Thanks will HS 81 work ?

If its a mini it will fit, just make sure it has enough torque, it is running 2 ailerons.

I maidened my Pitts the other day. Grass strip. came in a little hot (not alot) Undercarridge block had virtually no glue. Gear ripped off (still attached to block), plane nosed over, cartwheeled and got pretty messed up. Beef up yer gear blocks. There ain't much holding them in. This was entirely my own fault. A, I should have landed slower and b, I should have checked the gear block before flying. Will repair and fly again....soon

Yup, sound advice for any model from any manufacturer!

Why does EVERY manufacturer insist on saving weight in this important area?

A beefier block will earn many kudos.

Hi there,
Here is my update for the Pitts too. I had my test flight last week and it was beautiful , very peaceful flier. I have powered it with a os70 4 stroke and it balances the plane at 3.1" from the LE of the top wing.

My Ailerons are at 50% throw so its not twitchy and flick dual rates for a sweet roll. The plane will not knife edge without a lot of aileron mixing so dint get to try that

The os70 is ideal power for it and not too powerful. The plane has ok sink rate and will land slowly and smooth. I also had a dead stick and knocked the LG out taking the support out from the fuse. I guess if it had been stronger then it would have broken it. The LG does not flex backwards so it pulled it out.

Also a major mod I had to do was to have to reduce the length of the cabane struts by about 10mm ... yes i had to cut them and drill them again as the present length if put just wouldnt fit. I am surprised as i did not hear anyone else needing to do this mod.

Other than that I would say this is a BEAUTIFUL PLANE. GET IT and enjoy

Cheers
KJ

Out of curiosity what servos did you use for the ailerons?

I ran into this, but I found that all I had to do was move the struts out to about 1/8" of the edge the hardwood support in the fuselage.

This with a tiny bit of bending, of the carbanes, fixed the height difference.

In other words I made the struts slightly "wider" and thereby lower to account for the difference.


I haven't maidened my plane yet.

Mine is powered by a T.H. .46 2 stroker using a Bison Pitts Muffler.

With an 11x6 this engine HAULS on my Ultimate 40S, so I was considering putting on a 13x4 prop on this plane to slow it down a bit.

I also ended up NOT inserting a spacer for the wing struts.

Rather I installed them as is, then I used thin CA on the base of the strut supports to harden them in their new canted position.

This worked rather well.

I am using the HS81 servos. Here are some pics of the Pitts Enjoy

Intelligent minds think alike... heh.


Cool pics, nice shots

O'my GOSH!

There's NO PILOT!!!!

---

I ended up with a white plastic 2 1/5" spinner on mine to match the scheme... It looks pretty good with it.

I don't see a charge receptacle or switch in the pictures. Did you add one?

Also any idea as to what the intent was with the mounting holes on the servo plate, for what looks like an inner switch?

I've been trying to figure out what is supposed to go there.

I have hit the Achilles heel on the pitts. I had a rough landing and knocked off the prop and later i noticed the Wing strut had broken. I was lucking to notice it on the ground and have taken it out to see what can be done on it. The plane designers should really look into this part of the plane because otherwise they have fantastic plane here

Cheers
KJ

I had to do the same with my cabane stuts. Also the plastic fitting inside the tank are not fuel proof, mine melted from the fuel[X(]. There was just a little white blob rattling around inside the tank.

Funny the same thing happened with me This plane is good it has its small issues though but the struts issue maybe the non seller part unless the manufacturer works on it

KJ

Finally maidened my pitts today, gusty wind at about 15 - 20 mph, not the best conditions, but i needed to see it fly. Other than lowering the aileron travel and some down trim it flies great. The saito 65 is insane power on it, cruises great at about 1/3 throttle. Snap rolls are very tight, very manuverable little plane. No structural problems at all, everything very solid after 2 good flights and 2 bouncy landings!

I don't want micro servos ! This is not a park flyer ! If what you just said is true, I won't finish the plane.
I just got my wing test mounted, and I don't see a problem with them. My Kyosho Super Stearman 40 struts sit at about the same angle, so it looks normal to me. Guess it doesn't matter now though... I was going to put my Saito 56 on my Pitts, but now I'll just hang it for display... Micro servo's are for park flyers, and I have all Futaba S3151 digital servo's for the Pitts, and I ain't buying no more servo's. I'd rather get something else my digital's will fit. The Pitts will make a good lookin hanger display...

I just checked, and your right. My servo's won't fit... Nope, im not going to put my Saito 56 at risk with micro servo's in the wings. I guess I should have read the ad better... I never would have thought that a plane made for a 70 4 stroke (says that right on the front of the manual) would call for micro servo's. Well thats $160.00 down the tubes. Oh well...

Eh, no.

I have high torque mini servos on mine.

e.g. the Hitec 81's.

Not micro servos.

These have far more power than needed.

Just check the dimensions of the servos.

I've heard enough... This is supposed to be a $300.00 ARF, and it doesn't even have threaded control rods, and nylon cleveses for the control horns. Z Bends are for park flyers !
Im not going to put my Saito 56 and on this ! Im not even going to finish it now. They lied about the planes value, and im thru with it. If I flew this like my Super Stearman, it would break in half ! Then I would be out a reciever and possibly my Saito 56. Nope, this will be just a hanging look at thing, I don't trust it at all... Even the manual is a joke !

If you've heard enough then why do you keep going on about it.

Send it my way instead!

I have no problems flying it.

Nylon clevis are provided by most manufacturers for planes of this size.
Z bends are used by everyone, GP, etc.

If you don't like them, replace them. I've installed quick connects in mine. A pack only cost a few dollars.


If you don't want to put your Saito in it, put in a cheap T.H. .46. It will fly BETTER with it as it will produce far more power.



I don't see a "lie" about the plane's value. They "value" it at $124.00 which is a GREAT deal for what you get.

Do you normally believe in "Manufacturer's suggested retail pricing?" Check out what Tower and Horizon post on their web sites.



You are speculating about how and if it would break.


I've flown it. You haven't. It takes a LOT of abuse if you put it together right.


If you don't trust it, you may want to consider how you've put it together.



Re: Manual

Yes, this is known... and a caveat for anyone purchasing NP ARF's.

If you need a detailed manual, you are not ready yet for these planes.


---

I see a lot of venting ( primarily precipitated by the original Stearman "user error" ) and no real attempt to solve a problem.

Why grind this axe?

Who's slighted you? I'm not seeing it.

---

Have a gander at this particular and very insightful post to someone with similiar complaints about a Showtime that they lost in flight.


[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5775378]CLICK ME[/link]

I think that it applies here.

Everything you just said was totally ridiculas. I wasted my hard earned money expecting to see a quality ARF, and all I found in there was a cute little stage prop. Yes, the ad said that they were normally $300.00, and I expected to recieve a $300.00 ARF (like my Kyosho Super Stearman), or my Great Planes Super Skybolt. I assumed that these ARF's were either going to be discontinued soon, or that they were trying to build a name by selling em cheap at first to get some out there. I never heard of Nitro Planes before... But yes, I expected to see a $300.00 ARF. I bought this plane to beat the hell out of, but after reading this thread, I simply don't trust it to take the kind of forces I was going to administer. I wanted something small, quick, and sturdy, but im afraid that I would rip the attachments right out of the wings the way I want to fly it. I just tugged on the wings, and stuff is moving in there... Someone could get hurt or worse. RC Planes are like loaded guns...

Oh c'mon get real! The above is ludicrous.


Comparing the .40 Biplane to the more Skybolt is disingenuous.


The Pitts takes plenty of abuse as is as "sturdy" as the Skybolt.

Again, you have been speculating, but you haven't flown it yet.

I've already put it through it's paces. It holds up just fine.


If "stuff is moving" you haven't built it correctly. The wings should be far stiffer than the Skybolt. Sigh...

The Skybolt has a much larger wing area and is far more lightly built.

The Pitts has relatively more sheeting and the wing structure is joined over relatively larger areas, resulting in greater PSI strenght for it's size than the Skybolt.

You are not comparing apples to apples.... merely venting unfounded fears.


What do you really expect to do with it anyway?

If you were to subject any ARF to the same forces that would rip apart the Pitts, you'ld have the same results...

That is unless you take precautions as already noted.

What does it cost you to beef it up? A couple of carbon rods for the tail, etc.

What's the problem? Don't you know how to do this?



If you REALLY want a $300.00 ARF, then go ahead and spend $300.00.

Grab that Skybolt and replace the weak tail gear, marginal linkages, lousy included engine mount, crummy wheels, weak gear, horrid control horns ( read the complaints about there being no backing plate, hey, at least the Pitts have these. ) etc.

And you'll still have to beef it up the same way... My Skybolt has the CF rods on the tail and wings as well... as do all of my planes.



It's all the same.

Put on the glasses, because you're not quite seeing things clearly.


Re: Someone could get hurt.

That's why we have insurance. You can be hurt by a radio glitch, engine start, etc.

Don't you have your flying scars yet? I do!

Again this is irrelevant and does not address any problem. It's a kitchen sink arguement which has no bearing on the Pitts or any NP product.


I still don't understand why the heck you are so upset?

Who short changed you?



What where you expecting? Something like the GP 33% Ultimate for $124.00?

Yeah, wouldn't that be nice.

I've got this great bridge to sell too.


It's a GOOD $124.00 plane, provided you have experience building ARFS.

I said something in the wing is flexing, and I have no movement in the other 2 biplanes at all under the same stress. My instructor/friend says like you, that it will be fine, so im going to get the little servo's, finish the plane, and move on with my power aerobatic training that he's been buggin me to do with him for about 4 years now. He just came over and checked out the wings, and said it will be fine. He said thet were purposly keeping the wing loading down with the Saito 56, so no problem at all... I feel better already, and you win. lol Im surprized you found fault in the Skybolt at all. I traded my Kyosho Nexus heli for this one, and aside from some builder error that I had to redo, it's been a wonderful plane, but the Saito 80 I put on it doesn't exactly make it a hot rod either. I love the way the Pitts looks, and I know it will be economical to fly with the little 56 on there, and if yours has passed the in flight stress testing, then im sure that I will be very happy with it. I will use threaded rods and clevises everywhere on it, and that will sure be a nice upgrade... and I really appreciate your taking the time to straighten me out on this. My friend/instructor (Greg) says that I worry way too much, and that I fly fine, land great, and will learn the power aerobatics quickly with the little Pitts. He also said that the reason the plane was so cheap, is because they saved alot of money by cutting corners, just not so much in the plane itself. He said like you, that the plane itself is great ! Mine came from a different dist, and has full wheel pants and solid interplane struts without the openings by the way, but it's the same plane...

There are a couple of things you may want to consider doing to it, if you haven't already.

1 - If yours is like mine, the interplane struts are at an angle. However the support tabs they affix to, are perpendicular to the wing! In effect you are "bending" the wood out when you put the struts on.

With the struts attached carefully apply CA to the tabs, being careful NOT to wet the area that contacts the struts.

This will harden the tabs and underlying area making it more sturdy and "fixing" the tabs to their new angles.

One way to prevent adhesion of the struts to the tabs, is to place wax paper at the contact points. If you do so, then you can really soak the tabs in CA while they are held at the angle by the struts.

This will make the wings very secure.

2 - Likewise with the carbane, apply liberal amounts of CA where the carbanes screw into the fuselage.

With all of this done, my wings are very firmly affixed. There is NO movement what-so-ever even when force is applied.

3 - Grab one ( or two ) pieces of CF and cut to form a support for the elevator, and/or rudder. Many biplanes have guy wires or CF rods that do this.

I merely angle a drill bit where the rod will go to create a divot on the elevator, and a hole in the fuselage.

Apply epoxy and let dry. This will greatly stiffen the tail.

Look at this pic to see the much beefier supports I put on the N.P. Ultimate 120. I used relatively thick CF on those tail struts mounted into Dubro (or was it GP? ) angle tabs.



4 - And as with all planes re-inforce the landing gear hold down area.

This IMHO is the weakest point of this plane as ( I believe ) too much wood was cut for the sake of lightness.

I'd prefer to see a hunk hardwood here, and I'll accept the weight penalty.

At worst, fuelproof/expoxy the inner area to help harden and stiffen it.

5 - Do the same to the firewall. I mounted my engine in an anti-vibration mount which makes the plane feel solid when the engine is running as there is no transmitted vibration.


6 - I really like RCKen's technique of securing the cowl with a slightly oversized holes and then putting the screws through a very short piece of fuel tubing. As you screw the screws in the tubing expands outward acting as an anti-vibration mount for the cowl, while holding the cowl at the center of the slightly larger holes.

7 - Take off those wheel pants and put on larger lightweight tires. Later once you are more familiar with the plane you can put your clean wheel pants back on.


Have a good maiden flight.

BTW: My Skybolt ARF also receive a similiar going over and correction. The supplied control horns were awful. The spinner not that great. etc.

My Skybolt has a nice aluminum spinner, and not one of those cheap pinned one that has trouble lining up to get the cone on. Not sure if it's stock or not, it just came on the plane, when I traded my heli for it.
The tail on my Pitts is as firm as the Kyosho, and my cabane struts are screwed into hardwood, so CA there is not necessary. Now. on the wing attachment tabs. This is really weird, mine came out of the wings at an angle, so they butted up flush before the screws were installed, so this plane may be a different animal all together. I do detect a little movement in that area, so I will apply some thin CA where the tabs come out of the wings. I found the Nitro Models website, saw the little Pitts, and called my Hobby guy, but he said he won't get it from NM, but it would be the same basic plane, but have full wheel pants that were painted to match the plane. They are also fiberglass like the cowling.
I just looked at the package with the control rods, and they do not resemble the NM pictures. These have threads on one end and the nylon snap on connectors for the other end for both the alerons to servos and also the alerons to alerons joining links. None of that V Bend like the NM website pictures where they have the V's going opposite directions. Really weird. Now, the tail wheel is like the Skybolt and the Decathlon but required the rod to be inserted into the rudder wood, so i've got a spring loaded tailwheel assy for that. Very nice piece with several leafs to choose from, or they can be stacked as well, for heavier planes. The control horns in this kit are much heavier than the one's that came with my buds NM Super Stearman, and are also larger than the one's on the Skybolt. Im not sure whats going on here, but as it appears to be the same plane, there seems to be alot of upgrades over the one's that NM is selling. This one has a wingspan of 42.5 inches, and the fuse length is 41.3 according to the manual, that calls it a Pitts 50, and says it requires a .70 four stroke. Does this sound like the same plane ? Or did I wind up with something entirely different ? The manual sure sucks ! lol

I notice on the plane in the pic, that there's no holes to get the the cabane strut attachment bolts/screws in the side of the fuse like my Super Skybolt... Do you have to take the wings off to get to them ?

It sounds like you have a similiar but slightly beefed up Pitts from what you describe.

On mine the horns, etc. are certainly SMALLER than what came with the Skybolt.

The NM Pitts calls for a .32-.40 two stroke or a .51 FS engine according to the documentation.

Sounds like you have something different.

Re: Carbane mounts.

The Carbanes have screws that are accessible from UNDER the fuselage. You must remove the gear to access them.

This is not problematic at all because a ) the plane is so small you never bother taking it apart for transport, b ) even if you remove the wings, there is no need to remove the carbanes.

I was refering to just tightening them ocassionally, or checkin em anyway... We almost had a disaster tonight. My friend Greg was gasin up his 1/3 scale Pitts, and just happen to notice that the right side cabane strut was cracked at the front hole where it arttaches to the wing. He didn't have ant washers there, just bolt and nut, and we figure thats why it cracked. Not enough squish area. lol That may have been an ugly flight ! Yeah, my Pitts seem to have the same wingspan and everything, and it even looks the same, with slight differences, but this says 70 four stroke. I think an LA 46 would yank it thru the sky quite well though. And why do they call it a Pitts 50 ? I guess the Chinese do have a hard time with our language... I heard it's because we have so many words that have several meanings. Hense the lack of words in our manuals. That little Pitts sure is cute though... Way too cute to fly and get all dirty, but before long, it will have tape all over the wingtips im sure. My little Stearman 40 loves to hop sideways to a stop sometimes. After touchdown, ya really gotta be on that rudder, or it will get away from ya in a hurry, and the Pitts is even shorter ! Were gunna have lots of fun together im sure... The Skybolt lands itself almost, and handles like a sportscar on the ground, so I get a little bored with it. I like em short and squirilly. I must be weird...