Is anybody knows how to get a E3D kit from Gary Wright?
Some pictures are visible in S$E Modeler.
Thanks
Phil

Goto:
http:/www.gwmp.net/

Or the E-zone and look under sport planes.
There are quite a few posts there.

I've seen a few posts from Gary in the Electrics General Discsuccion section on this forum... Check it out. http://www.rcuniverse.com/showthread...threadid=35931]

The E3D is really popular in the Sportplane column of the Ezone discussion board. Mine is going to arrive in my hot little hand on Friday. Basically everybody who is on the sport plane forum wants one. As a result Gary has a waiting list to get them. I hear they are a nice kit. Its all laser cut. It will hover on a cheap Kyosho EndoPlasma motor and Great Plains gearbox running a 10 cell pack. The RTF weight runs from 48-56 oz roughly. There are some guys that are running expensive brushless motors in them and are getting awesome hovers. It will do the 3D manuvers.

--Paul

I'll update when I get mine.

Well, I have my E3D kit now. Its pissing me off. Its more fragile than some of my indoor flying electrics. I've done more damage to it building it (I'm a competent builder) than I have flying in the last 9 months or more. I know its a good flyer though. Its fragile as its light. It seems like the individual parts are very fragile, once put togther it is very strong. It is a lot stronger than my Dazzler was. I never worry about where to pick it up like I did with my Dazzler.

--Paul

Here's a view of what I have done so far.

--Paul

I saw Gary fly this model this weekend, I was very impressed. He would hand launch it into a hover,back down to touch the tail and climb out with unlimited vertical. It flew very slow also.I got a chance to fly it and it flies great no pitch or roll coupling when flying knife edge . Very smooth flier. I believe he said he was producing about 50 kits every 2 weeks.

Has this happened yet??

Navy, I wouldn't suggest it. You would have to beef up the forward fuselage too much. You'd have to add an actual fire wall as well. The plane is very light and would require quite a bit of work to convert it to glow. There also isn't much room to put a fuel tank in, and if you did, it would be too far forward so it would change your balance point through out the flight. The other thing is that it has a really long nose compared to other fun fly's meaning balancing would be interesting.

Feel free to try it, as it is a good design. I'm an electric guy, but I too thought about what it would be like if converted to glow.

Heres a pic of mine (not done in this picture)

-Paul

Hi, Paul
Nice job!
I felt the same when I received my E3d! The 1/16 in balsa sides wouldn't have been so fragile, if it wasn't for the lighting holes behind the wing saddle.

After glueing the formers and the cruth to the right side, I lift the side off the building board and the fuse snaped in two. Right behind the former aft of the wing saddle. Really sucked!!
But after it was built, it seems pretty strong.

There has been a lot of problems with the landing gears popping off. Also the fuses have been braking aft of the wing.

In the GaryW QA forum there is a lot of people talking about the problems they have incountered.

Don

Don, you may have gotten one of the early kits, as the new fuselage sides have smaller lightening holes just aft of the wing, and yes I broke on of them before I put the 1/8" square pieces on. It is really strong though. I can't wait to fly it.

As for the landing gear popping off, well, just don't have a hard landing. (easier said than done sometimes)

--Paul

i was thinking glow too, but you wouldnt be able to do it with this fuz, that would have to be a redesign. all the cutting on that fuz takes alot of time and $$$, me thinks a glow version would need less cutting and therefore be cheaper to produce.
as for tank posistion, it looks like a President funfly to me and that also has a nose that looks long, but you use most of that with an engine, the tank is just infront of the wing and it dosnt seam to effect the CofG a whole lot even on the lightened Kazba versions.

Take a look at the Hard Bet MkIII. The E3D looks very simuliar to the Hard Bet MkIII (HB Mk3), though I have had the HB on the market for about 3-4 yrs. now. The HB Mk3 is nitro.
http://www.hsrcm.com
Kevin

the E3D went through 6 prototypes before it was the way I wanted it, and light enough to fly properly with the $25 car motor,..i.e. hover, knife edge loop,..etc. Yes, it is a fragile plane during construction, but it is more than strong enough for all flight stresses. I even mention this in a few spots in the instructions. I have close to 1000 flights now on the purple plane pictured in the instructions/website, and it is an original kit,.. the final prototype actually, and I've popped the landing gear off it twice,..both times doing harriers to landing from an angle much too close to vertical. I did some tests with weights and it too 9 lbs of weight to shear a landing gear off. With the simple addition of a couple 1/8" vertical grain gussets I upped that to 57 lbs. I really don't understand people breaking landing gear off on normal landings with the original design, but it's been beefed up now. Apparently,.. people want to be able to cartwheel a plane without breaking anything,.. which this plane will not survive, but I've also made some changes just behind the wing to eliminate a shear point.

As for a glow version,.. the fuse would have to be re-designed or you'd break it when flipping the prop to start the engine . the lack of vibration and lack of starting forces allow you to do a lot in the way of lightening an electric. The E3D's come out right at 16 ounces built and covered,.. 21 with electronics, then just over 2 lbs with motor/gearbox. The battery is the other pound and a half in the equation. With an OS32SX (what I would use), you'd end up with about a 34~36 ounce plane,..which would probably be very nice indeed,.. but due to the tiny little prop you have to swing with the 32, it's not gonna have the "1st gear" of an electric. If you geared the OS32 so it could turn a 12X8 or 14X7 (the two props I use,..brushed versus brushless), then you'd have more usable power. The 14X7 at 7000 rpms on my brushless powered E3D has roughly 400 watts of power going into it (1 horsepower is 750 watts, so this is just over 1/2 hp), yet makes more thrust than an OS32 with 10X5, mouse can pipe, and 30% fuel(about 1.5 horsepower). This shows you how much efficiency you lose with the little props. Now,.. if someone would only come out with geardrives for glow motors, you'd see 40% planes flying with 120's swinging 45 inch props

i saw an electric Cougar 2000 yesterday, 70 quid brushless motor, and 70 quid speedo ( very cheep since last i saw ) 8 cells and swining a 12.5x6 prop, flew fantastic and with 10 mins flying time its as good as glow, despite the wind, the 0 thrust from the prop then instant power made for interesting flying. very good

Before you invest $100 bucks in a E3d you would be better off buying a good brushless system for around $200 to $250 bucks!! Then fly what ever you want!

It just doesn't make sense to spend good hard earned money on a $100 plane that's fragile! Then put a $25 dollar motor in it.

Also the fuse broke behind the wing when turning onto the runway when the tail wheel hit a crack.

The triangle stock behind the wing was in a forum that an E Zone member started, to help other members solve problems, that Gary refused to acknowledge.

Then they put the members forum in the middle of Gary's Q and A forum .
Members were working together to solve the problems they encountered.
I guess it was bad for business.

Don

I didn't refuse to acknowledge a "problem", I did address the areas that some people had a problem with. it takes time to change kit production,.. can't be done overnight, and there are several hundred of the original kit flying without any "problems",.. including my original purple plane which has more flights on it than any 3 or 4 other E3D's added together. We have several in our local club,.. one that has "broken" his a couple times in the normal spot,..jsut behind the wing,.. and several others that have dozens and dozens of flights with no problems. The plane is designed to fly, not crash, and not to land on a wingtip, or sideways. the ezone item that you mention,..with joining the threads together has nothing to do with being "bad for business",.. the moderator did that on his own, and I have no financial ties to the ezone.

I was seriously thinking about adding this plane to the many planes I have but after reading all the posts about it.. I think I will look elsewhere, even if I had one give to me... I would give it to my 6 year old to hang in his room.. Just as long as he does'nt hang it from behind the wing.....LOL Sorry.. I just had to ..


**** Fly it like you stole it !!!

Ya know... Some guys can sure talk trash about someone elses design.... I'd like to see how many quality design's they've come up with....

Paul....

Well, I am sorry but if I were to design a plane for sale I would'nt sell one until I have made sure that it is of the best quality before I put my name on it.. Maybe other people do so they can make a quick dollar... If I remember right, this was like his 6th design... Sorry, but I am sure that other people that design planes for sale use FAR more trials than that. I would have made some demo models and took out to my club and let some of my fellow fun fliers have them to try... Put hours and hours or flight time on them and get their results and adjust things until they are happy with them. Obviously there is a problem behind the wing.. Well, my own idea would be to strengthen that up and sacrifice a little weight.. I mean, big deal, that light of a plane a few more ounces is'nt going to hurt.. Sorry, but I just know I would'nt put my name on something until I know for sure that it is the best design I can possibly do or you will run into this same situation....

I think my frustration is that, when questions about the design have come up it seems to all get swept under the rug or chalked up to builder or pilot error. I've read several discussions about how to deal with specific problems, as can happen with any plane. I really was interested in reading how others dealt with this stuff but, in one instance the posts were burried in another thread (not Gary's doing). Some other questions that came up, that posters were looking for solutions to, didn't seem to get suggestions for ways to fix them, but questioned what the poster was doing wrong.
The fuse braking behind the wing is a good example. The reply was, "The plane is designed to fly, not crash, and not to land on a wingtip, or sideways". Some posters did offer ideas for adding strength to weak points to avoid this.
There was a also question about a gap between the fuse and the wing, which again other posters offered their ideas for fixing because they had the same thing happen, but it got chalked up to oversanding on the builder's part. Then someone else wrote a post saying that none of the tabs were lining up, but I never saw a response as to how to fix this, so I just trimmed mine. I don't know what the other guy did with his.
I wasn't trying to trash Gary's design and I don't have any problems with him personally. I just feel if you are going to design a plane, you should be straight-foward with answers on how to improve or modify things that might not have been worked out in the design process.

BTW Paul, whether someone who bought a plane can design one really has nothing to do with the discussion. It's true not everyone would be a great designer. That's why most people pay for kits or plans that someone else designed. Whether I can design a plane or not, shouldn't we expect to get what we pay for?
Start at page 11 for mods.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...Products+Q%26A

Don

weight is everything on a plane like this... a few oz. will make a difference in my book... Wing loading is how you make it or break it.... I would thing that an alternative could be offered with the understanding that performance would suffer..... Personally, if I built one, I'd want the total performance option......

I'd be willing to sacrifice on durability.....

Hi All.

I've been wanting an E3D ever since I saw a friend (and my electric plane "mentor") flying his. It is awesome in flight but I'm becoming concerned with all of this criticism in this thread.

Could someone offer up some alternatives? I'm talking about a similarly sized plane that flys that well. Maybe one with a removable wing for easier transport.

One other question: What would be a good brushless motor AND Lithium power setup on an E3D or one of the alternatives requested above?

Thanks,

Glenn in Den.

I agree with what Paul said. Also, you have to give Gary credit for designing a plane that will fly great with a cheap motor. Many people aren't willing to invest several hundreds of dollars on a brushless setup. I don't own an E3D, but I've talked to several people that do and they love how it flies. I've also watched many videos of it and it impressed me a lot. As Gary stated, it's designed plenty strong enough for any flight stresses. It sounds like he is continually tweaking his design to improve it. I like that!

An ounce or two difference won't matter much on a big heavy plane, but on a small light plane it makes a HUGE difference. I'll go for lighter every time, even if it means the plane is fragile. Just a personal choice. There are plenty of planes out there that are designed to be reasonably durable, but precious few that are made for ultimate flight performance at the expense of everything else. It sounds like the E3D is one of those few.