WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

the 77" will fit a 40-70cc and the 47% will fit just about anything you want. For my prototype 47% I will be droping in a DA 150 or something bigger, however I want to use the one of the smallest engines i can to show possible Customers it will fly good with out the biggest engine possible for this airplane......


The 77" WFO Ultimate prototype will be getting a ZDZ 50cc for testing and then later on will get a 60cc

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

have u read the review on the OHio ultimate 75" ws that is no longer being produced?

i can't believe there is nothing to be said about flying a gas ultimate

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

I heard about them not making their 75 incher anymore and i can not believe they wont make them anymore because there is a market here for these size airplanes! I did not read the review on it tho.

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

review:
http://www.frederickmodelaircraftclu...te_biplane.htm

Introduction
I’m one of those with an unexplainable love for biplanes. I wanted an Ultimate biplane the first time I saw one and soon built the Goldberg Ultimate with a YS120. After seven years of great flying I lost it to a servo failure and knew I wanted another. But this time I wanted the largest one I could find that would fit in the back of my GMC Jimmy with the back seat folded down. I also wanted one that I felt could be IMAC competitive (good flying, strong, and light). After looking around and some careful measurements of my truck I decided on the Ohio 75” Ultimate. This was the largest size that I could fit in my SUV, and discussions with Bob and Mike at Ohio plus some previous builders of the kit convinced me that it could be a competitive IMAC flier.

Bob Ankney designed the original 62” version of the kit in 1991 with the goal of having the best flying Ultimate available. A local friend of Bob’s (who was also an RC pilot) offered to use the Air Force Aerodynamics facility in Ohio to help design the kit. The result was changes to the scale airfoil, incidences, and location of the wings and tail surfaces. Testing for structural integrity included power-on dives with a quick pullout at the bottom. The 75” version followed the smaller version and went through the same design and testing process. The kit and instructions were revised again in 1998.

Specifications:
Wingspan: 75”
Length: 81”
Wing Area: 1800 sq. in
Recommended Engines: 4.2-5.8
Weight: 20-25lbs
Engine: BME 6.2 twin
Prop: 3 Blade Mejzlik 24x10
Spinner: 5” Truturn Ultimate cut for 3 blade prop
Actual Weight: 24lbs

Hits:
Quality of plans, instructions, machined balsa and plywood components
Excellent Flight Characteristics

Misses:
Some balsa stock was not to the correct size (1/4” square sticks as large as 5/16” on one side).
Incorrect rudder/elevator stock.
Wing cabanes bent unevenly (replaced by Ohio).
Incidence on the horizontal stab (see text)

Note: Ohio RC discontinued operations in 2001. As of February 2002 their kits are still not available, though it has been rumored that a new owner would be announced.

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

In the Box:
The first thing that came to mind when the kit arrived was, “where’s the rest of it?”. I’m so used to building planes with foam-core wings that I had forgotten how little space is needed when you’re shipping spars and ribs instead of big foam blocks. The shipping box measures only 12”x12”x49”. Everything inside is wrapped in paper and packed in foam peanuts, with several clear bags (labeled) that contain the machine cut formers and ribs, hardware, and smaller components. The only damage found was a single wing rib that had some slight compression from shipping. The two-piece cowl and wheel pants are of white epoxy/fiberglass construction. The cowl was perfect. The wheel pants had only a few pinholes to be filled. Also included in the kit is the hardware needed for the landing gear, interplane struts, cowl attachment, and firewall reinforcement. There are two full-size plan sheets and a bound instruction manual. The instructions are very well written and clear for the most part, with a few exceptions where more detail would have been helpful. You build the wings first, then tail feathers, then the fuselage.

I used Anchor brand epoxies and CA’s for the first time and really liked them. The epoxies come with different pot life and set time options so you can choose the right one for each application. The CA bottles come with a metal pin in the cap to prevent it from getting plugged, what a great idea! I especially like the Medium and used it the most. It seemed to set faster than other brands and gave a really strong joint.

Wing Construction
The top and bottom wings are identical (one piece, 75” span) except for the mounting areas (struts and center section). These differences are clearly identified in the plans and instructions so you don’t make any mistakes. You build the rib/spar/stringer structure over the plans, sheet the leading, trailing, and center sections and then turn the wing over. Then you add the leading and trailing edge stock, cap strips, and tip stock. When this is done you cut out the ailerons and finish the wing trailing edge and aileron leading edge with balsa. There was an error in the instructions when you first start the wings, they instruct you to support the back of the ribs with a piece of 1/4x1/2” balsa that will be used later for the aileron leading edge. There is only one stick of this size in the kit, and it’s not the size that’s used for the aileron leading edge (1/4” x 7/8”). The machine cut ribs fit perfectly around the spars and stringers. The only difficult area was in accommodating the “pinched” airfoil. The outermost rib is thinner than the rest (similar to the full-scale Ultimate) so the sheeting must be bent downward to attach to it. You must properly support this last rib during the sheeting process so no washout/washin gets created. Ohio RC does NOT recommend making the outer ribs exactly the same as the inner ribs, stating that performance would be decreased.

My only modification to the wings was to move the servos one bay inward to better center the servo across the aileron length and between two hinges. I drilled ¼” holes through the ribs to accommodate my soda-straw servo wire tubes. Building the wings was enjoyable as everything fit really well.

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

Tail Surfaces
The horizontal stab and vertical fin are built from balsa and spruce stock and then are sheeted with 1/16” balsa, making them a total of 5/8” thick. This is a full ¼” thicker than tail surfaces on other planes of this size, which, along with the spruce components, explains why Ohio states that no flying wires are needed. I wanted the option to mount them anyway so I placed ½” dowel hard points where I could mount the wires. The rudder and elevators are also stick construction and went together easily. Two pieces of stock, however, were the wrong size (width too small) and had to be replaced. After completing and sanding the (very large) rudder to shape I noticed that I was easily able to twist it so I sheeted both sides with 1/16th balsa. This made a huge difference in stiffness.

Fuselage
Each fuselage side is built from four pieces of fairly heavy 1/8” balsa sheeting that must be edge-glued together. I figured it out, but a diagram indicating how this is to be done would have been helpful. Then 1/8” lite plywood doublers are laminated into the wing and engine box area. The firewall, fuel tank floor, and engine box area is built separately to ensure straightness and then is attached to the fuselage sides. The fuselage was placed upside down on top of the plans to keep it aligned while the formers and remaining spruce and balsa stringers were added. The wing cabanes are held in place with plywood mounts between the top formers. I found that my cabanes were bent unevenly, with one side 3/8” longer than the other. A call to Ohio quickly had a new set on the way. The turtle deck and area in front of the canopy are constructed of formers, stringers, and 3/32 balsa sheeting.

My modifications to the fuselage were weight saving efforts and fuel tank location. I cut 2 1/8” diameter holes in the 1/8” lite ply fuselage doublers and the ¼” plywood firewall/engine-box area, and ½” holes in the tank floor. The ¼” plywood firewall was also lighted by removing the corners from the box and drilling a large hole immediately behind the engine. I also moved the fuel tank back from the engine area to the CG by building a 1/8” light ply base under the plywood cabane mounts. The tank (32 ounce) hangs from this mount, centered on the CG and thrust line.

The landing gear are made of ¼” aluminum, weighing 18.4 ounces out of the box, 19.6 ounces with the axles attached. Based upon experience with previous kits I was comfortable removing 3/8” from the back edge and some additional material from the mounting area. I had a local machine shop do this for me for $15. The weight savings was 5.3 ounces.

The epoxy glass wheel pants were wider than most of this scale, giving me plenty of room to install the mounting hardware. The kit includes ¼” plywood mounts, 3/16 axles and wheel collars, and screws for mounting the pants to the gear.

Finishing touches to the fuselage included the instrument panel and Haigh style tail wheel offered by Ohio

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

Cowl
The two-piece epoxy-glass cowl fits against the front former on all sides, with slits cut at the bottom to accommodate the landing gear. I chose to change this so that the cowl butted up against the front of the landing gear and used a 3/8” balsa block under the landing gear to fill in this area. This will allow me to remove the gear without removing the cowl. An additional benefit is that if I ever do a hard landing and pull the gear out the cowl won’t be ripped up as well. There was no information in the instructions indicating how to attach the top part of the cowl to the bottom. I mounted 1/8” light ply and #4 Ohio Superstar “All Threads” inserts in the bottom section and used ½” #4 button head screws to attach the top to it. Lastly, to please my fellow critical club members, I added some 3/16 balsa to the front spinner ring and tapered this to have 2 degrees of right thrust so my gaps would be equal on both sides of the spinner.

Final Construction
At this point the tail feathers were attached and the top wing aligned with the bottom wing and fuse. The horizontal stab was attached first and then marked where the vertical stab would go. Then I took some scrap 5/8” stock and tack-glued it in the vertical stab position. The two pre-cut tail blocks were tack glued in place and then carved/sanded to match the turtle deck. This makes for a perfect fit of the blocks around the vertical fin and is a lot easier that any other method I’ve tried. The vertical fin and blocks were then attached.

Now I was ready to mount the top wing for the first time and finally get a good view of what the completed Ultimate would look like, a moment I look forward to during the entire building process. I was incredibly surprised to find that the wings had the exact same incidence along their entire length. There was no trimming/fitting needed to get them aligned! Prior to starting construction I had bought a damaged 2” thick solid-core door from Home Depot and rebuilt my workbench around it, making sure it was absolutely flat no matter how I measured it. The effort was certainly worth it. I told my wife that there was a zillion people in this world that couldn’t care less about my straight-wing result, but to me it meant a lot. She was one of the zillion.

I made my tail wires with .070 carbon rods from CST Composites. I used medium CA to glue a threaded 2/56 Sullivan clevis on one end, and a 2/56 threaded coupler on the other end. Another 2/56 clevis is screwed onto the threaded coupler. I used new Sullivan mounting straps to attach the wires (rods) to the surfaces. Although I didn’t use wire, these straps are great because they have a brass insert in the attachment hole to keep from wearing traditional flying wires. My carbon rods and clevises made for a very clean and easy installation.

Interplane Struts
The struts are primarily one large piece of ¼” lite ply, which Ohio recommends lightening by drilling four 2 1/8” diameter holes on 3” centers. After fitting to the wings you attach additional plywood bracing plates and 1/8”x1/4” balsa trim on both sides. To save weight, I omitted using the plates and trim, putting these components in my bag of unused or removed material. The struts are then attached to the wing with 6/32 bolts, two on the bottom and two on the top of each strut.

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

Engine Installation
I chose to use a BME 102 twin engine based upon the years of fantastic performance I’ve had with my lightweight BME 5.8, the original version of this engine. I haven’t been surprised at all how quickly the giant scale and IMAC crowd adopted it and its successors. I used 1” diameter dowel rod to space the engine off of the firewall, tapering each 2 degrees for the proper right thrust offset. I wanted to keep noise to a minimum so I chose to use a 24x10 3-blade Mejzlik prop, fitted with a 5” Truturn spinner cut for a three-blade prop. The BME just fits inside the cowl with only about 1/16” clearance for the left spark plug. I did have to cut some eye-shaped holes for the front of the mufflers and for carburetor access, and a large area on the bottom of the cowl for cooling airflow. I placed a piece of ½” triangle balsa along the front of this opening to direct air down and away from it, which aids in pulling air through the cowl. I also installed baffles in the cowl to better direct the airflow for cooling.

Radio Installation
I used 6 JR4721 servos, one for each aileron and elevator, and a Multiplex Jumbo Speed on pull-pull for the rudder, mounted in the center of the fuselage. The throttle servo is a Hitec 545. I originally planned to use two 1500mah 5-cell NiCad packs and two switches for the receiver and one 1500mah 4-cell pack for the ignition. This has been a standard setup for me for quite a while. The total weight of the batteries for this combination is 14.5 ounces. Wanting to keep weight down, I compared this with Duralite batteries and found that three 1600mah packs weigh only 7.2 ounces. The price for these is pretty steep but the weight savings, non-discharging characteristics, lifetime, and reputation convinced me to give them a try.

Smoke System
After years of hearing about them I finally bought a Don Harris smoke pump. It doesn’t require a separate battery pack because it has been built and isolated such that your standard receiver pack can be used. This saves the weight of an extra pack plus no extra charge jack and balancing issues to mess with. It also has the reputation of being able to pump a large volume of oil without loosing prime in high-G maneuvers. Several of these have been used in recent TOC competitions. I wrapped the pump in foam and taped it to my 20oz Dubro smoke tank.

Covering/Finish
The Ultimate was covered with White, Dark Red, Sky Blue, and Royal Blue Monocote. The cowl and wheel pants were primed and painted with Lusterkote paints, sanded smooth with 600 wet sandpaper, then clear-coated with automotive clear polyurethane. The match of the blues and red were fantastic. The white paint (after clear coating) was a little darker than the covering. I was lucky to get the covering finished and plane fully assembled just a few days before our annual Mall Show. There were seventy planes entered. As usual, scale master Dave Platt won first place in the People’s Choice award. I was proud to get second-place.

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

Preflight
I measured the CG with everything ready to go except for the two 1600mah Duralite receiver packs and found it was 1/8” behind the location shown on the plans. A quick call to Ohio RC revealed that this was perfectly OK, many people have flown it at a full inch behind the plan location. I was aware of one other Ohio Ultimate with nearly the exact same engine and servo configuration as mine that resulted in a CG that was ½” in front of the plan, so my efforts to lighten the fuselage (especially the nose) had really paid off. My total dry weight of 24lbs was the lightest I’d heard of. My bag of removed materials weighed 12 ounces, 5 of which was the aluminum removed from the gear, the remaining 7 ounces coming from removed or omitted wood. When you add the 7 ounces saved by using Duralites, my Ultimate is 19 ounces lighter than it would have been if built stock and powered with NiCad's.

I balanced the Mejzlik 24x10 3-blade prop and found one blade required several shots of clear paint to get it balanced. The next step was to fire up the BME and run a couple of tanks through it. With the ignition off I set the choke, throttle at full, and turned the prop over until I saw gas dripping from the carb. I then removed the choke, set the throttle to a high idle, and turned on the ignition switch. The BME started on the second flip. I observed a maximum high-end rpm of 6800, then settling to 6700 if I left it there. I was able to idle all the way down to 1100 rpm before running out of servo travel. This is VERY low for a brand new engine, and I hadn’t even touched the needles yet. I set the idle at a safe 1500rpm for my initial flight. Acceleration is very quick and the engine is smooth throughout the rpm range. The three-blade prop is also noticeable quieter than other two-blade props I’ve used. Lastly I set the engine at idle and held the plane nose high and nose low to ensure reliability at all attitudes.

Flight!
I had been using my RealFlight simulator to fly a scaled-up Ultimate, anticipating how mine would handle when I finally got it in the air. After a thorough inspection and radio checks at the field, I was ready to see if all the stories of great flight performance were true.

It taxied really well with no tendency to tip over on our grass runway. The takeoff occurred at 1/3rd throttle in about 50 feet. I needed four clicks of down trim and two clicks of right trim to get hands-off level flight. After that it was a big trainer, very easy to fly around and very controllable at all speeds. Rolls are very smooth and require very little rudder at knife-edge to keep the nose up. The recommended throws seemed about right for these first flights. Snaps start and stop immediately, but happen quicker than my monoplanes. I over snapped the first two times I tried. It climbs in knife-edge with only the slightest amount of rudder applied, certainly the best knife-edge performance I've ever had. Stall turns are way too easy with all that rudder authority. Inverted flight showed that I was still nose heavy, even with my CG 1/8” behind the plan location. It took 8% mix of rudder to aileron, 12% mix of rudder to elevator to remove roll and pitch coupling. Up lines were straight hands off. Down lines showed it wants to slowly pull out, in part due to my nose-heavy condition. Stalls were perfectly straight ahead. The landing was very easy but it required that I keep some throttle all the way to the ground. Like most biplanes, the draggy design slows very quickly when you pull the throttle back so there’s no need for a long approach.

The BME102/Mejzlik 24x10 three-blade combination is a great one for the Ultimate. It never sags on the up lines and accelerates immediately, yet never gets loud. I ended up with 40% expo on the throttle to give a more linear response with the stick. One thing I really noticed about it was the comfortable flying speed. At about 40-50% throttle its flying at a very easy speed to do figures, using more throttle of course on the up lines to keep the speed constant. I just liked the way it felt. On following flights I did some of the IMAC Sportsman sequence and really enjoyed myself, feeling like I had a lot of time to get ready for the next maneuver.

The only flight issue was the amount of down trim required. There was a full degree of effective down elevator even with my slightly nose-heavy setting. I later found that nearly all biplanes have this requirement. Others building this kit should build a degree of positive incidence into their horizontal stab.

Summary
The Ultimate looks fantastic both on the ground and in the air. I enjoyed the construction process and am glad I took the effort to lighten it. If I were doing it again I would probably totally remove the stock firewall/engine mount area and build a more traditional engine box, saving even more weight. I would estimate that there is another 4-8 ounces in the airframe that could be omitted without jeopardizing strength. The BME 102 is light, provides incredible power just as expected, and looks fantastic inside the cowl. The exhaust note of the twin is also beautiful to hear. It has to be the one of the best choices for this plane.

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Very well writin thought out review! and I hope they come back out with thier Utlimate as I think it would be great to have them back on the market!

fly3dnyc

My Feedback: (2)

JDM,

I received confirmation from Chris today:

"Yes we are working on an Ultimate at this time. I just received the first prototype and will begin working to assemble and evaluate it over the next few weeks. It will probably be the end of the year before it is available. Thanks, Chris Hinson"

Made my day! I just received my DA 50 for the DP Extra and I guess I'll have to pick up another, when the time comes, for the Ultimate.

Fly3DNYC

jwoolridge

The ohio ultimate in that review was only 75" wing, had a BME 102 on it and wieghed 24lbs. If your ultimate is 77", weighs anything close to the OHIO and your using a 50 there'll be almost no vertical. I think it should be scaled down to meet the needs and wants of guys who want to fly this plane with a 50. I would say 67"-70" if lightly built would be perfect. If you want to build this and have unlimited performance on a 60cc and good performance on a 50cc your going to have to keep the weight way down if the wingspan is 77".
I can't wait to hear how it fly's but the more I read the more I think zdz 80 single will be a minimum for most guys and there flying styles. Again good luck and can't wait to hear about flying and see some pictures.
James

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Thank you very much for that reply! I have been looking for that reply since the first page!! I wish people would give some feed back on what THEY WANT!!! but they would rather view this thread and not say anything! okay i can live with! but the people that only view this thread better not ***** about how/what size Ulitmates I come out with when they had the PERFECT time to give their .02 cents about what they want and need!


I also agree with you! with looking at that review the 77" maybe to big! Okay thats an easy fix I can eazly go back to the drawing board and come up with something else. but again YOU HAVE TO LET ME KNOW WHAT IT IS YOUR LOOKING FOR!

You say a 67-70" would be good okay who else agree with this?

*** 817 views and 62 replys!?!?!?!?!?! come on people do you guys want a 50cc Ultimate or not ?!?


Thanks John
WFO Ultimate's

shenion

Ditto here. But there have already been many posts saying something for 40-60cc at 65-70 in. serveral posts that a 50cc size is ideal.

My vote is 65-70", fun with 40, 3D with 50, wild with 60.

My Sportster Bipe is 66". Flies well with an old Q-42. Working in a 50cc Poulan right now. It is no ultimate, just fun to fly. I'll stick with it until I see an Ultimate that will work with a 50cc or even a 40.

40-60cc is the "Sweet spot" for gas. Any bigger and you need multiple or expensive servos. Then you need room to store and transport it.

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Ok! great! hows 68" WS with a 72" fuse, sound ?

jwoolridge

It sound like it would b a lot of fun with a 50 and a 60 would be unreal, how about everyone else watching this. Is this a little to big or would this be good. This guy here is trying his hardest to get a plane people will buy because it's exactly what they ever wanted. So guys help him out and give him your honest opinions on this thing. I'm no plane desiner but I know that 77" wing is to much for a 50cc so what do u guys think.
James

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

Depends...

70" should come in around 18 lbs. perfect for the newer lightweight 50cc engines. ZDZ 50, DA, BME 55 etc.

Pick an engine in the middle of the weight group and protoype around it. You want to try and keep the cowl from being cut all to heck and want the balance to be achieved with the battery.

You probably won't need an engine box... keep it light but strong.

Design it with servos in the tail but also a pull-pull rudder option.

Keep a canister installation in mind as some folks may pass on the plane because of noise levels and their field rules... etc... but also be aware that most of them do not have real good inverted header solutions... But if you have a plane that is already "can ready" then it'll that extra edge over the competition you are sure to have soon.

Get a hold of GraphTec and have carbon fiber gear made up... and let the customer choose...

Forget 2 piece wings for this size. Not worth the extra weight. field assembly or weakening.

4 servos for the wings (not 2 and two kicker rods)

Forget dowels in the lower wing and design with 4 wing bolts.

Get with a wingbag company and have bags made up.

That's all that comes to mind for now...

Good luck you've definitely got the right idea by listening to the "people"...

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Thanks for the reply David!


For the smallest of these Ultimates (whatever size that is ) there wont be an engine box.

ALL WFO Ultimate's will come with pull/pull systems on the rudder.

Bolting the wings down is already made into the plans! there will be no dowels on any wing.

as asked before what is a "can" ? some kind of muffler ?what?

1 piece wings will only come on this 50cc WFO Ultimate. also thinking about foam cores only for this also as well as the 77" (if i go ahead and build that size) doing some math homework the 47% is really bigger...I will think about what to do with this kit later.

Servos...seems to be the question of the day...... k here it is...

4 - Ail. servos
2 - Evl. servos
2 - Rud.
1 - throttle

Thanks John
WFO Ultimate's

BTW: I have something to get off my mind for a min so bear with me as im going to be a female and ***** for a min or 2....as i just got an email I didnt like......

You know if you dont want one of my WFO Ultimates then fine I have NO problems with that! I think everyone has a right to pick and FLY WHAT THEY WANT!.....I am taking time out of MY life to do something for this hobby on MY own time! No one is asking me to do this for them/you, im doing this ALL ON MY OWN! I am the one that did hours or SEARCHING thru many thread only to find that there is a need/want for these size Ultimates! no one is helping me fund/build/designing these kits other then the people that have replyed to me on this thread/PMs and in emails i have gottin. I am taking money out of MY OWN pocket for you,,,or people that WANT to see an Ultimate like these that im trying to come out with! SO if you have nothing helpful to add to this thread/PMs/emails then keep your Opinions to yourself!

jwoolridge

How does the ailerons on the full size ultimate work. I think it would be better to use 2 ailerons servos with slave pushrods to the upper ailerons. I think there should be one Really high torque servo for the rudder. The builder should get to chose where he wants to mount it either in the tail or pull-pull in the middle of the fuse. Each elevator should have it's own high torque servo. And throttle should just have a standard.
The servos I would use would be as follows.
Ailerons - Hitec 605's if you go two servos and JR 537's if you go for 4
Elevators - Hitec 605's
Rudder - Hitec 5945MG
Throttle - JR 537

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

don't forget the ohio ultimate was build around older non- lighten technology.

i perfer the clean look of 4 servos on the ailerons.

don't put a snow plaw front end on the cowl so that all of the lower parts of the motor are not hanging all out.

1-8411, hitec 5735, and other should enable the plane to complete a knife edge loop as the ultimates are known for having a strong rudder.

a 70" WS should be able to make the 18.5-20 lbs range with todays building style.

i like all that Mordib

mentions

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Great replys guys! keep em coming....


On the ailerons I want to build the Servos into the wing, meaning rather then having the head of the servo(s) sticking out they will be layed down inside the wing(s) with Servo removeable doors to cover them up for a nice clean install and look. But if a Customer wants the head out of the wing they can Order their WFO Ultimate to this spec.

on the elevator servos I will let the Customer order their WFO Ultimate to either spec depending on their choice of engine. to help CG their WFO Ultimate. we can do the servos in the tail or in the middle of the fuse.. OR I will leave this choice up to the Customer...however this will only be for ARC kits.

Rudder ideas, In my own Opinion the rudder servo would be best left in the fuse but if a Customer has a better idea im all for it.

I also believe i can keep the 77" under 20lbs but you guys gotta give me a chance to make or break it. because foam cores can be lighter then built up wings

Smokey

My Feedback: (16)

Originally posted by P-40E WarHawk

What if, I was to offer both built up and foam wings ? However built up wings will only come in 1 piece wings. I fear if they were plug in wings then they would be weak and would have to have added parts for strengh.




P40-E ...Can the built up wings be done like the H9 ultimate with the 3 piece setup? I would like to see an Ultimate for a 80 to 100 cc engines. I think there will be a good market for it.

Smokey

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Smokey, How does the H9 have a 3 piece wing ? The pics i have from the H9 46% is 2 piece....please fill me in on what im missing.............As of right know im kind of in the middle about what to do with the 77 incher.... I either make it a little bit bigger to fit something like a 80-100cc gasser or down size it for a 40-60cc gasser OR I make up all new plans for a 68" (inch) wing.... and still make the 77" incher a few more inches bigger for a 80-100cc.

And to be honest seeing that alot of people wanted a 80-100cc Ultimate (when H9 was asking what people wanted) is what got me started on this idea. but when i started this thread people wanted a smaller one....and im finding little feed back on a Ultimate of that size.. I will look for the thread I found that most people wanted a 80-100cc'er


Thanks John
WFO Ultimate's

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Heres that thread H9 46% Ultimate thread. Let me know what yallz think



Thanks John
WFO Ultimate'ss

Smokey

My Feedback: (16)

P-40E WarHawk...I made a mistake on the 3 piece wing. I did not look at the H9 version closely. Actually, can you make a small center portion of the wing permanently attached to the fuselage and the 2 ends bolted to it? Just an idea.

Smokey