Kelly Rohrbach

My Feedback: (1)

Sorry to here of your issues 53, that has not been my experience at all. I would not ever be without one now. Sounds like you just got a bad one which sucks. I'm sure they will make it right for you. By the way what are you powering it up with. I have an old 6v nicad I use. I have to date used it on about 10 different models and each has worked perfect. The fact that there was little to no elevator trim needed proves its accuracy, provided you measure correct.

rcflier53

My Feedback: (7)

I'm sure they will take care of me. Xicoy has a great reputation. It's just a bummer when you do get a bad item, but it's a hobby and it happens. I'm hoping I can get a replacement display quickly since I'm almost ready to get this Viper in the air. I've wanted one of these CG machines since they came out, and look forward to using it on future projects.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Sorry to hear of your issue too 53..
I may have found a glitch in the software.. ??
I have a GTM Fokker DVI 1/4 scale.. if I give it the "finger test" it's about right on. If I use the Xicoy it says add another 1.5 pounds. That's too much..
As best as I know I have all the numbers put in correctly. On other planes I have it seems to be ok.
The Fokker has a VERY short nose moment. I'm wondering if that's not the problem?

Gaspar

@rcflier53. We are sorry for this issue. I have checked all our company emails and didn't find any email from you until the one you sent 4 hours ago. The replacement part will be shipped immediately.
@BobH: Usual problem with these short nose planes is that they should be absolutely at level Flight for accurate measure. Check that when using the "finger method" and the CGmeter, the plane sits in same position. If the issue persists, please email me the measures, weight readouts and a Picture of your setup, if possible side looking, so that I can repeat the calculations here.

Gaspar

HarryC

My Feedback: (1)

The problem with planes like the Fokker DVI is typically the very tall undercarriage, with the plane's CG way above the wheels so the slightest change in attitude means the CG moves a long way over the ground. That means the apparent location of the CG is very sensitive to getting the plane in the level attitude.

Mark Vandervelden

Hi RCFlier53
Im sorry to hear your having difficulty with you CG Balancer, sounds like it has a fault somewhere along the line but im sure it can be resolved.
It is very supersizing you have not had a reply from Gaspar as he is known for his quick response and second to none back up of his products.
I have found over the years him to be extremely helpful and the usual response time is minutes, some times and hour or so but always within a working day.
Perhaps your email address is incorrect, try [email protected]

rcflier53

My Feedback: (7)

I'm sure the 1st email was a problem on my side. The last few weeks both my wife and I have had problems sending and loading emails from yahoo on our iPhones. I don't fault you guys at all, it probably never even sent the email in the first place. I just sent that second one just in case, and I'm glad I did. I appreciate the super quick response and shipping of the new unit! Like I said, I knew you guys would take care of it. Thanks again to both Sonia and Gaspar!

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Thank you both for the reply. So this poses a question. Level would mean the wing in a flying attitude? The Stab in a flying attitude? The fuse datum line level?
Suppose the plane has a positive incidence on the wings and you use that as reference? Is that "level'?
The same goes for the stab.. it could have a positive incidence too.
On this plane I used the Fuse top structure as level with a bubble level. To me that seemed "Level" but maybe not THE level necessary for a good CG via the Xicoy?

HarryC

My Feedback: (1)

The problem comes from modellers measuring the CG at the wing. The true CG which is just a point in space will be somewhere inside the fuselage. When the plane is rotated so that the true CG is in a vertical line from the CG marked on the wing, the model is "level". You can have the plane at any reasonable angle and still correctly measure the CG using the weight method but you have to account for the true CG inside the fuselage moving relative to the wing. In full size the manufacturer will have specified the datum and the angle so it isn't a problem for them. However, if you use fingertips or some mechanical balancer you still have to make a judgement on what you think is level and imo it is no different with the weighing method. If you think the plane is at a level that you would judge to be ok if using a mechanical balancer or fingertips, that should be good enough.

If that still gives a big difference between the xicoy and a mechanical balancer, (then assuming that your measurements are correct and have been double and triple checked!), consider if you have a mechanical fault in your xicoy scales. I believe that Gaspar has now modified the design so the top of the scale has two rather than one bolt holding it in place and the gaps around the servo plug and between top and base, and between the top and the pcb, may be increased. I have a very early version with gaps so small they sometimes rubbed and interfered enormously with the measurement. A little bit of work with a file and a dremel to stop the interference, and on advice from Gaspar to fit a washer between the top case and the sensor bar, removed the huge errors I was getting and made the units consistent time after time. Have you checked all 3 scales with a known weight, checked that they all return to exactly zero when the weight is removed, and re-calibrated them if necessary?

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

I put some lead in a small cup and measured it on a Postal scale at 35g.
I then put this on each scale after they were Tared. Each one was close. One was 33g, one 34g and one 35g.
The small scales are so sensitive that that small of an error isn't bad to my way of thinking.
My unit came with certified accuracy for each scale. I am also running V.1.4 now.

I'll look into something else for the problem. It MUST be my measurements.. ??

rcflier53

My Feedback: (7)

Talk about great customer service! I got home and the new display unit was at my door! All the way from Spain in 2 days! Incredible!! I can't even get things from Florida in less than a week sometimes.

I plugged the new unit in and it's working awesome! I can't say how impressed I am with Gaspar and Sonia. I'll be looking forward to using more Xicoy products in the future. Thank you guys for taking care of me. The old display will be on its way back to you ASAP.

Kelly Rohrbach

My Feedback: (1)

Nice

roadtrip

Can this be used to balance a plane upside down, such as the Top Flight Beech Staggerwing. The manual requires it.

Gaspar

Yes, only you must find the way to place the plane over the sensors in a known and repeatable position, and at same time it sits in level Flight attitude.

Gaspar

Chris Smith

My Feedback: (2)

If you use the landing gear to put the airplane on scales there is no requirement to balance upside down. You will never see the full scale Staggerwing turned upside down to balance. Place the model on the scales with the gear and elevate the tailwheel loadcell to place the airplane in flight attitude. Tail draggers, bi-planes, and jets are all done the same way.

roadtrip

You know, you're right. The full scale, or any scale plane for that matter, would not be flipped upside down to balance. This never occurred to me! Now I wonder why the Staggerwing manual requires it. Hmmmmm!

causeitflies

It's probably easier to balance with fingertips upside down.

Chris Smith

My Feedback: (2)

The manual assumes the builder is using a teeter balancer. Since the wings are staggared, the teeter fits between the wings better upside down.

When using scales or load cells all of that nonsense about upside down goes away. The days of balancing heavy expensive models with teeter balancers will come to an end once you've seen how easy weight scales work.

I demonstrated the process at JOK this year on the largest jet at the meet. No way anyone would have risked putting that jet on a CG machine! We used office scales and a calculator.

skunkwurk

My Feedback: (18)

I couldn't agree more, I've been using scales now for about 2 seasons and I'm hands-down convinced it's the most effective method. It turned a very cumbersome process into a breeze. Initially I would consistently double-check using the traditional method but have grown to trust it. I now have several models specs saved which makes it easy to move gear around or different batteries. I've also started using the scales to check CG shift based on fuel load. It's great!

sc

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

I wonder where the "upside down' crap came from anyway? As if Gravity changes some how when the plane is upside down??? lol

rcmigpilot

My Feedback: (26)

Gravity doesn't change, stability does. It is easier to balance something when the majority of the mass is below the pivot point than when it is above.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

I won't disagree with the stability aspect. How ever it seems that some people seem to think that no matter the plane they will get better results with an upside down plane.
It just becomes accepted practice regardless of the reality of things.

skunkwurk

My Feedback: (18)

To rcmigpilot's point, low wing planes have typically been the type of plane which would benefit from balancing upside down, as the fuselage will hang down below the pivot point. I've built several CAP232s in the past and prior to using the scales I always had to balance them upside down. I would try both ways and it would always be too sensitive/unstable on the teeter to trust unless upside down. On some of the larger models (+35%) it started to become too difficult to do upside down. That's when I started using the scales, you just need to make sure the plane is level and you're good to go.

rcmigpilot

My Feedback: (26)

Exactly. Low wing models are balanced inverted as they're more stable upside down, whereas all high wing and some biplanes are balanced upright for the same reason - more mass below the pivot

causeitflies

Or as I said eight posts ago