GP pitts
 

Mag reviews are worthless, although they do provide some good pictures of the airplane under construction. But consider this, when was the last time you read a review that said the model was junk and not worth the money? Have you ever read a review that suggest the model has alot of problems that must be addressed by the owner/builder?

I subscribed to R/C Report for a few years, they at one time were critical of some airplanes in there reviews. I canceled my subscription because everything being reviewed was great with no problems. To me RC Report, like the other mags lost credibility, sorry Dick P.

In addition, consider the person that reviews models are receiving the kit/accessories for free to do the review. Do you think reviewers are going to say that product is junk and risk the free ride........ I don't think so! Reviewers have the same problem as politicians, when you accept free stuff your credibility from that point on is reduced!

GP Pitts, etc
 

If I bite my tongue any harder, it'll really hurt....

Pitts Firewall Measurement
 

ThaFlyer, I sure do appreciate your taking the time to give me a hand with the engine box & prop distances. Sometimes my eagerness to get something done gets ahead of my feeble brain. Thanks again much. Ruben :spinnyeye

GP pitts
 

While Pettit is biting his tongue, let me make one more point.

The best reviews are the ones presented on this web page. Customers that purchase the plane, and report what they find. RC Universe is a instant source for honest reviews, and suggestions on how to fix the problems....in short, what works!!! Has anyone read a review on the Pitts that suggested that some problems need to be addressed on the model?

I have seen the Pitts fly and it is a very nice flying airplane. It had some problems but GP addressed them quickly. Thinking about building one, just can't decide on what to power it with.

GP pitts
 

I would like to ask 3 questions:

1. How many reviews were done on early production kits, before any wing mount problems were found?

2. How many review aircraft were overpowered beyond recomendations?

3. How many review kits were actully flown many many hours before a review was written?

GP pitts
 

I'm not real good at biting my tongue. So here goes.....
I don't believe everything that is written in reviews, just like I don't believe everything that is written here on RCU. It's best to use reviews as a guide (nothing more) and seek the advice of people you trust. If you cut through the nonsense and complaints you can (usually) find some truth.

The MAN review was flawed in several ways. The engine was over sized and the servos were undersized, yet no mention was made of this during the review. I accept MAN reviews for what they, nice pictures, but don't buy the plane because they say it's good. Think for yourself.

Finally, a comment on rfw1953 post. I just have to ask "Has a plane you built (from a kit) ever failed?" Problems do happen and Great Plains response was excellent. The plane could have been damaged by pilot error yet they choose to replace the plane! To complain about having to build again is nonsense, be happy there was someone to compensate you for your loss Even if the planes cost more there could still be problems and then people would complain about the higher costs!

Personally, I had no reservations about purchasing a GP Pitts. I did read about the problems the plane was having and I saw that GP has made the effort to correct these problems, so I took the chance. It's a beautiful plane and a good buy for the money (IMO).

By the way , I like RC report and its reviews.

GP pitts
 

Dick, get over it. Part of the game... Only going to hurt your tongue, nothing more.

I used to subscribe to a bunch of mags, now I only get MAN, because they have the most advertisers, which is what I get the mag for. Reviews, in my humble opinion, are a waste of time. Then again, opinions are like *******s, everybody has one.

Even forums like this have limited value. I am looking for a top notch IMAC 35% (100cc) class plane. It is amazing what gets recommended. All I can suggest is to read as much as possible and learn who is sponsored (beware, they sell (lie)), who knows about what, and don't be shy to go directly to the source (manufacturer) and ask questions. Let your own instincts guide you.

Regards.
Craig.

GP pitts
 

I think that choice would be to either stay within warranty limits, or not. I put a G-62 in mine. (Out of warranty!) But I don't think I want to fly this bird with a 41. I'd go with what you feel comfortable with!!

GP Pitts
 

Gentlemen,

I can not understand the complaints on here. I also read the article that Mr Pettit wrote and the next day I purchased one of these kits. Using the exact setup that they called for, control surfaces and engine I have a beautiful flying plane that I love. There is NO WAY that I could build a kit that looks that good and flies that great for twice the cost of this one. My kit is one of the updated ones that did not require me to rework the wing mounts, but if I had to, I still could not of had a kit flying in 3 times the amount of time it took to have this one in the air.

On the maiden flight the US 41 had more than enough power for the plane. True and straight? Well with only 2 right clicks of aileron trim I think the plane was straight and true.

After my personal results with the ARF I would not hesitate to buy another Great Planes ARF. As a matter of fact we were talking today about getting one of the GP Extra 300 ARF's.

And I'm not new to this sport or to building. I have built numerous kits including a Miles Reed 1/3 scale Weeks Special, a Miles Reed design 1/3 scale Extra 260 (2 in fact).

Come on guys, fly the planes with the engines suggested by the builder of the kit and enjoy them!!

Pitts
 

Yesterday I watched a friend fly his GP Pitts, what a great flyer. He has a OS 1.6 just as recommended. Two aileron servoes. The only mods he made was a pull pull on the rudder and a pushrod on the elevator. This thing flies great! He kept the weight down with the 160 and it goes straight up for a good distance. Landings are so slow you could catch it. The real Pitts is not a "out of sight" vertical airplane and to keep it scale neither should the models. For those who think it wont fly on a 1.6 your are incorrect, it flies just like it's full size counterpart and lande even easier.

I agree
 

Hear, hear!
Just had a great day of flying my Pitts. Sunny, with calm winds and about 40 other planes and 20 other pilots around at the field.
G-38 magneto and a regular old FM receiver. You can have and fly one of these for $1K, and that's a good deal.

The comments from the peanut gallery indicate that my Pitts flys very scale. Kinda fun to fly a big 'ol barrel roll on one pass, and then come back across for a giant loop (and have to think about having enough airspeed to pull over the top). I have a couple of smaller planes with a lot of extra thrust, but it seems right to have to think about making such a beautiful scale(ish) model perform a scale maneuver.
It's my first ARF, and my first gas plane, and is certainly better looking than anything I have built.
BTW, I also broke two cabane brackets, and received the replacement set (complete set) from Todd at GP within a few days of calling to request.
Congrats to GP for creating such a satisfying airplane!

Update
 

Well the Pitts has been to the field again. I could not ask for a better flyer. C. R. Price has been doing all the testing and setup recommendations for me on this one. (Some of you may know C. R from the Joe Knoll fly-in at Greenville SC. He flew a Byron's Pitts there for 8 years, and is the only man I know that can fly two planes at once.) Even on the test flight his comments were that this GP Pitts flys better untuned than his Byron's did after tuning in the kit. We have had about 6 touch and goes with a combination of 3 point lands and a couple of tail first ones. I have installed the US 41 with a JR XP662 radio, and comes in at a perfect 15 lbs. The US 41 is new and not broke in yet, but it pulls the plane perfectly. It does not have unlimited vertical, but has the power to do a knife edge loop. The plane is very stable and looks fantastic in the air or on the ground. My want to say I think Great Planes has do a wonderful job with this kit. I will be posting a video on my web page showing the flights and ands on my web site soon. I will post the link as soon as I get the videos uploaded to the site.

GP pitts
 

I have read all the posts here, and have read the MAN article several times, as I am a Pitts fanatic anyway, and am considering one of these kits. I dont have many posts here, and have only been flying R/C about two and a half years, so if you choose to ignore this post, so be it. BUT, I have close to three thousand hours of actual flight time in real airplanes, and have some time in a real Pitts S-2, so I feel I can make a few comparisions here.

1. As has been stated several times, the model in the review was way overpowered. I know, I like big powerful engines on my models, too, but if you are going to ignore the manufacturers recommendations on engine size, you WILL be making mods at some point, or you will be picking up pieces eventually. Even in real aircraft, mods have to be made to handle larger powerplants. Those mods always include wing mods also. I have seen one of these GP Pitts fly just fine with an engine of recommended size. Why put added stress on the airframe for a few more cc's when the recommended engines are adequate?

2. whether or not you are talking about the real Pitts, or a scale model, the Pitts aircraft has always, and will always be an aircraft the pilots either love or hate. It is a small, short coupled nasty little airplane that will bite you in your backside if you dont stay a couple steps ahead of it. It is inherently unstable (as most aerobatic aircraft are) and lands fast. When you over power the Model, it will have the same characteristics, hence the hot landings everyone is talking about. Go to an airshow and watch a real one, and you will see the simularities. Also, the Pitts was never designed as an unlimited category aircraft, and it should not be flown or treated as such. To do so is inviting disaster, even with a model. If you are after unlimited type performance in a scale model, go with an Edge, Extra, or Suhkoi. that is what they are designed for.

3. As far as magazine reviews go, I dont buy into them either. I am always more apt to believe what is written here than in any magazine review I see. if these guys dont please the companies that advertise with them, they lose big money. Its just the nature of the game.

I know that real aircraft and models are a lot different. But, in the case of the Pitts, there are many simular characteristics that make this aircraft all the more real. BUT, if you want this model to do maneuvers it was never designed for, with more power than it was designed for, you should be prepared to make a few modifications, and accept some tradeoffs in flight characteristics. :D

GP pitts
 

In my opinion we as rc hobbyist are going to do what ever it takes to get what we each want from the hobby regardless of what any magazine says or what the manufacturer suggest.

As for me "I want the maximum adrenaline rush I can possibly get from each product I Purchase" I always wanted a large pitts & @ the time I purchased the pitts an arf was the only thing I could do due to no shop to build in. In my opinion this plane screams for a large powerful engine, thats why I decided on a
G-62. I think the only excitement you would get with an os160 in this plane would be watching to see if it will lift off before running out of runway!! A friend from the club built one with the us41 & it barely got off the runway, very weak in the air.
After he landed I cranked mine & taxied out, full throttle, airborne in 5', pulled up & started vertical roll until almost out of sight. My friend took his plane home "very disappointed" & proceeded to rip the engine out, He replaced it with a fugi50 & is much more satisfied. So as I said we will do whatever it takes to get what we want out of the hobby no matter what anyone says or thinks about it.

Gil

I hear ya Phil
 

Hey Phil,

I have read several of your post from this thread-line on the Pitts. You and your friends really got me excited about this product. Working on the project now and have to say that I this think GP out did themselves on this airplane. A very experienced close friend of mine marveled at the construction as well.

You can tell by the modifications that they know this baby is for a gasser. Wouldn't think of putting a 160 in it and can still fly scale if I want to. The friend I mentioned also taught me that you never have too much power. Throttle management is the key. I worked on the cabbane strut mounts today and from what I can tell in working on it the support modification will last longer than the airplane. I am really excited to get this one finished and in the air.

I decided to go with a 24 oz. Dubros gas tank with the gas stopper modification. It will have to be installed on it's side which I am wondering about. Won't fit if you install it flat bottom down as designed, and don't want to cut wood to make it fit if I can avoid. Haven't done this before. Any experience here?

Using Futaba S9303's with 100oz. torque for the ailerons with two servos only in the lower wing, and S9001's with 54 oz. torque for the elevator and rudder. Plan on using a wire harness to connect the ailerons and single connections for each elevator and rudder.

Still have a question about where to place the Futaba 8 channel PCM receiver and the 1700 mah battery. My thoughts are to stay at least 18 inches from the engine to avoid ignition noise. No info in directions for this from what I can tell. I did purchase the long prop shaft to ensure 6 1/2 inches from the firewall to the prop washer as recommended.

Engine box looks strong, but still think I am going to at least put two dowel pins on each side and try to get some tri-stock inside the firewall for added strength.

Let me know if your friend with the Fuji 50 has any suggestions. Also, look over my plans and let me know if you think I am on the right track. No one at our club has one of these so I am feeling my way slowly.

Thanks again,

Roger F. Woodward
[email protected]
Rocket City Radio Controllers
Huntsville, Al.

GP pitts
 

Roger:
I went with the supplied fuel tank & installed a gas stopper, works great & the G-62 will run about 15 minutes on a full tank, I then installed a 24 oz dubro tank behind the fuel tank for smoke oil & a tme smoke system, as for the ailerons I used four 110oz/in servos But I haven't heard where anyone was having problems with two. I think you need more power in the elevator & rudder than what you are planning. I used two 110 oz/in servos on the elevator & two of the same on the rudder. What I have is probably a lot of overkill But the way I fell more power is better & "I would never fly a plane this size with anything but metal gear servo's" Had some bad wrecks thanks to plastic gear servo's, they are alright for 40-120 size airplanes but not for large/powerful planes if you plan on keeping it for a while that is. If you are going to use a computer radio I wouldn't use a y-harness on the ailerons, I would split them so you can program in flaperons/spoilerons & all the other cool things that they will do. As far as the receiver I installed mine in the recommended place which is under the cockpit floor. You will see a plastic tube from there to the tail of the plane & that is for the antenna, works great. It should show this in the instructions It also shows a receiver box that can be purchased from tower hobbies but you can build one very easy from balsa or light ply. On the engine box depending on which engine you are going to use you may want to do a little more than just two pin's on the sides. I tried this & after the fifth flight the firewall was loose, I then pinned the top & bottom, put tri stock inside the engine box behind the firewall & glassed the entire engine box. Depending on the weight of the plane you may need to do a little beef up on the landing gear. My plane comes in @ 21# full of fuel & smoke oil & a slightly hard landing will spread the landing gear very easily.
Sorry for babbling, I hope this helps
Good luck
Gil

GP pitts
 

HELP!
I have the GP Pitts and I need help!
The holes for the strut that mounts between the top and bottom wings are missing on mine. I do have holes on the top of the bottom wing but none on the bottom of the top wing. These are for mounting the "C & D" brackets. Could someone please measure there wing and give me the location of these holes.
I need the measurement from the wing tip to the holes and from the leading edge to these holes.

Steve.....

GP pitts
 

Is everyone going with the recommended throws? Usually the recommended are not enough.

Throws
 

I found that all the throws were fine except fot the ele. for first flight. I have since incresed them by 15% and mine flys great. Mine is 15.5lbs with a brison 2.4

Throws
 

I have set mine to the recommended throws and so far it seems to be OK. Granted I don't do 3D stuff with it. Rolls are straight and fast, have not run out of elevator at any speed and will climb into a knife edge loop with the recommended rudder.

Struts
 

My GP Pitts is ready for the maiden flight... I am concerned however because the wing struts are not flush with the upper wings. All is built to specs. I had to sand the lower wing dowel for the wing to sit flush with the fuse. The wing struts are tightly connected with the brackets but there is a visible gap between the strut and the wing. I measured the distance between wings on both wing tips and they match (both front and rear) so I know the wings are parallel. Kit is the updated version with beefed wing spars (popped the lid to make sure). Should I be concerned?
Other details you might like to comment about:
Engine: MVVS 1.6 glow turning 18x8 (very nice engine)
Futaba PCM
Dual battery packs @ 6V with diode summing (beter safe than sorry)
4xFutaba 3001 for ailerons, 2xHitech 5625 BB MG digital for elevators and Hitec 5645 MG BB digital for rudder.
1.2 lbs of lead for balance on the engine mount... (I wish I hadn't installed the servos on the tail and used pull pull and push rods instead).
Other than that, stock.

GP pitts
 

I would suggest that you check all flying surfaces with an incidence meter. From what I have been able to tell all wings should be on 0 degrees. Mine is also one of the updated kits and I had a small gap on the top wing also. I did fine tone mine just a bit to make it more stable in slow flight and during landings. :)

GP pitts
 

dnts

I have the mvvs 1.60 petrol on my 1/4 spacewalker and I don't think you are going to be pleased with the combo. Its is a very nice engine but I don't think you be happy with the power for this plane. You might be running glow instaed of gas but I still think it will be to small.

I hope you prove me wrong!!

MVVS
 

The MVVS on glow should be quite powerful. I broke in the engine and it will spin a 18x8 master airscrew @ 7600-7700. I still need to finish the break-in and see what happens. I used stock muffler on break in but have modified it since and anxious to see the results (added a second exhaust outlet). I also learned that MVVS now reccomends 10% oil content for these engines on glow and will try that too. My friend has a MVVS 2.15 petrol converted to glow which is awesom, spinning a 20x8 master @ 7700 (over 4HP). If push comes to shove, I will substitute that engine for mine.
Still looking for comments on the struts gap. Will check incidence as soon as I find the time.
Thanks.

Successful maiden flight
 

Well, my pitts survived the maiden flight. With MVVS 1.6 on glow spinning a 16x10 master prop, it handled very scale like. I let a more experienced pilot do the takeoff and landing on the two flights. He also did some aerobatics (snaps, rolls, spins, knife edge etc). All in all very relaxing to know the combo works fine. Hope to get some more time with the plane next week.