I used to run a 13-6 on the mds .68 and that ran really well. I know my buddy has had two mds 48s and both never ran reliable. It seems to be a luck of the draw on the mds engines. Guess I got lucky but my .68 is as good as any engine I've had. Right now I'm still a little concerned over all up weight the bipe is going to be. At 50 inches it's not much bigger than your standard 40 size profile but with the extra wing and structure, it may be close. I'm targeting 5 to 5.5 lbs ready to fly. If I can get there then the .60 engine will work fine. Of course......more is better.

Interesting.

The bipe I'm working on is 45 inches and foam core fuse. I am planning a 46 to 50 sized motor. I just gotta get the kids and wife occupied for a few more evenings I think I'll be able to keep it in the 4.5 lbs range. Both wings are done now and are looking good weight wise.

My 68's have been great. I think it was the best (only good???) motor they put out. I had an MDS 40 that sucked, but after getting the newer C2 carb I got the bugs worked out and it became a good runner....just heavy.

MDS, I had a 1.48. HUGE power but couldn't get it to keep running. Got the new carb (C2) and it didn't get much better, still just quit at random. A shame because between quitting it ran very strong. Started on a backflip, good idle, just kept quitting, yep, More Dead Sticks.

Is this gonna be an Ultimate style profile? Pitts? Other?

OMP: As compared to the SIG Ultimate profile (other than being slightly larger and being an ARF) what can we expect from your design?

I've built and flown the SIG Ultimate and loved the way it flew but dropped like a brick with no power. Lots of drag.

A few things I would have changed from the SIG version would have been to reduce the thickness of the airfoil and increase Wing area.

Also, I would make the tail moment a hair longer as well make the fuse taller for more area in knife edge flight.

Can't wait to hear more about the new design.

If you could take the Goldberg Ulimate and just profile the fuse it would be PERFECT.

5.5lb should be great with the MDS .68 mine likes a 13x4W and it was suggested I try a Zinger 14x4 wood as well. Mine has always been reliable, just never had a good plane to put it on. This will prolly be the one.

Still waiting on the pics!

Whoo-hoo, that ought to be the Shizzle!!

I've had two of the Sig. Very poor in a dead stick... Very poor in knife edge... The harrier could have been a bit better too... Now spins, snaps, and tumbles are the shizzle with that little bipe!

Now, on with the begging for some pics!!!!

PICTURES

I'm holding back pictures until I'm satisfied with a decent prototype. Too many times the cat gets out of the bag too early. But this project is one of our top priorities right now so it's getting a lot of attention. Perfection of the prototypes can take some time. Those who have designed and built know what I mean.

Sounds good Mike, you know if it's not top quality, we're gonna let you have it. Thanks for the attention to quality.

I can't wait to see this one.

First off guys the plane is still well into research and developmental stage. This ARF has flown in China by the manufacturer and they say it's flying great so far. There are still some tweaks that have to be made so I'm just letting everyone become aware that these pictures are of the prototype. The trim scheme is also not actual, it's just there to show us their capabilities in the factory. However, for a prototype test plane it almost knocked me off my socks. We may even consider using this trim scheme for a portion of the ARF's depending on feedback.

The ARF is actually pretty large at 50" wingspan. Much larger then I thought it would be as they look much smaller on CAD.

Hey Dion, I like the color scheme as shown, this should be a great selling plane, I would prefer an ARC version, but with that color scheme I could deal with it, now if ya needs a test pilot........

Terry

By all means, please post the build here. Also, please give the weight as it stands now. I realize it may change, but it will give us an idea of what to expect.

Great looknig plane. If you guys keep up this pace, there'll never be any reason to go elsewhere for a plane. My last 3 have been OMP designs, and I see no reason to switch now!

Can't talk .... building!!!

Dion, thanks for the sneak peak at the prototype. First off, the colors are not my taste. My vote is for something "cooler". I'm sure you guys will come up with something. Otherwise, it looks like an ARC in Ultracote clothing to me.

Next up, as a previous owner of not one, but two Sig Ultimates, here are some heads up issues I had with that particuler plane. First off, it had some huge coupling issues in knife edge. It would roll with the rudder and pitch towards the belly pretty bad. Second, was the wing rocking in a harrier. It was pretty bad too.

Another request would be to try to get back to a triangle airbalances for the elevator, like a real Ultimate. I guess that it is possible that there is some aerodynamic reason that the square ones might be best, but the triangle ones look better to me.

Let us know what youu think about the build, what there is of it, and the test flight.

Upon further examination (and putting on my glasses), I see that the balances are triangle shaped, so nevermind that part...

What I'd miss? Where are the pics?

Dion has been severely scolded for sneaking the pics out. "Bad Dion....Bad Dion"! LOL Everyone's inputs have been really helpful and I know setting up a bipe well is much different than the monoplanes. I'm really working on this hard and it's going to take a couple of iterations of tweaking. What I am curious though about is the interest in doing ARCs versus covered planes for all the models? Maybe we'll start a poll on that. Anyway, we'll keep everyone in the loop on the bipe development and release more pics when we're happy with the flying qualities.

I would gladly take it ARC if available. I wish I could have seen the picture, I want a good profile bipe big time!

Pics yanked?? oh man, what a jones.

cant wait for this plane. This may be a good platform for my old pattern engine setups. with a slightly lower pitch of prop..

.

Dion got a time out! [:@]

Anyway, I'm all for ARFs, as long as I like the colors, otherwise, take a few bucks off, and give me the ARC.

A perfect example is the Lanier Razor. I like the platform, but can't stomach any of the four color choices. If one came to live here, I'd strip it in a heart beat. The contradiction of that is the EF Mini 3D. I promissed myself I'd strip that one, and got too excited and just assembled it, pink covering and all...

Now someone go hide in a tree near Dion's field with a video camera!

Well with an ARC, you can have a unique plane, your own scheme. You can also look over the assembly, pre-balance with your engine/servos/hardware and move things around if needed without messing up the covering. Need to move that battery back in the fuse? No prob. Need to add a small brace to use your favorite brand X tailwheel, no prob.

Guys the biggest issue with the ARC's is damage in shipping. The covering makes these planes many times stronger. Profiles are built so light and fragile I just don't know if we can do it. The more we try to make them lighter and lighter the eaiser the become prone to damage.

I think the fuses would be fine, but these wings are just too light.

We will do some test shipping with a few to see how it works out.

I'll see if Mike will let me post a "distant" shot of the plane.