sorry Chris, but you can't blame that one on Great Planes.

Jim

Jim - While it is somewhat difficult to see from the photo, the entire ribs surface was, in fact, covered in epoxy when the wing halves were joined.

I referred to the joiner as a "spar" out of ignorance. The broken "joiner" was referred to as the "spar" by one of the club members that witnessed the crash.

You are right, the "joiner" failed.

In my limited experience I have built a few ARFs and one kit, all of which have more than one joiner, and all of which use thicker ply.

I am suggesting that the wing design is deficient because there is only one joiner, and that the joiner is too thin.

Furthermore, the two piece main gear only exaserbates the poor design problem.

Cheers,
Chris

Chris:

It is a sad time for you I'm sure, and I am only going on with this because I think it is important when something fails for those involved to understand how and why.

If the center ribs had been "glued together" you would now see torn wood all over that center rib. It would look like that small clunk behind the joiner. I'm not disputing the fact that you put glue in the ribs, but for some reason, the glue did not "glue" the two ribs together. It could be that something kept them from touching each other during the gluing process. (Joiner too long?) Or perhaps you used 5 minute epoxy and it set up before you got the wings together. (That's what it looks like.)

That is a critical joint and whoever assembled your Lancair was not careful to make it a strong joint.

I'll bet in the future your wing joints will be extra strong.

Jim

I can truly empathize with you my friend![&o]

I believe in your case, GP might actually help you if you present your case
and of course...have a receipt.

I totally agree that one joiner might be insufficient for this
wing but, it is a difficult subject to model and I doubt there's any room
for anything that would be of help. The wing is just too thin for anything
else.

Now, the landing gear IS MOST DEFINITELY a bad design. In fact,
I don't even think the original owner even knew of the damage
he did to the joint of the wing. He informed me that there had been a "few rough landings"
and that's when I noticed the seam was split on top... and bottom as the tell tale torn
Monokote suggested (I then glassed the center). Other guys I have recently seen have put a section of thin steel
across the legs to strengthen it. One guy even used a section of hack-saw blade in there!
The WHOLE gear needs to be revised IMO, especially the NG! .
It is a real sore spot on this model. Then again, this is not training gear either.

Sorry upon looking at the pic, I have to agree with JRF here, that looks like a severe
lack of adhesion.

Jim, 30 minute epoxy was used as is called for in the instruction manual.

If the ribs failed to mate up for some reason during the build I still cannot see this as my fault.

I followed the directions to the letter.

Perhaps the directions should have included directions for sanding the wing root to allow better mating?

In the case if the Lancair, I think the instructions should be ammended for folks with limited building experience (such as myself) to include: filling in the rib cavities with balsa and epoxy, sand the wing roots to be sure they mate up properly, and fiberglass the joint after assembly.

I also believe that the two-piece landing gear played more of a role here than we all realize.

Great Planes should offer a replacement one piece main gear as a free retrofit to Lancair owners.

My point is, I belive the wing failure had many causes, all of which were avoidable with better build instructions and better landing gear from the manufacturer.

I just got off the phone with Great Planes.

They want me to send what is left of my Lancair to them "so their engineers can look at it"

Then the customer support guy practically accused me of installing too large of an engine.

Nope, the Magnum .61 falls within their recommendations. Not to mention the fact that I had only five flights on the aircraft so I was running EXTREMELY rich. Certainly not over-powered.

The customer support guy said, "...we may be able to give you a partial credit toward the purchase of your next one..."

Gee, $40 to pack and ship and they "might" give me a partial credit.

I think they just lost me as a customer...

And to think Real Flight 4 has just been released and Lord knows how many other Great Planes products I would have purchased throughout my lifetime as I enjoy this great hobby.

I think I'll be sticking with kit-built from now on.

Due to the 2-piece U/C arrangement, when this plane lands the forces through the main gear ar effectively trying to "pry apart" the centre join.

Do what several of us have - make a metal plate about 50mm square (sorry, I'm at work, easy to figure out with the plane handy!) and drill a hole near each corner to match the inner 2 bolts of each main gear mount. Re-mount the main gear with this plate inserted over the top, and you have your 1-peice gear, no longer levering the wing join apart.

I got some matching Humbrol blue paint, and you'd never even notice it. Won't solve all the issues, but solves this one.

Cam

I looked at the instructions of the lancair and have no doubt that you followed them to the letter. However, I think it is the builder's responsibility to make sure glue joints that they, themselves, make are sound. If your glue joint was sound, the center rib would not be in one piece as it is. Glue joints can't be sound without proper mating of parts. Generally, when instructions tell you to put glue on something you can bet this is because that area is supposed to be glued to something. Glue cannot adhere surfaces together simply by those surfaces being adjacent to eachother. The surfaces have to be in good contact with eachother. I hear a lot of frustration in your post. I feel your pain. I write this post to help you best direct your energies toward what I think is the root cause of it.

When I build an arf, I take every precaution that I know to make sure that it is airworthy because it is far less trouble and expense to do that (even if it requires fixing manufacturer's defects) than it is to send the wreckage back to the manufacturer in hopes of a refund. This includes researching the arf on RCU to be aware of known flaws (for a noobee, it's best to wait for others to find the faults and then read about it online and decide if the fixes are beyond your abilities or not.) It includes applying stress to all parts of the plane to make sure they won't break under load. It also includes frequent inspections during the life of the plane. If somehow I miss something after all those precautions which results in catastrophic failure, I cry myself to sleep that night and in the morning develop strategies to avoid that from happening again. In general, I find in order to get the most out of this hobby it is best to place the responsibility of airworthiness on myself and nobody else. If you don't take the responsibility, then this situation is going to make you a powerless victim who lets this experience ruin future enjoyment of arfs. Just my 2 cents. I make no guarantees that this free advice is worth more than what you paid for it.

Truer words have never been spoken.

I kicked myself for a week over this, wondering why I didn't stress the wing after taking
the strike. I look my model over well always with range tests, visual checks and deflection
tests before takeoff. I just NEVER checked (stress wise) the wing before takeoff. Well,
now I do.[sm=49_49.gif]

I made a connector plate when I assembled mine but when I look at some of the failures I don't think this will prevent what I saw since the break is outside of the landing gear. That being said, I hope I am wrong. I have 3 10 min flights on mine wo far. I am using an OS 90 two stroke with a three bladed prop.. nice combo.. great power, almosty vertical with an new engine..

I do not believe that it is the builders responsiblity to do any more than a good visual inspection and follow the manufactures assembly instructions. It has to be assumed that the aircraft is tested and safe for use. While manufactures like to avoid the issue of liablity, the truth is that they are responsible for a product to perform as designed and liable for any failures short of stated expectations. In the case of Arfs, the manufacture must warrant that if assembled according to thier instructions, the plane will perform safely and be free of engineering defects. It is sold to fly and must be free of faults that can result in catastrophic failure. If this is tested in a court of law, they will lose. The sad truth is that if you deviate from the assembly instructions and try to improve upon the manufactures design, they may not be held liable as it would call into question the builders engineering credentials. This is exactly the same for buildings that fail, the engineers often have a portion of the blame placed on the builder even if the changes were in the interest of safety. The result is that liablity is shared, however, they all pay.

Best regards,
Randy

Yes! That's gottta be a blast!

Everytime I hear something like that, makes me wanna pick up another one tomorrow...spend
some time and money and make a Lance that will truly rip! Oh...and a paint job will have to be had here
also! Check out the "Lancair pics" thread...lot's of cool mods and insight on this model.


[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_805341/mpage_1/key_Lancair%2Cpics/tm.htm]Lancair Pics thread[/link]

i have this plane and have had it for 4 years never a problem. The ARF generation has no ideas how to fix and or build a wing. glass that center section. How much building exp do you have. 1:1 lancs were not designed to be aerobatic they are a 4 place GA aircraft. They can come in kit form and have retractable gear in some newer models. i use a saito 80and fly at half throttle.

well from what i have read so far it seems that there is a design flaw with how the wing is joined !! and it seems like the fix is to glass the center section maybe its not called out in the instructions but i would sleep better at night if i did glass it

timothy has been flying one for 4 years with no problem . when we buy a rc airplane there is a little disclaimer that says we as a model buyer that we assume all responsibility for said model . there a problem no doubt about that . if glassing fixes it by all means yall should do it .and yall should CONTAC great planes .

you lose alot more than just the plane $$$ the only way a plane should break it by hitting the ground not in the AIR !!!

JIM

The wing joiner on the lancair is actually two pieces of ply that you laminate together.
I sandwiched carbon fiber between the two halves using 30 min. epoxy.
The center joint should ooze epoxy out of it during the joining process.
I've had two of these and have never had an issue. The first was built according to the instructions.
The second, I built modified as it was during the initial wave of 'wing problem' posts in the thread mentioned above.
Awesome plane and worth doing whatever it takes to instill confidence in the builder/pilot.
A few pics attached of my 'New Spirit' Lanc. The last photo is of the full scale aircraft whose scheme I replicated.

Paul

Now THAT's impressive - beautiful work.

Tim
That would include everyone flying today since the first ARF/RTF model airplanes could be had in the late 1800's
Beside Exp doesn't mean someone is better at something it could also mean they have just been doing it wrong longer.
I don't see the need to put down a whole generations buiding skills on the basis of exp just to prove that you right and their wrong

It's interesting to see everyone chime in on this...

I stand by my original position: If you build exactly to the manufacturers instructions and fly within the advertised flight envelope there should be no in-flight failure. I think Great Planes has done a wonderful job modeling a beautiful aircraft, but I think the wing joint/landing gear design is seriously flawed.

I am new to this hobby. I am still learning. That does not mean that I cannot read/follow build instructions. I think Great Planes should "pony-up" and admit that the design is flawed and offer a retrofit solution at no charge.

Truth be told, despite the lame response I received from Great Planes telephone support, I bought another Lancair yesterday.

I will have it by Tuesday.

I assure you I will be employing all of the recommended modifications that I have read about here:

1. Carbon fiber joiner
2. Fill rib cavities with epoxy and balsa to provide more contact area for gluing
3. Strip covering and utilize a 4" fiberglass cloth - then re-cover
4. Build a plate to join the two main gear halves

Thank you to all for all of your valuable input.

I have learned quite a bit from this and will have a better/stronger lancair the second time around.

Is it just me? Every time T.T. posts it seems we're treated to either...

Know-It-All Arrogance:
"its common sense to glass the center section. Experienced modelers know this" "building 30 yrs" "glassing the center adds tremendous shear strength" " the wood joiner and butt gluing is not enough" "The ARF generation has no ideas how to fix and or build a wing. glass that center section. How much building exp do you have".

Or blinding ignorance:
"Look at any instruction sheet to a kit built plane and you always glass the center" "with a long tapered high aspect ratio wing which is thin, you must be very careful on loads applied." "the real aircraft is not designed for it." "1:1 lancs were not designed to be aerobatic they are a 4 place GA aircraft".

I can't do anything about the arrogance. But I can help with the ignorance…

It's known to just about everyone that comparing the structure of a wood/fiberglass RC model to it's full scale brother is an exercise in futility for reasons too many and to obvious to explain. But just as an FYI on the full scale Lancair...

The Lancair ES is the economy version of the vaunted 350+ HP Lancair IV. Structurally they're pretty much the same. Calling a Lancair a simple "4 place GA aircraft" is like calling a Porsche 911 Turbo an economy-box because it has a backseat and 6cyl's. Although not designed specifically for aerobatics it can and does quite well. The "IV's" are a staple of the Sport class at Reno and outperform the F1's without structural reinforcements. To race at Reno a pilot has to complete a training course and check ride in their aircraft, that includes aerobatic maneuvers.

The wing itself has a reputation that prompted one pilot/blogger to write, "As far as construction goes, the Lancair seems built to survive several World Wars. While the Cirrus is certified in the NORMAL category, the Lancair is in the UTILITY category, which requires the plane to be able to survive higher G-load, so the Lancair is certified to be structurally stronger than the Cirrus. I spoke to someone who said he took his Lancair through turbulence so strong that no other plane he knows of could have survived it. When Lancair put the wing in a jig to put huge loads on the wing to see when it would break, they broke the TESTING JIG rather than the wing! Oops!"

I think most who post here are smarter than the average bear and I believe I am too. Although my field now is Avionics Engineering for DOD acft I started as a acft mechanic. I'm a 20 year A&P and proud to keep my ticket current. Although never a Lancair I've assisted in several EAA acft builds. I've been modeling for more years than I like to admit.

I NEVER SAID A SIMPLE 4 PLACE! THEY ARE COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION AND VERY STRONG . you cant compare a model to the full scale in that way. i wonder how many of these failures occured at full power in a high G turn. The model wing joining method is weak even with reinforcements. I fly a saito 80 at half power and do loops rolls and spins. The trick is to not overload the designed G load.
It doesnt help that the box says its fully aerobatic. The full scale is a GA aircraft and can perform! the strength of composite materials is startling and will replace aluminum and titanium. airbus uses most all composite on the A380 and they break wing jigs too! the least the arf kits can include are rib patterns but they want you to buy a new one not fix.


crashmaster where did you get the decals. make them yourself? with a cam and printer? Outstanding job!

"Bizarre" is the only word that comes to mind…

And I don’t like to kick a guy when he’s down, but… The A380 is NOT mostly composite. Only the tail cone aft of the pressure bulkhead, the vert, stab and flight control surfaces are composite along with a few other subassemblies. Less than 25% by volume and less than 10% by weight.

You're thinking of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, 80% by volume including it’s fues made from rolled barrel sections.

I tell you guys this ... my friend's new Lancair is with me, all built and ready. After reading all this I am more than just nervous to maiden it for him!!!

All the waterslides on my 'New Spirit' Lancair were done in-house. Recreated in Adobe Illustrator and output on an InkJet printer on decal paper..
The paint is PPG acrylic urethane, and after applying the decals, it is clearcoated with PPG 2021.
Sierra Precision nose strut. OS .91 FS with onboard glow.

Took me a couple of days to sand the OEM finish of this bird. That is some tough paint they put on at the ARF factory.

My first Lanc required a decent amount of weight in the tail to balance (filled up the horz. stab tube with snipped up lead...shoulda used buckshot).
So, on this second bird, I revamped the entire servo tray to a more convenient–and aft–location, and glassed the rudder. My main reason for glassing the rudder is that it needed to be painted to match the fuse. I did not recover the entire wing...just the black area underneath (after glassing). The covering on the flight surfaces is very white compared to my new paint job. Isn't noticeable with the wing-to-fuse, because there is a lot of black separating the two, But the rudder against the vertical stab was really obvious. Hence, the glassing and painting of the stab. Also reworked the cowl with scale exhaust humps underneath. Slimline Pitts-style mufler dumps out of 'em.
A lot of work went into her, but was well worth it. Shes a great flying airplane and looks great both on the ground and in the air.

Check out a short movie on this model in the "Prop Jobs" Theater at the [link=http://www.ca-jets.com/Theater/theater2/index.html]CaliforniaJetsVideoVault[/link]
Many other cool movies in the other theaters in the Vault also...especially if you're at all interested in jets...both RC and full-scale.

Enjoy,

Paul

tIANci - Based on my personal experience I would, at a minimum, modify the main gear to have them bolted together with a thin aluminum plate. I thnk that one, simple modification will help tremendously.

Good luck with the maiden of your friend's Lancair.

You'll love the Lancair so much you'll likely get one for yourself.