i was just getting to like 3D because of this plane was just amazed at how well it walked around on its tail just floored me so maybe ill stick with the DA-50 sure flew well with this motor

Also adding the 58 will mean changing things around a bit. I had to put my 2 reciever packs in the tail.

Where are you running your CG mine was 6-1/2 with the DA ignition pack was at the former with the lower wing dowel strapped to that former i wanted to try farther back. but wasnt a lot of choices.

Hey, all.

My Ultimate made its maiden flight today. I had the throws per spec, and the CG set just a bit shy of 6.5 inches back. Flew hands off with 3 clicks of up. I only made a few laps just to get the feel of the plane, as the wind made it difficult to do too much diagnostic flying. The one thing I noticed was that the ailerons were very responsive. I dialed them way down when I landed. Plenty of power with a DA-50, and it floated in for a beautiful landing. Here's the specs:

DA-50
5945's on Aileron
8611s on Rudder, Elevator
635's on throttle & choke
2-1400 5-cell NiMH for Rx, 1-1400 4-cell for ignition
Weight, about 19 pounds

Do to some unfortunate times my Ultimate Bipe is for sale. Airframe & Hardware only. No engine or Electronics. $400

Rather than let this thread fall way to the back, I'm going to attempt using slave struts on the upper ailerons, reducing the aileron servo count from 4 down to two. It will save a lot of wiring and the weight of two servos. I'll post some pics when I complete the strut design, mounting location, and figure out some of the geometry.

I'll also post some pics of some home made engine standoffs for a Brison 3.2. They are just as light as aluminum, perhaps lighter, and a whole bunch cheaper.

Ken,
Thanks for all your hard work in this thread.

Pat

Thta's a good idea....why didn't tom think of it

[quote]ORIGINAL: DENNIS C

That's a good idea....why didn't tom think of it

I believe that shouldn't be a problem at all. Since the ailerons are so so responsive, You can set up the geometry to favor lots of movement on the servo and very little on the control arm. This will basically double the torque of the servo even though you lose servo speed, but since this bird doesn't need extreme throws for a fast roll rate. 3D throws are not necessary for 3D performance.

I did think of it, but linked ailerons can be a problem if not done right. If the pushrod flexes at all it can cause the ailerons to oscillate and possible flutter. It's OK for you guys to experiment but I have to sell something that works every time.

TF

I personally prefer separate servos, not only for a tighter feel but also for redundancy. Also a bipe has enough hardware already to hook up. I definitely would'nt want to add to it.

Tom and I discussed this at length over the phone the other day and he brought up a point that I had failed to note.

The slave struts will work just fine but some things have to be kept in mind. Number 1, and this is the one Tom caught, is that there will be unequal travels between the top and bottom ailerons if you use a strut that surface mounts to the ailerons. The best way is to have the slave control rod exiting from the center of the aileron to a point inside the wing ala full scale. Experience to date has shown that a small difference in travels between the top and bottom aileron has an insignificant impact.

Number 2 is that the strut itself can't be prone to a lot of flex. Really screws up the performance of the upper aileron and doesn't do the servo much good. I've been doing bipes for many years and found a long time ago that carbon fiber rods seem to work the best for the weight involved.

Number 3 is the attach point of the carbon fiber rod to the ailerons and the pivot point. Done incorrectly and you can bind up a control rod and servo in a big hurry. Been through that before and found that the Nelson Hobbies pivot clevises will work fine in a vertical to vertical arrangement.

Number 4 is the lack of a econdary hard point in easch aileron for slave strut attachment. That one is pretty easy to get by using the existing hard points with the right connectors. basically just another 6-32 screw.

As I said before, I will complete the installation and full performance test flights, then post performance info. I will post pics and methods as they are performed.

Without being over confident, I'm certain that it will work out well. Tom is absolutely correct in providing this plane with a 4 aileron servo installation. Done incorrectly, slave struts would be a major stumbling point, to the dissapointment of the buyer. Tom has gone to great lengths on every product he has marketed in the attempt to assure a quality product that all can enjoy.

How about this set up:
Evolution/MVVS 58 in the nose
4 5945's in the tail
4 5475's on ailerons?

I am an advocate of lighter engines with this plane, but the Evo 58 is not that much heavier than a light 50. This should be an excellent combo.

TF

Yeah. I'd get a DA 50, but a guy I fly with wishes he had more power here at our elevation. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I just hope Karbonite servos are enough for the ailerons, but they sound like they would get the job done.

I dont know why you wouldnt, mine with the Evo flies just fine floats in for landings. I have the 5945s on ailerons and a 5955 TG on rudder. Cut a hatch below pilot for 2 lion batteries balances just fine.

You didn't have to add any tail weight?

No other than the batteries being under the pilot...Im using 2 x Lions on reciever and 1 one ignition so if you use heavier batteries then I dont see a problem.
Throttle,rudder and choke servos are in the cutouts provided in the center area. I maidened mine today and it floats in to land with cg as recommended.

Hmm, looks like I may be doing a 5955TG on rudder then. When you say batteries under pilot, do you mean in the area behind the canopy? For my 28% Edge, they're currently mounted behind where the pilot would be under the turtle deck. I haven't balanced it yet, but I have the throttle and choke servos with the ignition battery more or less over the CG. Should be pretty easy to balance.

No directly under where the pilot sits...if you have one. I cut the covering away there and made a lite hatch essentially putting the packs under the cockpit floor. It also gives access to the pull pull wires etc and allows you to beef up the wing hold down area which I would do

Final thoughts on the C/G location.

Use 6-3/4" aft of the point of the top wing leading edge for the balance point. All the tales told so far have shown that 6-1/2 inches aft acts nose heavy. I absolutely assure you that 7 inches aft is seriously tail heavy. Those that have been balancing and flying at 6-3/4 inches aft seem to be pretty happy with the performance and landing speeds.

Aileron slave struts will work fine if they are mounted on the same side of the aileron for both wings. I used bottom to bottom mounts and Dubro 866 control horns for hardware. A carbon fiber tube provides more than enough rigidity for the struts, and do not vibrate in flight. If you make the struts you will have to fill the inside of the ailerons where you mount the control horn hardware. Currently they are hollow behind the hard points. I just drilled a hole large enough to squirt some Gorilla glue inside and taped it off until it finished setting up. I don't know how well that will hold up over time, but time will tell.

I used a distance of 15mm forward of the aileron trailing edge to mount the horns, bottom to bottom, and left the full length of the horn tabs to extend behind the ailerons for maximum range of motion. There is absolutely no need for more than 30 degrees of aileron travel at high rates.

For those interested, the fiberglass spinner that was obtained from Bisson Mufflers works out very well, and weighs next to nothing. If you need nose weight, don't go there. If you need tail weight, losing the aluminum one you have and replacing it with the glass spinner does the job great.

There is no need to stiffen the landing gear. Just land better.

The plane rocks[8D] I can't say enough good things about it.

Pat

It's been a while since posting on here. I had a house fire and it put things on delay... Any how to the question... I have a Brison 3.2 to put in this plane. I love the other brisons I own they all run so great! Latley have been doing some reading and thinking about switching to a Taurus 52. Have any of you flow this plane on the Brison 3.2? How was the performance. I just want this plane to be right! It's going to be my baby!

Any opinions or thughts.

Pat?

Yer sir.

How can I be of service? I've been trying to post some pics, but the LAN at my current location seems to not like the file sizes.

Pat

Bull-RCU,

If you have the Taurus, run it. The Brison works extremely well, but there's nothing like having more power!! You WILL have more power! There won't be any weight penalties at all. The reliability factor will be at least equal to the Brison. There would be no hesitation on my part to use the Taurus over the Brison.

Pat