I friend of mine just gave me this plane and made me promise to put it together and fly it. When he made the offer, I didn't know what a reputation this model had. I just did some searching on it and found some old threads about how awful it flies. It seems that many folks have tried many things to make this beautiful plane fly well but few have succeeded. I just wonder if anyone has fooled with one of these in the last few years as all the threads I found are pretty dated. I would just as soon put it together and just admire it hanging from the ceiling but trying to fly it was part of the deal. If I'm going to attempt flight, I'd appreciate any advice I could get from those experienced with it. Thanks.

This kit may not fly well, but it sure is pretty.

The Great Lakes is a cool airplane. I have many hours in a full scale one. I wish someone made an ARF of this classic. Sorry I can't help you on the Model Tech version. Looks like you're doing a nice job though.

This is an almost-ready-to-cover kit made in the mid-90s. Not quite an ARF, but close. I pulled it from the box and mocked it up for these pics in about 5 minutes.

----------------


I hope my memory is correct.

I had one of these ARCs a few years ago. I paid $20 for it because it had a few broken stringers that took a few minutes to fix. <G>

If I'm thinking of the correct model, the recommended positive incidence in the top wing is the culprit that is responsible for its bad flying reputation. Don't let folks load your brain with a bunch of baloney about "you want the top wing to stall first". Don Lowe wrote an article in RCM (I think) back in 81 or so and disclosed his then secret method (top wing negative incidence - but only a tad) that he used to civilize his aerobatic bipes. I tried it both with and without and believe me, with works fantastically well. The Phaeton grooved like a Kaos with the 1/2 degree of negative incidence in the top wing. The Phaeton that I flew and the Great Lakes ARC that you have both used semi-symmetrical airfoils. Don Lowe's treatment absolutely works as advertised.

Use 1/2 degree negative incidence (yes, negative) in the top wing and zero to 1/2 degree positive incidence in the bottom wing. Yeah, I know this is different than what the instructions recommend, but the instructions will provide you with a really doggy flying model if you follow them. Start out with a slightly forward balance point (incorrectly called CG by folks that should know better).

Being a biplane, there is lots of drag. This is a good thing for R/C models, believe it or not. No sooner have we flown straight and level for a while then we must turn. Slowing down a model with drag lets us push the engine a bit, providing that good sound and locked-in feeling that we all appreciate, even if we aren't conscious of it. Remember to keep the model upwind and high when you can't hear your engine because of other noises, like other modelers flying their models. There's nothing worse than flying a high drag model low and slow, only to discover that your engine has quit and you can't make it back to the field.

Being a biplane (again), it will probably need nose weight for proper balance. Instead of loading up the nose with lead (my Phaeton had a 5 oz. lead bar mounted to the firewall), use a larger four-stroke engine, such as an OS/Magnum .70 or.91. Yes, a .91 sounds humongous for this model, but it isn't. Just keep the pitch of the prop down to about 6" and you'll be fine.

Anyway, good luck with your Great Lakes ARC.


Ed Cregger

If you get it to fly, please post the results. I would love to see a happy story involving this model.

That makes two of us. I tend to pick designs that are successfully proven to work but I don't have that warm and fuzzy feeling about this one. I'd rather sell it and replace it with something a little less risky but the guy who gave it to me really wants to see it fly and is too busy to put it together himself. I'll be considering any advice given. So far, I've glued the lower wing trailing edges on without the supplied torque rods. I've read stories of aileron flutter with the stock setup so it'll get a servo in each lower wing and use a y-harness. I need to borrow a buddy's incidence meter before drilling any of the wing strut mounting holes.

Will be watching your posts.I just picked one up in the box at a swap,Really nice looking plane but sounds scary!Haven't started it at all don't know when will get to it but will anxiously watch your posts.Good Luck!!!

what a waste of time and money it was fo me. It was very tail heavy even after I extended the nose and lightened the tail. I had a k&b 48 in it. I flew it twice and then gave up.

You guys wouldn't believe how much help you've given me too with this little item of interest. A month ago I went to a yard sale and bought an old Great Lakes 2T-1A (original 1933 version) that was kitted by Scale Line Models in 1961. I have to assume the plane's about that old, covering was totally rotted, tires (that came with the kit) were actually flat, it had been sitting in one place for so long.

I've got it about 1/2 restored now. All (*ALL*) glue joints were re-enforced, had to make new outer struts, a lot of work in the engine compartment, new STRONGER flying-wire anchors, and a bunch of other things. I'm about to mount a new engine in it (OS .40LA that works wonderfully) and I've found a fuel tank in Tower that's short enough to fit in the engine compartment and still holds 8 oz. Will be re-covering it with silk (more likely with Dave Brown Skyloft) and SIG dope, with the aim that it'll be flying by June.

I've gotten a lot of help here on RCU with placing the balance point (CG in most lingos) and a lot of advice on how to fly it and what to expect, but I've been wondering about that top wing's incidence - which is where you guys helped a lot.

Very recently another kig just like mine sold on e-bay and I managed to copy some pics of it as it sat in the box, including several pics of the instructions. Unfortunately, the pics are rather fuzzy and they're not nearly the help I was hoping they would be.

However, I'm planning to semi-recreate one of the original 2T-1A's as it now stands, and I picked NC841H. Prime reason for this particular plane, even though it has the newer engine with prop on the top of the cowl, is that according to John Duncan (present owner of Great Lakes Aircraft Manufacturing) it has the correct colors in the correct color scheme for the 1933 plane. I also have his permission, in writing, to recreate the Great Lakes logo on her side.

Anyway, I'm hoping mine flies better than yours is reputed to. I know that in the past she's flown a lot - and she had a tow-line mounted, probably for carrying gliders, so she must have flown pretty well at one time.

So, I thank you guys for the info you've imparted - it's truly appreciated.

I'm including a couple pics of the original kit as it was on e-bay and a pic of the full-size 841 today, just for reference.
Dave

If you search the forums you will find that the Modeltech Great Lakes has a rather bad reputation. Don't pay too much attention to those reports. The Great Lakes can be made into a very nice aerobatic biplane if some care is taken during the build:

1) The aircraft has a very short nose. If radio gear etc. is installed according to instructions one has to add a lot of ballast in order to get the balance point in the correct position. The result is a very heavy aircraft with poor handling characteristics. What you need to do is to mount all equipment as far forward as possible. I built a shelf above the engine where I put the Rx battery and throttle servo. I added some structure inside the fuselage so that I could mount the elevator and rudder servos right behind the firewall, either side of the fuel tank. In that way I only needed to add a couple of ounces of lead ballast to get the balance point right. My kit had a very heavy sheet balsa stabilizer that I replaced it with a lighter built up version in order to minimize the need for ballast.

2) As far as wing incidence is concered I mounted the bottom wing with 1 degree positive incidence relative to the stabilizer and the top wing with zero incidence relative to the stabilizer.

Things to watch out for is ground handling, which require a lot of concentration (as is often the case with short-coupled biplanes). Also one has to be careful not to stall the plane when on the final for landing. I found the easiest way to land the Great Lakes was to wheel it in (DC-3 style). Three-point landings is asking for trouble.

Thanks for the advice, everyone. The friend who gave it to me wanted me to put it together and use an OS 40FX engine that he had lying around. The idea was for me to build it and then we would share the flying fun by taking turns on the transmitter. He didn't know it's reputation. We both have several time-consuming projects underway so we may just box it back up and sell it. We can then buy something simpler and ready to fly instead of having another long-term project on the table. This plane just seems too risky to have as a partnership project. I'll keep you posted of our decision either way.

BTW, skylark, that 2T-1A is gorgeous.

skylark-flier, I tried to send you a PM, but I don't think it made it thru. If not, I'll try again.

At this point the Great Lakes project is on hold. I boxed it back up yesterday and we are considering selling the kit to someone who wants to take the time to assemble and rig it properly. We both have several ongoing plane projects right now and think it would be nice to just buy a simple 40-size ARF that we could assemble quickly and enjoy on the weekends while maintaining focus on the projects we've already got on the building table.

Darn! I thought maybe this would be a successful one. They can't all be bad. Hopefully.

Ya, I got it off the ground and my hands were full from the very second it took off. I barley cleared the fence at the end of the field and managed to turn the plane towards the field. This was with out any doubt the worse flying plane I have ever seen. In fact I cannot believe there still out there. Hang the thing from the ceiling and put a dummy engine in it. I think I am a pretty good pilot with sever years of experience and this plane is a crash waiting to happen. This was the most spectacular crash I have ever had. THE PLANE WILL NOT FLY!

Enjoy your hanger queen,

Dan

Ouch! Funny to see this thread revived after a year. I've never read much positive about their flying qualities so I never built mine. I had a potential buyer lined out but when he changed his mind, I just left it in the box. My wife is starting to notice "lots of boxes" around here.

I had the Modeltech Great Lakes and flew it for 10 years. It's an ARC kit and I never had any problems. I just sold it last yeat at a local swap meet.
I flew it with a OS 61 Surpass and an 11x7 prop.
I did have roughly 10oz in the nose and 2 degrees of right thrust. I'm not one that's afraid to add weight. I had a GP Corsair ARF that took 1lb of lead in the nose with a 70 Surpass. I was scared but it flew great.

And, as mentioned earlier, there is negitive incidence in the top wing.

Just my .02

Bob

Major POS:

I thought so too until I test flew one for a friend of mine. Flies great! There must have been some serious quality control issues since so many people had trouble with this model but, seemingly, there are some out there that were made right.

It makes me wonder if all the bad press is people that just came off of trainers.