H9 Pawnee 33% build.
11-24-2015, 02:36 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H9 Pawnee 33% build.
Hi Guy's,
I have decided to turn my Pawnee into electric. I have a Hacker A-80.10 electric engine which I was going to use in a Mustang. But have not built the Mustang. I will use this engine to drive the H 9 Pawnee 33%. Dam big plane this
I have decided to turn my Pawnee into electric. I have a Hacker A-80.10 electric engine which I was going to use in a Mustang. But have not built the Mustang. I will use this engine to drive the H 9 Pawnee 33%. Dam big plane this
Last edited by piperjon; 11-25-2015 at 01:18 PM.
11-30-2015, 05:12 AM
#2
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny that you are going electric. I was going electric when I purchased my 33% Pawnee until I went to a glider meet. They had a gasser and a electric Pawnee pulling gliders. That's when I changed and went with a DLE111 . I should have my Pawnee done in a week or so. Nice plane, but I'll never build another that size again.It's just to hard to work on.
12-13-2015, 01:46 PM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guy's.
Well I have had to return my Pawnee back to where I bought it from. The fuselage was defective at the back where the cab meets the turtle deck. I am happy with the company that brings the Hangar 9 kit into OZ. But for sure not happy with Hangar 9 Pawnee 33%!!!
First the rudder hole were off centre, the right wing flap sat up about 5/16" on the top side of the wing. The motor box I had to pack with sticks as you can see from the photo I added from my first post, the left landing gear frame top where you bolt it on was not welded in the right place making the shock imposable to connect.
This new total kit all was ok but for the very lose covering they put on and I don't think I will ever get the wrinkles out. The fuselage you will see from the picture I have added that the covering is to lose and i got to watch the heat round the area because i may stuff the turtle deck altogether. Very poor workmanship for the money you pay for these planes. Their's no quality control in these Hangar 9 planes. You don't know what you receive until you open the boxes and start checking the bits. A real shame to see parts that are not up to scratch. I'm so disappointed with this big bird as my Super cub a J3 cub my Mustang and my funtana are all good models. But this Pawnee it really just ****. I hope you read this Peter Goldsmith and do some thing about the quality control and get them right as you must be losing sales.
John
Well I have had to return my Pawnee back to where I bought it from. The fuselage was defective at the back where the cab meets the turtle deck. I am happy with the company that brings the Hangar 9 kit into OZ. But for sure not happy with Hangar 9 Pawnee 33%!!!
First the rudder hole were off centre, the right wing flap sat up about 5/16" on the top side of the wing. The motor box I had to pack with sticks as you can see from the photo I added from my first post, the left landing gear frame top where you bolt it on was not welded in the right place making the shock imposable to connect.
This new total kit all was ok but for the very lose covering they put on and I don't think I will ever get the wrinkles out. The fuselage you will see from the picture I have added that the covering is to lose and i got to watch the heat round the area because i may stuff the turtle deck altogether. Very poor workmanship for the money you pay for these planes. Their's no quality control in these Hangar 9 planes. You don't know what you receive until you open the boxes and start checking the bits. A real shame to see parts that are not up to scratch. I'm so disappointed with this big bird as my Super cub a J3 cub my Mustang and my funtana are all good models. But this Pawnee it really just ****. I hope you read this Peter Goldsmith and do some thing about the quality control and get them right as you must be losing sales.
John
12-13-2015, 01:49 PM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rampage-1,
I hope you pawnee is not like mine. I paid over $2000 AUD's for this plane and really up set that it is the way it is.
John
I hope you pawnee is not like mine. I paid over $2000 AUD's for this plane and really up set that it is the way it is.
John
12-13-2015, 05:01 PM
#5
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi John
Your picture looks just like the way mine came in. And you are correct, you have to be very careful when you you try to iron it down.I have ironed the whole plane twice so far. My ailerons were the big problem they did not have the correct movement, only about half from what the manual gives for low and high rate. The pin hinges were factory set to far in. I ended up cutting them off and redrilling for new Robart to correct the problem.I had to add support to the frame in a few areas, especially in the rear where the battery's are located. I am using a DLE111 so I need weight in the rear battery box. The struts had to be re-built. I ended up lining the interior wall with thin mylar sheeting so the springs would not rub. Also I installed a steel tube over the screws that hold the top struts in. The threads started cutting into the top strut bracket. I also added a spacer to kept the struts centered in place at the top.Next I added some wood to make the strut bracket a little stronger. I also added screws around the side windows a few guys have had them blow off due to the glue job is very poor. They do not sell doors or windows in the spare parts area.Also I replaced the tail wheel. The tire that came with the kit was way to soft. I set the CG at 10
inches
.
Your picture looks just like the way mine came in. And you are correct, you have to be very careful when you you try to iron it down.I have ironed the whole plane twice so far. My ailerons were the big problem they did not have the correct movement, only about half from what the manual gives for low and high rate. The pin hinges were factory set to far in. I ended up cutting them off and redrilling for new Robart to correct the problem.I had to add support to the frame in a few areas, especially in the rear where the battery's are located. I am using a DLE111 so I need weight in the rear battery box. The struts had to be re-built. I ended up lining the interior wall with thin mylar sheeting so the springs would not rub. Also I installed a steel tube over the screws that hold the top struts in. The threads started cutting into the top strut bracket. I also added a spacer to kept the struts centered in place at the top.Next I added some wood to make the strut bracket a little stronger. I also added screws around the side windows a few guys have had them blow off due to the glue job is very poor. They do not sell doors or windows in the spare parts area.Also I replaced the tail wheel. The tire that came with the kit was way to soft. I set the CG at 10
inches
Last edited by rampage-1; 12-13-2015 at 05:12 PM.
12-15-2015, 02:55 PM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rampage-1,
The ARF Pawnee 33% kits are really bad with the finish. I'm still got troubles with mine. I happy that the wings turned out ok but for the covering. So many wrinkles on 1 wing only. Why only 1 wing?? The fuselage is the same and did use the heat gum, but have to do it again. I for one would not pay them for the work is really bad. The extra work I got to do to have a fare looking model is just not right. The company I bought mine from has helped me to no end. But still why do we have complain and send items back so we can hope to receive a better part and not in bad shape. Of all the other aircraft models you can buy do not have the same problems as this hangar 9 Pawnee 33% has. It's a shame Peter Goldsmith that this model comes out the way it does. There are some do come out with not so many problems as mine and a few others.
Anyway I battle on and hope I can fix the turtle deck later when I know it will fly ok. I may change to a gas engine to give me lots of time in the air. Being electric will only give me a small time in the air.
Rampage-1, why don't you close up the hole in the firer wall so that no air pressure can build up in the fuse and not blow out the windows?? I am going over all the windows with 56 just to make sure. A man should have bought a pawnee plan and build from scratch hay.
John
The ARF Pawnee 33% kits are really bad with the finish. I'm still got troubles with mine. I happy that the wings turned out ok but for the covering. So many wrinkles on 1 wing only. Why only 1 wing?? The fuselage is the same and did use the heat gum, but have to do it again. I for one would not pay them for the work is really bad. The extra work I got to do to have a fare looking model is just not right. The company I bought mine from has helped me to no end. But still why do we have complain and send items back so we can hope to receive a better part and not in bad shape. Of all the other aircraft models you can buy do not have the same problems as this hangar 9 Pawnee 33% has. It's a shame Peter Goldsmith that this model comes out the way it does. There are some do come out with not so many problems as mine and a few others.
Anyway I battle on and hope I can fix the turtle deck later when I know it will fly ok. I may change to a gas engine to give me lots of time in the air. Being electric will only give me a small time in the air.
Rampage-1, why don't you close up the hole in the firer wall so that no air pressure can build up in the fuse and not blow out the windows?? I am going over all the windows with 56 just to make sure. A man should have bought a pawnee plan and build from scratch hay.
John
12-15-2015, 04:28 PM
#7
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The windows are glued to the window frame on the outside. No interior pressure needed for the windows to come off.
I could not use a heat gun,I had to iron everything twice to make it stick. If I had the time I would strip the covering and lay 3/4oz glass and paint it like I have done on warbirds.The plane should sell for $800 no more then a $1000 USD. IMHO. I built a Bill Hempel 25% that was $625 and it was first rate quality. No ironing requred and much better hardware supplied,go figure. http://www.billhempel.com/pawnee/index.php.
I purchased the Bill Hempel due to the H9 Pawnee 33% was out of stock for 6 months. I run a 60cc in the 25% pawnee and a DLE111 in the 33%. They both fly about the same, really no bad flight characteristic for either one of them.Bill tells me that he is coming out with a 30% next year. What I did to both that help a lot was to install inflatable tires, 5 inch on the 25% and 7 inch 180mm on the 33%. Made for a much better landing.- no bounce.
The reason for going gas was flight time 10 minutes vs 25 minutes and that was using a 8,000mah 12S setup with a AXI motor..
I could not use a heat gun,I had to iron everything twice to make it stick. If I had the time I would strip the covering and lay 3/4oz glass and paint it like I have done on warbirds.The plane should sell for $800 no more then a $1000 USD. IMHO. I built a Bill Hempel 25% that was $625 and it was first rate quality. No ironing requred and much better hardware supplied,go figure. http://www.billhempel.com/pawnee/index.php.
I purchased the Bill Hempel due to the H9 Pawnee 33% was out of stock for 6 months. I run a 60cc in the 25% pawnee and a DLE111 in the 33%. They both fly about the same, really no bad flight characteristic for either one of them.Bill tells me that he is coming out with a 30% next year. What I did to both that help a lot was to install inflatable tires, 5 inch on the 25% and 7 inch 180mm on the 33%. Made for a much better landing.- no bounce.
The reason for going gas was flight time 10 minutes vs 25 minutes and that was using a 8,000mah 12S setup with a AXI motor..
12-15-2015, 11:42 PM
#8
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hangar9 33% Pawnee
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1639285
Info on Hangar9 33% Pawnee electric powererd
Info on Hangar9 33% Pawnee electric powererd
12-16-2015, 07:50 AM
#9
Get some of these
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...rds=B005IQTSE0
Go around all the seams on the doors and windows with a thin bead of RC-56
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...rds=B005IQTSE0
Go around all the seams on the doors and windows with a thin bead of RC-56
12-18-2015, 03:01 AM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will go round my windows as soon as the 56 turns up. With the Hacker a80 using 2 6sx5200mah Li-Po batteries. I can after doing my CG add 2 more 6x5200mah Li-Po batteries. So using 4 of these batteries I should get a nice flying time. But to start off i use only 2 and see how it goes. I am not happy with the finish and I too if I had more time I would remove the covering and do the same. Also what I have done is. Make sure that if the A80 doesn't work out I can fit a DA100 or DLE100 with out any trouble with the prop spacing.
What brand of Tyre was the one you run now??
John
What brand of Tyre was the one you run now??
John
12-18-2015, 05:20 AM
#12
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am using 180mm inflatable tundra tires http://www.espritmodel.com/wheels-la...0---200mm.aspx by TOPMODELS France
The prop Vess 27b wood
The larger tires makes the plane look much better,IMHO. But more importantly, they absorb a lot of shock and take the bounce out when landing.
http://www.rcaerotowing.com/wp-conte...-in-Flight.pdf
The prop Vess 27b wood
The larger tires makes the plane look much better,IMHO. But more importantly, they absorb a lot of shock and take the bounce out when landing.
http://www.rcaerotowing.com/wp-conte...-in-Flight.pdf
12-18-2015, 05:47 PM
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rampage-1.
I read the page display http://www.rcaerotowing.com/wp-conte...-in-Flight.pdf and if you see the CG set up what he tell us. That Hangar 9recommendation is 10.5 in. backfrom the wing’s leading edge. Yet in my manual it tells you 81/2 to 9-inch. I have set mine up to 8 3/4" and just having the nose just dropping a little. So who is right????????????
I used 6S 5000mah Li-po batteries which are 1" inch from the inside fire wall (motor Box) i can move the batteries as I have 2 together to give me 12 Sell. So I don't know what to do now??
John
I read the page display http://www.rcaerotowing.com/wp-conte...-in-Flight.pdf and if you see the CG set up what he tell us. That Hangar 9recommendation is 10.5 in. backfrom the wing’s leading edge. Yet in my manual it tells you 81/2 to 9-inch. I have set mine up to 8 3/4" and just having the nose just dropping a little. So who is right????????????
I used 6S 5000mah Li-po batteries which are 1" inch from the inside fire wall (motor Box) i can move the batteries as I have 2 together to give me 12 Sell. So I don't know what to do now??
John
12-19-2015, 05:20 AM
#14
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you use a CG formula to calculate it using 30% MAC. It works out to be 10 inches from the wing root leading edge, not the wings leading edge.The guys in Germany are using 10.5 inches. The book tells you 8.5 to 9 inches. I would go with 9 inches and then start moving it back to see how you like it. Better a little nose heavy then tail heavy to start with..
12-19-2015, 05:33 AM
#15
The wing chord is wide and this plane is very tolerant. The other thing is, H-9 has a habit of being very conservative with the CG recommendations because, as you say, better a little nose heavy. I've found almost always their rear CG is still a touch nose heavy in many cases.
As for bouncing, even with upgrading to heavy springs this plane isn't bouncy and lands at walking speed.
As for bouncing, even with upgrading to heavy springs this plane isn't bouncy and lands at walking speed.
12-19-2015, 11:12 AM
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again,
I will reset the CG and get it ready for it first flight. I can move the battery packs foreword or back. When i first did the CG with 2 batteries packs. That's 4 6Sell I still was ok with that. So I can always go to a bigger MAH batteries in Li-Po. I have not added ay weight, just using what I have. Also what i did find, was the main block of timber that you bolt the front landing brackets too was not really glued in very good at all. So I had to add some hard wood in the front of it and glue it in place. Hopping that i don't have any problems with the piece.
Thanks
John
I will reset the CG and get it ready for it first flight. I can move the battery packs foreword or back. When i first did the CG with 2 batteries packs. That's 4 6Sell I still was ok with that. So I can always go to a bigger MAH batteries in Li-Po. I have not added ay weight, just using what I have. Also what i did find, was the main block of timber that you bolt the front landing brackets too was not really glued in very good at all. So I had to add some hard wood in the front of it and glue it in place. Hopping that i don't have any problems with the piece.
Thanks
John
Last edited by piperjon; 12-19-2015 at 11:37 AM.
12-19-2015, 11:31 AM
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also wanted to add the nav/lights and have the wire to get them to work in the wing. I did find nothing about the servos using Y leads. So I bought the last 11 channel receiver (JR) and went into Wing Type set it up that way. I also am running 2x6v receiver batteries just to make sure I have no receiver battery problems. The pilot I have came from the UK and is very light in weight. All I did was make a seat for him and covered with iron back film. I have a safety belt round under his jacket and one across him lap. Looks nice with him it is.
John
John
12-19-2015, 04:35 PM
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you use a CG formula to calculate it using 30% MAC. It works out to be 10 inches from the wing root leading edge, not the wings leading edge.The guys in Germany are using 10.5 inches. The book tells you 8.5 to 9 inches. I would go with 9 inches and then start moving it back to see how you like it. Better a little nose heavy then tail heavy to start with..
How did your's fly setting it at 9"inch?????? That is a dum question hay!!
John
Last edited by piperjon; 12-19-2015 at 04:54 PM. Reason: forgot to say more
12-19-2015, 05:09 PM
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get some of these
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...rds=B005IQTSE0
Go around all the seams on the doors and windows with a thin bead of RC-56
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...rds=B005IQTSE0
Go around all the seams on the doors and windows with a thin bead of RC-56
Thanks John
12-19-2015, 06:37 PM
#20
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CG 33% Pawnee
9 inches is a little on the nose heavy side but fly's OK.
At 10 inches CG the glide ratio is much better at 10 1/2 it seems to be OK too. I like it at 10 inches.
The Pawnee has a very forgiving CG envelope IMHO.
I think it is more of what you as the pilot like.
Also I did want to mention, one item that I would change out, is the hardware on the pull/pull cables. The threaded rods are so brittle they tend to break when trying to adjust.
The other pics is how I installed the pilot. I used grey flock coating on the board that holds the pilot
At 10 inches CG the glide ratio is much better at 10 1/2 it seems to be OK too. I like it at 10 inches.
The Pawnee has a very forgiving CG envelope IMHO.
I think it is more of what you as the pilot like.
Also I did want to mention, one item that I would change out, is the hardware on the pull/pull cables. The threaded rods are so brittle they tend to break when trying to adjust.
The other pics is how I installed the pilot. I used grey flock coating on the board that holds the pilot
Last edited by rampage-1; 12-20-2015 at 12:41 AM.
12-20-2015, 12:26 PM
#21
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=rampage-1;12145389]9 inches is a little on the nose heavy side but fly's OK.
At 10 inches CG the glide ratio is much better at 10 1/2 it seems to be OK too. I like it at 10 inches.
The Pawnee has a very forgiving CG envelope IMHO.
I think it is more of what you as the pilot like.
Hi,
I just don't understand why this Pawnee CG is so different from the manual to what it tells you. My club field was very bad for a while through big bulls (Cowes) and i landed my big spacewalker and lost the under cart. I build it up and and repaired it but for got to check the CG and it was nose heavy and what a crap to land. Anyway as I said I don't under stand why it has changed from the manual.
John
At 10 inches CG the glide ratio is much better at 10 1/2 it seems to be OK too. I like it at 10 inches.
The Pawnee has a very forgiving CG envelope IMHO.
I think it is more of what you as the pilot like.
Hi,
I just don't understand why this Pawnee CG is so different from the manual to what it tells you. My club field was very bad for a while through big bulls (Cowes) and i landed my big spacewalker and lost the under cart. I build it up and and repaired it but for got to check the CG and it was nose heavy and what a crap to land. Anyway as I said I don't under stand why it has changed from the manual.
John
12-26-2015, 04:20 PM
#25
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sunny CornerNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of my wing struts broke the end off where it is bolted to the wing. I didn't tighten them up hard. but was a bit hard to lift it up onto the support piece. Today I had a good look at the problem and found that the bracket that goes on the wing didn't have a counter-sunk hole to let the strut go up. If I had seen that before I would have drilled it so it would not been a problem. I have now drill it so that any strut will be able to lift. So now i wait for my supply to see what can or not be done.
Shame as it is ready for it's first flight.
John
Shame as it is ready for it's first flight.
John
Last edited by piperjon; 12-27-2015 at 02:49 PM. Reason: left out words