Jack, Thanks for the info. I looked at that site and missed the W.E.Tech tripacer cowl. That looks like it will work. I am going with the stock setup on the Tri, but I think it is perfect for the tail dragger version.

Thanks again, that was a great find.

Well I flew my Tripe on the weekend!
At 9.6 lbs all I can say is it flew, not well but it flew. I now know how a brick with wings flies. In order to get it to balance on the recommended CG I had to add a 1300 Mah onboard glow a 2100 Mah Rx'er battery (all jammed as far forward as possible) along with the OS 70. This plane builds very Tail Heavy, probably due to the extensive use of plywood. My model came out 2.5 lbs heavier than what the Webpage states as the finished weight of 7.1 lbs. The box showed up 1.1 lbs heavier than stated and this was missing parts(see earlier posting). My only thought to this is MBP are referring to the Balsawood version that is shown in the pictures not the Plywood version which they are shipping. If I had of known this kit consisted of this much plywood I would not have bought it. If anyone is considering or in the process of building this model in the plywood version extensive use of your dremel or
forstner bits is required, the weight of this model needs to be reduced with extra attention behind the CG.

My overall ratings are as follows:
Kit Instruction 4
Materials and Packaging 2
Ease of build and finish 3
Design and Appearance 4
General Flight Character 3
Performance Capabilities 1
Maintenance and Repair 2

Where to now:
Once I get over the emotional let down, I will probably pull the covering off and reduce some of the plywood in the fuse, reduce the flap servos to one with linkage and possibly go a single servo and linkage on the ailerons. I'll toss the abs cover refferred to as a cowl
away (cracked on initial runup of engine) and finish my FG mold. If I can reduce this airframe by at least 2 lbs I will recover and fly it. The finish model is a beautiful speciman of the TriPacer with some very innovative ideas on design and construction which I will carry forward into some of my other builds and designs. If you are ordering this kit be aware the pictures and weight shown on the webpage is not what you will receive. Ask questions! The old saying kicks in Caveat Emptor.

I'll take it when you decide to toss it. I fear flying mine because I don't want to lose it. I'll pay the shipping.

Give me $200.00 cdn + shipping and the airframe is yours as is no electronics or power equipment!

Daryl B.

9.6 lbs. WOW. My tripe was one of the first production kits and all of the ply is in the cabin floor and firewall. All of the tail planes were made up by sandwiching 1/8 th balsa cutout sheet between 1/16 skin. Mine is covered with Sig koverall and painted with rustoleum enamel. I have not weighed it but it cant' be more than 7.5 lbs without fuel. I flew a 135 hp Tri pacer with 4 on board and your ship comes close to scale in that regard. WIth full flaps it would beat a brick to the ground. Stay in touch regarding the cowl, I still need one.

Having followed this thread from the beginning and watching closely as this was a plane I was considering buying, I would have to say this YET ANOTHER case of the manufacturer (supplier) stating one thing and delivering another. There is no way on Gods' green earth that someone can add two plus pounds of weight to a plane kit just with glue, not unless they glued a full bottle of glue inside the plane. If Mosquito Bite is claiming seven pounds then they in fact must be talking about their Balsa version only. if they are claiming their plywood version should be 7 pounds and it comes out over 9 pounds, well then I would call that a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. I the downloaded manual it is very obvious most of the pieces in the wings are in fact balsa wood. If that is the case and the heavier kit is all plywood, why would they have two different kits available, a balsa kit and a ply kit? Would that be because of the fact that plywood is a hell of a lot cheaper and good quality balsa?...most likely the case. Then, if that is the case they should in fact advertise it as such and not create false expectations of weight.

Actually the version I received and built is also primarily plywood for the wing. All the ribs and center structure is plywood, the LE and center section sheeting is balsa. You,ve voiced my feelings quite well, I just didn't want to go that far. Earlier in this thread jsilvers waded in and expressed displeasure with this kit. I traded correspondence with him yesterday and he calculates the framed weight without wheels,cowl is about 8.0 lbs as it sits, with a finished weight of 9.5 to 10 lbs. He also changed the engine from a 70 4s to a 91 4s. The 70 4s I used is not very old and was full out a 9800+ RPMs with a 13/6 prop to keep the plane aloft for 2 circuits. You're location is Surrey and I don't know if we've met , but your welcome to view the bird. Send me an email and we can make arrangements from there.

Mahalo
Daryl B.

GRUMP010- Well at this point in time I no longer have an interest in purchasing this plane. Too much bad press, same thing goes for a certain type of serovs I will no longer buy as well. It just pisses me off when a manufacturer states a claim, then makes some running changes to save costs, but yet does not state the running changes and how it affects the kit. I feel sorry for jsilvers having to go all the way to a 91 four stroke in hopes to get this brick to fly. This is a FOURTY sized airplane, it should need nothing more than an appropriately sized engine, even though the specs say you can use up to a 90 four stroke, in my opinion that is huge overkill. This plane should fly very nicely on a 70 four stroke, although as you say it did not fly worth a pinch of porcupine poop. I will email you offline and maybe we can hook up and swap stories.

Mahalo....are you Hawaiian?

Chow...No I am not Chinese!

How did these planes get too heavy? I'm no scale modeler so excuse my ignorance. If you use anything other than Monokote, does it add weight.? Brand of tires? Spinner? Glow ignitor? I built one of the first ones, I believe. I will throw my hanger queen on a scale and get back.

I covered mine with Monokote and the the big Rx'er pack and On Board Glow were added only to balance instead of adding lead. The reason that its so heavy is the better part of the entire airframe is lasercut plywood. Correct me if I'm wrong but from the pictures on the webpage and in the manual the first version was mostly balsawood. This differrence in wood explains the great increase in weight as noted on the webpage of 7.1 lbs. I've written a review for our club webpage and newsletter ( www.rcfcbc.com ), but I'm hesitant to to send it to the editor due the document not being very complimentary to the product. I want to help people to be aware and ask the questions I didn't, I don't want to destroy any future business for MBP. I would just like them to be honest about weight and the changes to the product, good, bad or indifferrent. Honesty and integrity sells product.

Hooked on rc, I'm large but not Hawaiian. I and my loving wife ( works for Air Canada ) just visit there a fair amount and the culture sometimes rubs off.

Austa la Vista

grump010

GEEEZUZZZ,
Will you make up your mnd what language you are going to speak, first Hawaiian now Spanish, maybe I should try some Swahili on you or perhaps Vanderhoofian.

I am in total agreement with you GRUMP, MBP should in fact state the weight differences on their planes if they plan to offer two or three different kit configurations. Chances are from a marketing perspective, if they offered a lighter kit for a little bit more money they would sell more of those kits than the heavier ones.....especially on a 40 sized plane.

Anyways I would like to see your plane afterall and if you plan to fly it again, which by the way does not sound like you plan to, I wouldn't mind a chance to wiggle the sticks.

remember wheels down for landing, unless you are flying over water, then nose in first, that way you drown the ******* that flew your plane over water in the first place

Hooked-On-RC, I won't be flying this model again. I am not interested in reworking it to accept a 90 to 120 4s, therefore I have removed all the gear and it will be in the swap meet next year at RCFCBC (Lando Field). It a true shame, I really got great reviews on the looks of this one at the field, once I attempted flight the reviews were not great. As I said in an earlier post, anyone interested $200.00 plus shipping cost and it's yours.
For all those that were looking for a glass cowl once my mold was finished. The cowl was shipped today to Craig at FG Specialties, he should have it in a couple of weeks. I don't know if it will be of use to him, therefore I gave him the templates and partially finished plug and he will make the decision as to the usability. I hope it work for him and that he gets these cowls available for those of you that have a flyable model.

Until the next build thread TA TA

Cheers
Grump

OK OK, I know I said I wouldn't fly this model again! But I've puchased an AX120 for another model on the building board and thinking this would be a great platform for an engine breakin I've resurrected the project and I'm going to install the AX120 into it. Another quick note, FG Specialties has finished the cowl and I've just picked mine up from my mail drop. At first inspection the quality is definately good, hopefully I got the dimensions correct. I will post more as I move forward with the install.

Cheers
Daryl B.

Daryl,

FG Specialties now lists the cowl under new products for $39.00.

Joel

FYI

Mosquitobite Planes sells two versions of the TriPacer, the heavy plywood version and an all balsa version.
The two are totally different designs and the balsa version costs more. They don't show the balsa version on
their web site, but will ackowledge it if you e-mail them.

My ratings of the kit using Daryl's categories:

Kit Instruction 4 - Well detailed and easy to follow. Plans are CAD drawings and are not that usefull.
Materials and Packaging - Materials - 1, Packaging 4
Ease of build and finish 2 - The laser cut parts go together well, but the design is poor at best. The wing leading edge is made up of multiple short pieces of balsa glued between the ribs
making sanding and shaping difficult. The number of parts is overkill and adds much uneeded weight. Getting any iron-on covering to stick well is difficult. Plastic cowl is useless.
Design and Appearance 4
General Flight Character 1 - flies like a brick
Performance Capabilities 1 - about all I can say is it got off the ground and back down in one piece.
Maintenance and Repair - no rating. It was donated to a local kid who wanted to get into RC. He donated it to the dry lake bed near railroad pass prop first.

I am guessing the balsa version is probably better, but will not invest in finding out.

Joel, I'm guessing by your last post your expierience was very similiar to mine. Sorry to hear this, but it gives me a little comfort in knowing that I didn't have a lapse of capabilities in my build techniques. It's very unfortunate as this is a good looking model. I've aquired a set of plans from Hostetler for his 1/3 scale TriPacer and I'm impressed with the detail. The plans and cowl I aquired from you will be the next project (I think).

Cheers
Daryl B.

Daryl,

I have a Hostetler that is about 80% complete. There is a very good thread
on that model.

Joel

Daryl B,
How you making out with that tri pacer and the new AX120 engine? My Christ man that is far more engine than you think a 40 sized aircraft would need. Having followed this thread I am shocked and some what dismayed at the fact that they would sell two kits of the same plane with two different material sets, one weighing so much more than the other. I find it interesting that you have had to resort to that sized engine to get the brick to fly. I have talked to a few people that know of your building and they all say you are a fantastic builder and feel there is no way you can add that much weight to a kit unless you glue a brick inside it. It would be interesting to know what the boys at Mosquito bite planes have to say. Maybe what they should do is have someone else out here build the plywood version of their kit and see what weight it comes out to be. Or perhaps have someone in their own immediate area build one of the plywood versions and see what it comes out to be. It seems jsilvers had similar issues to you interesting that you even in a different climate and area the ply version comes out far heavier than what MB states.

I still say you should be able to fly this plane on your original engine, however I guess that strictly applies to the balsa version.

good luck with, suggest you de-equip it and sell it on this website or ebay!

What timing, I flew the plane on Sunday with the 120 2s. It of course it is way more engine than this AC requires, but I am only using the airframe to breakin the engine. I removed all from the firewall forward and made it into a Pacer with the FG Specialties cowl. Oddly enough I was contacted on Friday by Ken Charron from MB Planes and he had a few suggestions but was more concerned with how I managed to get a 10 lb plane. After a lengthy conversation, some of his suggestions were to use a K series Master Airscrew prop and non bearing servos which I used 3004 futaba, but I've only used APC in different variations to date. Also he was concerned that the covering I chose was Monokote and it is heavier than if I had used Ultracote. Since the telephone conversation we've had some email correspondence with further questions and some ideas as to what has happened, but nothing concrete as of yet. Ken has also asked how he can make this better for me, which I appreciate but currently I don't have any suggestions for him. I'll keep the group posted as to any news on this front.

As it sits right now I,ve flown the plane twice and I will need to further tweak the airframe as far as gear location and repair the vertical stab as I turned it turtle on the landing and the plane once again fought back[sm=devious.gif]. From what I recall from a previous post we fly at the same field, have we met? If not, I hope to be flying on Sunday AM if you want to rip a couple of holes in the ozone with my pacer. Failing that my phone # is on the club listing, give me a call and I'll treat you to a beveridge [sm=biggrin.gif]in my shop one of these evenings. As far as selling it, I joked earlier on this forum about it being available. I couldn't in good conscience sell it at this point, besides if I work the bugs out it may fly well and be fun with the 120.


Daryl B.

okay now I have put two and two together, you were the "Daryl" that conned a copy of the "How to Monokote" video tape out of me a while back. Well if I am able to get out Sunday I certainly will, I would love to see this plane fly with a way overpowered engine for it's size. As for MB's attempts to make things up the best thing I can suggest is that they invoke the true weights on their webiste, then again I have yet to see a kit or ARF manufacturer do just that. With that much power you should have th only "hovering" Pacer out there. I still dont understand why a "k" series prop would make a two pound difference...but hey what do I know. Alos you mean to tell me that by using non bearing servos it is going to make that much of a difference in a plane? If you are building it that close to the weight parameters that you have to worry about bearing and non-bearing servos, you should really re-engineer the whole damn plane. Sounds to me like MB is grasping at straws trying to cover their own proverbial backside..If you want to sell it let me know, maybe I can post it on one of my many bulletin boards and newsletters that I moderate.

Cheers,

Your Brad R. well well well.
I think MB Planes is trying to resolve any and all issues with their product. Jsilver and I may have received odd ball kits, we seem to be the only 2 that are commenting and or weighed a plywood version of this kit. We'll have to stay tuned to see what they come up with. I think Ken was referring to the differrence in weight of the servos, this was only one of the topics touched on as far as weight reduction ideas. As far as the prop goes the blade on the K series is fatter past the perimeter of the cowl, I picked up an 18-6 for my quadra 35 today and it is a big ole fatty.

Daryl B.

*****I've edited this post as the webpage weight has been changed from 7.2 to 8.9 finished weight. This is a recent change (last 48 hours).
I purchased my kit with the listed weight of 7.2 pounds.*****The engine size has also been modified from .46 to .60 2s and .60 to .80 4s, the build manual still states this.******


Ok further to the last post, I've received a response from Ken Charron at MB planes. I've been unable to respond as I'm currently unable to get past the anger I'm experiencing and draft a diplomatic response to his fodder.

A little preamble prior to posting his response:
Ken Charron contacted me last Friday wanting to know how I built a 10 pound plane. In the interest of making me happy, various offers were made by Ken to replace the fuselage with a Balsa version, laser cut servo boxes for the Mr. Mulligan I'm currently working on, and his cost on a future product purchase. The cost purchase of a T-Rex I did show interest in.

www.mosquitobiteplanes.com

Above is the URL for the website with the product details. Please review and notice the finished weight and the power requirements for this model. One other note; look at the build pictures and notice they show a balsa version of the kit being built. Nowhere on the webpage does it say this is not the version that will be shipped. You will get a plywood version.

Anyway, here is the response from Ken. Please feel free to post your response, whether it’s positive or negative as this will assist me in drafting my response to Ken. If you choose to PM me as many of you have in the past please, please send a copy to MBP as they have a right to know. You can find the contact info on their webpage.

As a note I fly at a club of approx. 300 and I was awarded builder of the year last year. Various members have used my skills to build and repair their models over the past years.

email as received:

Daryl.


Since we last spoke, I called a number of customers with the same version of the kit as you, and I asked them about the balance and weight of their plane. Of the 12 people I called one mentioned he had to put a little weight up front. He did mention he was around 9 pounds for weight, but the Saito 82 with a 14x8 zinger had it in the air in 20 feet.


I talked to the president, and he reminded me that a 70 4-stroke is the bottom of the range for the ply version. The 65 4-stroke was the bottom of the range for the balsa version. The CG for this plane is not so critical. But I have to ask: Did you set the CG with a full fuel tank? After all, that's condition you need to take off on. Lifting the plane by putting your fingers under the main spar of the wing should show balanced with a full tank of fuel. If it wasn't balanced with fuel, the the plane is nose heavy, and would explain part of the sluggishness. The absence of a nice fat prop (zinger 14x8) would also account for the sluggish behaviour. If the plane came in at just over 9 pounds, then that would be perfectly acceptable. I still won't dismiss the possibility that you received a odd kit.


The presidents only regrets that we weren't involved in your issues at the time it happened - and not as a result of other customers calling to tell us. It's unfortunate that you have changed the engine, and the gear layout - as this means we can't resolve the issues of your particular kit.


In that respect, I haven't asked him about the T-REX I was putting together for you. I want to wait until he cools down first.


I'm real sorry that you've had these issues. Perhaps more instruction in our manual could have prevented this.



Ken Charron

Senior Product Designer

613-256-0008

www.mosquitobiteplanes.com

well Daryl I will say this, it is very obvious MB planes has now decided to at least "attempt" the truth when it comes to the finished weight of an airplane...I remember the website as recent as a few days ago and it did in fact suggest 7.2 pounds as compared to 8.9 pounds that is now stated. Gee seems to me that is 1.7 pounds on my scale....where did all THAT weight come from Mr. Charron and your illusive President...could it be PLYWOOD perhaps? Did you build one yourself to in fact find out the truth?

As for Mr. Charron's suggestion to balance a plane with a full tank of fuel, I think he needs to head back to school and learn a few things about model airplane building. Mr. Charron, and I sincerely hope you are reading this forum as you have already contributed to it a number of times... if you balance a plane with a full tank of fuel and it becomes level on the CG chosen, as that tank empties you place the plane in a TAIL HEAVY situation, which by any pilot's estimation makes a plane very difficult to fly.

Mr. Charron, regardless of a planes engine recommendations a plane should in fact fly regardless of the engine chosen if it falls within the manufacturers specification. For you to suggest that the two engines stated are at the bottom end of the range only tells me that you in fact have not done your homework...remember this is a 40 sized aircraft as advertised.

Mr, Charron you state that you have been consutling with the president in this matter and discussing the opportunity to provide Daryl B with a "T Rex" Kit at your cost "In that respect, I haven't asked him about the T-REX I was putting together for you. I want to wait until he cools down first". Well let me ask you this, why do YOU have to be the middle man, if he is so "HOT" as you so fondly put it? Why does he not pick up the phone, call Daryl and discuss this directly with him, he is the damn president of the company, you would think he would have a vested interest in a resolution to this matter.

I think after following this entire thread from start to finish, the best thing for you to do Daryl is to follow this thread going forward and forewarn each person that is considering purchasing one, your words are gospel as you have experienced first hand the issues with this plane, as has J Silvers and I am sure a few more out there as well. It is too bad MB planes does not subscribe to the old restaurant adage, " if you are happy with our service...tell the world, if you are unhappy with our service... tell us" they just don't seem to give a damn.

Here is the latest fodder from and my response to MB Planes:

Mr. Charron
Based on your last correspondence I would have refused the kit. I am not interested in your product or the lack of customer care your company practices. I didn't respond to your last email due to the anger I have felt since I first read it.

I notice MBPlanes has modified the power requirements, finished and shipping weights on it's webpage. I can only hope I played a part in the decision to be honest about your product. Now change the build manual to reflect this and well your at it tell people that you produce these kits from plywood not balsa as the pictures show.

I've posted your last email on RCuniverse as I will with this one. I will not waste your time any further, please show me the same courtesy.

Without prejudice
Daryl


>From: Ken <[email protected]>
>To: Daryl Banks <[email protected]>
>Subject: Contact
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:21:53 -0400
>
>Daryl. I talked with the president and explained to him that you
>were being up front about your issues and have been receptive to
>looking at what might have contributed to the sluggish behaviour.
>He was fine with that, and appreciated your help. With that, I
>packed a T-REX for you FOR FREE as a gesture on his part.
>
>Daryl, tonight our President received an irate email from Joel
>Silverstein. I presume an acquaintance of yours? He seems to know
>you, as he wanted to add his voice to yours? He said: "Daryl is not
>the only one unhappy with your TriPacer".
>
>Mr. Silverstein then expressed his extreme dislike for his kit when
>he found that a 52 4-stroke would not work and had to use a 70 in
>order for his plane to fly properly. Myself, I'm very impressed he
>got the plane to fly at all with a 52 4-stroke to begin with - as no
> material ever suggested he put something so small in that plane.
>Again, we wish he had contacted us at the first signs of trouble. We
> are here to help, solve problems, fix issues. We are not a
>faceless company. We are modellers and pilots just like you.
>
>I really wished Mr. Silverstein had not mentioned your name at all,
>because once the president saw his email, he walked strait into the
>lab cancelled your T-REX. He then pointed at me and asked that I
>never talk to him about this again.
>
>I'm very sorry Daryl, but I'm in hot water now for pushing this
>through. I can give you any support you like, but Joel burned down
>any chance for me to do anything extra special for you.
>
>I hope you can understand. I wish I could do more, but I don't write
> the checks around here.
>
>Take care, and keep in touch.
>
>Ken Charron
>Senior Product Designer
>613-256-0008
>www.mosquitobiteplanes.com
>
>

Here is a copy a the last response I received from Ken Charron on which, after beating around the bush for several e-mails, finally addressed the weight issue. This is one of the most disreputable modeling companies I have ever dealt with.

"I only ask about the altitude because we are a 300ft ASL and our plane is off in 60 feet. There must have been some confusion at the time when you got the kit - as the kit was in the middle of a transition. We were debating weather or not we would continue to offer the balsa version. Why? - A lot was depending on if we could solve the fires that would start when we would run the laser in the winter. It's so dry here during the winter months that the balsa wood caught fire when being cut on the laser. So rather then strike it off all together, we tried testing methods of cutting with mist injectors in the laser cabinet. So it wasn't until we exhausted all options that we decided the light ply version would carry on and the balsa version would be dropped. The specs for the plane so far as weight still only reflected the balsa version. This was our error for not being on top of that (can't think of everything 100% of the time). But the new weight seems to provide a great plane for windy days. It's actually nice that the flaps are useful now with the heavier version. Before, it was too light to bother, the flaps would slow it down so quickly, that it would drop out of flying speed if you didn't catch it quickly with the throttle. The only drawback we found is that we can't put our video handy-cam inside (gets a bit too heavy for the 80).


So to answer your questions - Yes there was a balsa version for a little while. But we couldn't figure out a true price for it - mostly due to the unknown attrition rate of material when trying to cut it. The cost had to be factored in. If we released it again, it wouldn't be a great sell once the new price was set ($30 more). So to simplify, we dropped it. Again, specs for the ply version we not updated - our error.


I'm not sure about the cowl. I know we did test a FG cowl in the beginning, but the supplier we were dealing with along with the complexity of the nose shape (with the oil cooler) proved to be too nose heavy for the original design. Perhaps with the heavier fuse and maybe a new supplier, a FG cowl could be offered in the future. I think that I would speak for most modellers that if we added the $30 for the balsa version, and $35 for the cowl, the kit becomes way too pricey for anyone to consider. $280 for a kit would mean breaking the export cost barrier - and customs would slap on duty for the sale (Anything over $200 US gets duty). And so it would be completely out of range for those who budgeted for something more reasonable.


So there are the reasons you were looking for. Hope that clears it up a bit.


Man, there is so much work to do when developing a kit. It just goes on and on..."