Korps

I think I'll have too go with Ken on this one - that peg 'seems' too be intact. Perhaps just too be beef that part up they should probably be thinking about installing two pegs like H9 has done with their Ultra Stick. I think you should just have a look at something else which could possibly have caused the crash if it wasn't the peg which sheared off. Just too be on the safe side since you are going too rebuild it.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

If the wing had been secured like what you see done on planes that never lose their wings....his wing would not have popped off. A "single peg into F2" is a "Mickey Mouse" way of doing it for anything above .25 sized, or over 4 pounds.

DustinB

I'm not an idiot guys, I know why my plane crashed. The peg did in fact shear off causing the wing to not be attached to my plane anymore. You can see where it actually took some of the epoxy from the middle with it.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Dustin,
I wasn't saying you were an idiot. I was pointing out that from the angle in your first pictures I couldn't see the failure point and was simply asking about it. Now that you have posted this new pictures I can see the failure point.


Ken

DustinB

I know Ken, it's hard to see in the original picture. I wasn't seriously directing it at anyone.

safeTwire

My Feedback: (2)

Sorry about the crash!
I am going to play Devil's Advocate here, solely for your behalf...

The wing's front attachment design is actually quite adequate IMO.

Possibly, the airframe was overstressed due to the added weight, power & torque from the engine, and the twisting moments via 3D.

It's never a waste of time to consider all possible effects when selecting a powerplant.

Good luck with your next plane

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

If that same basic tongue design had a more substantial sandwich of materials, it would still be flying.
As the saying goes, "If you don't fold one every now and then, you're probably building too heavy". I would [after the benefit of seeing this failure] make the center ribs out of 5 ply aircraft grade wood and go double thick of what you show there.....I would also beef up the former in the area of the slot. The heavier center ribs could [should] have lightening holes judiciously placed safely away from the high stress area up front.
Then go thrash the plane for all it's worth with confidence.

ChuckW

I agree. They have come through and done things for me even on occasions where they probably would have been justified in saying no. There are a lot of great products out there so good companies know that it comes down to superior service sometimes to make the sale. GP is one of those companies in my experience.

Maybe they didn't understand the problem correctly?

DustinB

No, they understood the situation perfectly. Then proceeded to tell me because I put the saito 82 on there I was S.O.L. Tried to explain I had never even run the engine at full throttle or done anything stressful to the plane, that's when they told me there's nothing they would do and hung up on me.

I was pretty surprised myself, having heard quite a bit about their "fantastic" support. I guess I'm the only one that ever had this happen?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I'll bet every plane that has that identical wing joiner fails within the first hour with a Saito .82. That fact that you failed it while taking it easy reenforces my point. I can see why GP takes this stance but they should not offer a plane that they know full well will get higher than recommended engines with such a junky wing joiner design. At the very least there should be a warning in bold print about larger engine selection defeating any warranty. A large percentage of the planes I see at the field have larger than specified engines.

TZflyer

I had a GP Stik 40 and it failed in exactly the same place but at least I know why: I was diving too steeply and pulled up too suddenly with too much power on. I know, stupid.
I have seen a few Stik wings come off including the GP, Lan Yu, and a home built Stik. All of them after dives. They have very big wings and don't seem to like executing high G recovers from dives.
I miss my stik, it was one of the best flying aircraft I have ever owned and one of my future projects will be to build one from plans, already have the plans printed!

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

A good sport flying model plane is one that will take anything you can throw at it. I flew a Midwest .20 Stik with a Fox .40 and later a Webra .50 for many years and did everything I could to break the rubberbands that held on the wing. That plane held up to tons of abuse and finally had to be dismantled and thrown in the burn barrel due to fuel soaking and general uglyness. If the plane isn't built too heavy in all the wrong areas and just heavy enough in all the right areas, you shouldn't have to worry about how you fly it. Ever seen a pylon racer run the course? We're talking about a 3.5 pound plane with 2 horsepower. If any of the design wisdom and engineering that these planes have could trickle down to the ARF sport level designs, you wouldn't see as many structural failures or be led to believe that structural failures are your fault for flying with gusto.

hogflyer

CP - you do have to remember the Little Stik (and Sweet Stick, probably the best flying Stick-type plane designed) where over engineered which was the normal for the day. Today they design the planes to be made as cheaply as possible which means minimal structure to do the job, and the quality of plywood the use today is nowhere near the quality of the balsa in the old kits (not to mention you can't compare the quality difference between your Stick and the average modern day ARF). My Sweet Stiks too impacts with the ground that required only a prop change at the most that would render a lot of modern ARF designs to the trash can at the flying field.

Hogflyer

Brownie433

First of all sorry for your loss.


I'm about to get a Big Stick 60, I will start with my OS 61, but I have an OS 75 I would like to throw in it eventually.

I'm most interested in beefing this area up on the ARF since it's weak point.  CombatPigg outlined a potential fix here.

My question:  The best course of action would be to thicken this with ply and then add support around the notch?

Would the reinforcement of the L-Bracket (for lack of a better term) be added to the exposed sides of it?  (cut it to match the wing's form)

DustinB

I would drill a hole on each side of the peg and epoxy 2 dowel rods in the wing. Then drill 2 holes in the corresponding part of the former. This "should" hold it ok.

horace315

My Feedback: (15)

they should have offered to at least replace the broken parts less the engine, that is not like great planes i have only good things to say about them. if this is the way they are getting i will not buy anymore products from them. regardless of what engine you install within reason they at least should have some sort of disclaimer saying warranty void if this weight/size engine is used. they have replaced broken parts for me sight unseen from phone calls in the past. that fix is not a hard one you should have it ready and running in no time good luck.

Broken Wings

My Feedback: (20)

For $33 bucks you can get a new fuselage.     http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...I=GPMA1220&P=Z

I've had a couple of the Big Sticks and like them. I glue a piece of Dave Brown carbon fibre between the root ribs at the tab when assembling the wing halves. Mine as yet to break.

Having the ability to buy just the parts you need instead of a new kit is a BIG PLUS in my book.