This is my son with the new Proteget Trainer. It was built by a local fella, and it flies pretty decently with this GMS .76 and standard Futaba 3004 servos. I'd rather a four stroke but for now this engine is fine, I'll run it till it dies.

We took it up for it's first flight today and with only minor trim adjustments we had it flying fine. But wouldn't you know that just as the wheels left the ground it started raining. The weather just would not cooperate this week.

did you make the picture like that...it would be nice to have some color and clairity

I sure did make the pic like that. I did not want too much detail about my son on the web. Plus it looks pretty cool.

More on this piece of junk.

I don't know if it is the construction of the airplane or just the design of the plane altogether. This plane flies like crap! It is very sensitive to throttle inputs. Too much and it climbs like hell and just a touch less than that and she dives on a 30deg. from level attitude. This makes it very difficult to land since it becomes very "baloony", I mean it is rising, falling, pitching.

I have tried flaperons, but that wasn't that impressive to help with landing. The only effort that paid off was the different prop sizes I tried. I have been running a 12X6, the top limit according to MECOA's charts for the GMS .76. The smallest prop is a 11X7 reccomended. I tried MA11X8, TF12X6, MA12X6, and a APC13X6. The later was the best for handling the plane.

The 13X6 had a much more predictable attitude for landing and accending. The 11X8 was good for cruising around, but if your were to get in trouble and had to abort a landing, you had little bite on the air to pull you out. I proved that tonight. Finaly, the 12X6 was ok, but still to fast for this plane for landing.

The engine tuning was near spot on, or within a click or two of perfect (finaly), and the GMS .76 liked the bigger than reccomended size. 12X5 or 13X4 would have been better, but not in my inventory.

The only modification I have made that helps in controlling the plane was getting rid of that ridiculus elevator. I found it to be waaaaay toooo small a surface area to control pitch. The plane would take nearly the entire runway to lift off. I had a set off "flaps" laying around from my Ultra Stick .60, so I modified them by cutting about 1.5 inches off the 90deg end of the flap. I built up the end with balsa, and sanded the work smooth. I finished by covering the newly formed elevator in the color scheme of the fuse.

The following flights were 100% better than before for pitch inputs because of the increased surface area. I highly reccomend this mod, unless you don't mind pileing itno the fence at the end of your runway.

The last mod I'll make is to put a Fults nose wheel in place of that wellfare piece that comes with the kit. I understand the reason for softer landing gear, but the nose wheel is too soft for me. The rear struts are at the limit of being too soft, but I'll leave them for now. The other issue is the design of the control arm and control rod for the nose wheel. I did not build this plane so it would not have been this way at all, but the control rod is only bent in the shape of an "L" and falls in the outer most hole on the control arm. This is not cool because the vibration from the field bounces the control rod right out of the arm and the plane spins out just before resting post landing. I'll fix that also.

For $105.00 the plane is ok. But steer clear of this one and buy an arf. It's worth the extra 40 bucks. It's a trainer and handles like one, but the other planes like the Tower Trainer and simular will do you better.

You're confusing me man. You said at first the elevator was too touchy. Seems that making the control surface larger would only make the problem worse?

4TEC, It sounds like you know what your doing. Did the plan call for any down thrust in the design. If not adding a degree or two will help with the balooning. With most trainers I've flown the nose actualy dips a touch when you add power due to the downtrust, and conversley the nose rises when you let off the power. I would also check the wing and stab incidence against the plan. Basicly a trainer set up correctly should need 0 elevator for ROG . By the way I just reread your post and now realise you didn't build the plane. I would seriously look at the issues I've noted above and be sure the CG is not too far aft. I'll bet 1,2 or all three are the problem. Perhaps it's a good design and a crappy build.

Rrragman

A further note, Wings is right on here. In looking at the pic the elevator has plenty of area, about what I've seen on most trainers. Beware the larger elevator, If you feed in a bunch of elevator at a low airspeed the plane will "snap". Not fatal if your at a decent altitude and know how to recover, but if you do it on a take off roll you will distroy the plane. I've seen it happen several times. You watch a guy taking off, he dosen't allow enough airspeed to accumulate, feeds in copious amounts of elevator because he thinks this is what the plane needs to lift off, the nose jumps up at an extreem angle of attack, the plane stalls and "Snaps" inverted and crashes.

Rrragman

I quess I should not write on the forum when tired but hey I have no other time allowable.

The effect of the origional elevator was "slushy", if I said touchy that was wrong Wings. The plane was very slow to react to pitch inputs. Thus I took it upon myself to mod the eleator. It flies beautifly now at certain rpms, it is almost realistic and not as touch as you may expect. I am still certain the GMS engine could be tweeked a bit more. It now has 1/3rd the roll out as compared before and a more comfortable flare on the approch.

There is another issue. I am used to my Ultra Stick. This plane is much more forgiving than the Stick, but I am used to Stick lifting off in ten feet as compared to this plane. The Proteget will never fly like the Stick, but I could try to get it to handle a tad better or be happy the way it is.

I have looked at the angle of the engine. The angle seems to be downward and to the right. It is not extreme, but it's noticable to the naked eye. It's quite possible the gent who built the plane did a fine job of builing the airframe, but never took it out for a flight to see the effects of sloppy details. It's the details that bite you.

If your C-of-G is ok (not too far aft), I would guess that the as-installed down thrust is not adequate, & you are compensating with down elevator trim. When you close the throttle it reduces the power induced climb (maybe from actual up-thrust) & the down trim predominates.

My bad. When you were talking about the plane being sensitive to throttle I mistook that for the elevator.

Now it makes sense.


Wings,

I'll double check the balence next session. It should be right on but, then again maybe not.

Just regarding the elevator. Two experienced pilots in our club built Protégés and were disappointed in the elevator authority. They have since enlarged the original. On their advice I have added about 50% to the area on mine but haven't flown it yet.

4*60

There is an incredible improvment in pitch controll, I highly reccomend it. I wish I had before and after videos.

Does the Protege have a flat bottom wing or a symmetrical wing?