bobbucko

I have had two. they go together easly and are great fliers with a 46 fx or ax, but if you dump one forget about the parts you might a well buy a new one. They realy explode and usualy all you have left is the tail section. I have seen the results of 4 crashes at our field. There is a bit of differnce in quality depending on which factory in China makes them and I'm pretty positive there are two from the differences I saw in my two.

markhamregular

Why did so many people including the hobby shop recommended that plane as a second one?

Oh well! I already have it. It is sure a very beautiful plane, not to mention the good price.

We'll see if mine explode, I sure hope not.

hairy46

My Feedback: (1)

Harry to me its really not the best 2nd plane others may disagree. But a great 2nd plane to me would be a stick because you can do more with them and they still land more to what you were use to with the trainer! The Escapade as a third plane I could go along with.

oldtyme

I got my Escapade kind of as a lark........I needed another airplane like I needed a second rear-end but there I was in the LHS and some guy had one NIB on consignment for $80!!! What was I to do. I took it home......had all the stuff in my shop to put it in the air and was at the field the next week-end. Only thing I had a bit of a problem with is that I put the battery in the bottom like suggested and it interfered with the aileron torque rods........didn't want to take the time to do the dual aileron servo thing......so I got a smaller battery and mounted it alongside the receiver and problem solved. I'm flying it with an OS 46FX and really liking it. It is one of my smaller planes so I haul it to the field in one piece so usually I'm the first in the air with it. It's a kick to fly and like someone said earlier..........if I punch the ground with it........it's a throw-away......for that kind of money I would not take anymore of time than to just remove the components and use the rest of it for kindling for my next fire.

Cheers,
Andy

jeffie8696

The Epade was my second plane and Ipowered it with just an Irvine .36. It is a real *****cat to fly. The smaller engine keeps the wing loading down and keeps it slow enough to avoid flutter issues. Mine lands only slighly faster than my trainer, Ijust keep a little more power in it and land at a lower angle. Love it, it has become the standard of which Ijudge any other plane.

Kostas1

[8D]

Kostas1

Ugo..

I see that you use an O.S. FS-40 4-stroke on your escapade.
I've recently bought a GreatPlanes Cherokee 40 ARF
( [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10245921/anchors_10260246/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#]Santa came late![/link] )
and i'm still debating for an engine...
I see that the Escapade is advertised at an estimate weight of 5.0-5.5lb
while the Cherokee @ 6.75-7.25lb

Will the FS-40 suit my needs ?
What prop do you use ?

jeffie8696

Ihave to think the 40FSwill be very underpowered on a 6.5 lb plane. Ithought my trainer was "adequate" with a Saito .50 but it was no speed demon. And my trainer was probably a good pound lighter. A good .46 two stroke would probably be a much better choice. Or perhaps a .65 four stroke.
Dont get me wrong, Ifly my planes with as small an engine as possible unless the mood strikes me. For example my Kadet Jr is a 25 size plane and it flew OKwith a Magnum 30 FS(Irather enjoyed it) but even a .25 bushing 2 stroke would out perform it.

TimBle

I'd say a Saito .56 FS as a minimum.
An OS .65 FS would work. Anything else, needs to be around .70size.

Kostas1

Yes ,that's what i thought too,way under-powered.
But i'm trying to locate a used Saito FA-56/65 etc
but market is at low-availability right now

DeferredDefect

I would not install a 70 sized engine in this model. Even a 60 would add too much weight.

I have flown both a FS-70 and LA-46 in my model, and the LA was far better. Not only did it perform better, but the with the lower weight it is far more gentle on approach. The 70 seemed to fly it in a similar manner at speed, but it would snap at low speed and needed to be flown onto the runway at very high speed to keep it flying. It did sound much nicer, and there was little mess to clean up off the canopy afterwords, but I would not reccomend this setup (70 FS) for anyone looking for a second model.

Stick with a bushing 40-46 sized engine. Anything makes the model fly like a warbird, not a docile cheap and cheerful sport plane, what a beginner wants.

Hope this helps!

Kostas1

My friend i'm not an amature.

Check my profile!

Beagle RC Air

I think I have read most of the posts on this thread but never saw anything about Saito 56 powered Escapade. Good tips here on securing the tail feathers, and epoxy on the wing halves.
Mine must have been newer production because the elevator rod was solidly glued in.
Anyone with Saito 56 report?
Just waiting for spring to try mine.

beagle

frivera12

I have been flying the Escapade with a 70fs with no problems. It was my second airplane. I think if you go with a 46 2s or bigger is going to be way faster than the 70 fs but less gentle to fly it.

Tcat1000

My Feedback: (34)

Hey Guys...........Anyone thought of the 62 Saito? It's about the same size as the 56 with a little more kick.............

Tcat

TruBlu02

I am suprsed so many comments have been made about anything bigger than a 46 is too much. I have been running the 55AX with the Tower muffler in mine and it is a blast! I didn't spend alot of time worrying about balance either. I prefer a model to be more tail heavy anyways. I have a 6V Rx pack sitting behind the tank with the Rx Min is balanced around 70MM probably a bit more. it still feels a bit nose heavy to me but will slow down farly nicely. It requires quite a bit more Elevator input than I am used to with my 3D models. With my current CG it will hold a high speed knife edge all the way down the field.

Another thing to think about for you guys messing with CG is to take the plane up and roll it inverted. A tail heavy plane will require very little or no down elevator to hold level inverted flight. Even with my CG past 70mm it still take quite a bit of elevator to hold level inverted flight. I think those of you who have added a lot of weight to the nose should remove it and take it for a spin. You might be suprised!

billmay

My Feedback: (1)

Amen!!

Bill

frivera12

I'm going to change the 12x6 prop for a 12x8. Is there going too much of a difference in handling or airspeed?

N1EDM

My Feedback: (2)

If that 70FS will handle a 12x8, I think that you'll have a rocket on your hands. Don't make too many sharp turns!!

Bob

Irish_Santa

Please note the following .................................................. ............................

Great Planes Escapade Sport GP/EP ARF 52.5"

NOWHERE do I see it say 3D

Please do NOT tell eveyone to do something that can be potentially dangerous....Follow the instructions and AMA Guidelines....A properly balanced plane is a SAFE plane for everyone AT the field.



Added weight is not always a favorable thing to deal with....but you need to learn to fly the plane prior to doing any mods....

excert from the manual...........

This is where your Escapade should balance for first
fl ights. Later though, you may wish to experiment by
shifting the C.G. up to 1/2" [12mm] forward or 1/2" [12mm]
back to change the fl ying characteristics. Moving the C.G.
forward will improve the smoothness and stability, but
the Escapade will then be less aerobatic (which is fi ne
for less-experienced pilots). Moving the C.G. aft makes
the Escapade more maneuverable and aerobatic for
experienced pilots. In any case, start at the recommended
balance point and do not at any time balance the model
outside the specifi ed range.

tms96460

  I see nothing wrong with that post.

TruBlu02

I think you may be greatly misunderstanding what I am saying. Never did I say that the plane was meant for 3D. I was simply saying that it took more elevator to land than I am used to with my tail heavy 3D models. If you take the time to read through this thread you will see that many people have been struggling with balancing the plane and have found that it flies much better with a more rearward CG than reccomended. I am an expeienced flier and I prefer my planes to fly a certain way. I take full responsibility for setting my plane up the way I do but it is based on hundreds of flights worth of experience and many hours dedicated to the study of aerodynamics and aircraft performance.

The setup I have reccomended is not dangerous nor is it unsafe to spectators. I would have never posted it if I thought it was. In fact I feel this plane is much more stable and predictable, especially in the critical landing phase, set up in this manner. I should have been more clear as to my balancing methods though. I do an inital balance check and if it is within a range that is somewhere between my preferred limits and the manufacture limits then I will fly the model and go from there. In the future i would reccomend you take more time to read all the info in this thread before makeing an assumtion as to what a particular post may or not be saying.

Irish_Santa

Perhaps you should practice what you preach before you attempt to call someone out

READ THROUGH the ENTIRE post

Keep in mind that not everyone has the same level of experience flying this type of plane and please don't compare this plane to another plane that is not in its catagory....that is just confusing people that don't know anybetter

I myself have had the same issue with the balancing....which you would know if you READ THROUGH the ENTIRE post

To all those pilots that may not have this guys experience or knowledge:

Balance the plane as the manufacture recommends and trim out with an experienced pilot/instructor...even if it is alot of weight...go ahead and ask you experienced pilot/instructor for any advice on elimiating your added dead weight like moving components around (radio, battery)
After you learn the planes characteristics and feel comfortable with the plane.....then and only then....with the aid of said experienced pilot/instructor....experiment with the different balancing options!

Please do not read too much into the forum quotes as they are SOMETIMES squed by several things including experience, perfered flying STYLE, arogance, forgetfulness, cockiness, and ignorance.

TruBlu02 - I am not throwing the book at anyone here including yourself, or calling you ignorant - but please keep in mind that your level of experience and perfered flying STYLE is not the same as some of the people on this forum asking for assistance.

hairy46

My Feedback: (1)

My Escapade had to have 5 1/2 oz of weight added to the nose that would have been a bit of tail heavy! There are allot of guys on here that are using the Escapade as a 2nd plane. They need to go by what is in the book or by an instuctor. That said I do fly my Sticks tail heavy because I get a slower and longer flat spin and just love how the planes handle! Landing I always land on the tail wheel first and set it down. But I fly allot and am very comfortable with these planes, By far one of my favorit! I do understand what you are both saying, One is saying the plane flys better and the other is saying this set up is not for the newbie. I understand both points and find them good points! I would not want someone flying tail heavy till they have exsperience flying and know the plane! Flying my sticks a bit tail heavy adds to there excitement for me. But I have allot of stick time, I used up 19 gals of fuel last year alone. Not trying to sound braggy just making a point that I fly allot, and with that you get allot of hands on exsperience.

TruBlu02

I think what we have here is a misunderstanding of each others intentions. I see your point but I don't entirely agree with you in all aspects. Mainly that what I have suggested is dangerous.

I have in fact read this entire thread from front to back before I ever bought the plane. Did I notice who was writing what? No of course not. It is 59 pages long. My intent with the original post was only to offer advice on how make this plane a better for flyer for less advanced RC pilots. I would NEVER suggest anything in this forum that is unsafe or would jeapordize someones aircraft. Comparisions to 3D models was only meant as a reference for people who were not familiar with the performance of two different types of models.

I do agree that people who are not experienced in setting a model such as this should seek the help of an experienced flyer before experimenting with critical items such as CG. On the other hand I encourage people to learn more about there planes and to try different setups with your models, especially this one. It is an incredible little plane and I have alot of fun flying it.

I also agree that there is alot of inexperienced flyers here but this is a forum for sharing what works and doesen't work for a particular model. This is another avenue to learn in addition to flight instruction.