Chris Moon

My Feedback: (8)

Ok, the latest scoop from the Oxai factory and other "sources"

The production Splendor does not have the dorsal fins or the slots in the fuse for that setup. QQ is still experimenting with them but told the factory that they are not required at all and to go ahead with production of the plane without that feature. There is no retro fit kit or change to future planes in store as of now as the fins are experimental and may or may not be worth making any changes in the future. All reports are that the plane flies "amazing" without them anyways.

Chris Moon

My Feedback: (8)

The first Oxai Splendor has arrived. See pics below - the plane is very large, reminds me of the PL Excellence size of fuselage. Fuse, canopy, rudder weigh 39oz, wing panels 14oz, stab panels 3.4oz

Chris Moon

My Feedback: (8)

More pics

highfly3D

Oxai superb finish as usual.. is this hand painted?

amram

I find it Interesting Marketing approach...

1st: Various pictures with all kind of new features...
2nd: Production version without some of them, with an indispensable support statement...

Does not sound technically reliable more as commercial coercion or weight issue..

Anyway Good Luck

Amram

mups53

My Feedback: (41)

Amram. I think your over thinking this. How many do you think are going to be sold wordwide when all is said and done?
Answer not enough to get upset about.
Mike

bjr_93tz

And that, Amram my friend is why you should never make public comments about Oxai products that could possibly be seen as a negative criticism
But I'm sure they'll sell enough of them to get excited about, but just not enough to get upset about???

I was thinking exactly the same with regard to the differences between Quique's plane and the production version, and the statement to support their omission.

Unfortunatley, I'll be a bit stuck for my next ship because it looks like Oxai isn't producing any GP planes anymore??

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

I don't think that was an official statement. That airplane was built before the airplane was officially announced. See another one of the same vintage here:

http://www.hobbynet-jp.com/blog-oxai...h,2012-08.aspx

That was posted in August. I don't know why the airplane doesn't have the fins. I can say, for 99.9% of the people out there, they will probably not see any benefit from them, or will be too complex to mess with. I am pretty confident in saying that it wasn't omitted because of weight, having built the prototype with not very light components, the airplane was right on the edge, but it was legal. Even using TP packs in the airplane would have brought the weight to a comfortable range.

There is a lot of speculation over this and that related to the airplane. The Illuminati does not have branches that reach into F3A; there are no ulterior motives. I can understand getting upset if you ordered something based on major features and getting something totally different. Paying for a Porsche but receiving a Jetta, if you will. But seeing what comes in to the distributor before it's spoken for, and then getting upset about it is something totally different.

The bottom line is:

1. Oxai themselves have a notice on several pages of their website stating that products are subject to change without notice. As the airplanes are quasi-custom built, this is not surprising. I don't know why this airplane does not have the fins. I won't try to pretend to give an answer.
2. The original posting was not a marketing campaign. Merely an excited writeup by someone involved. I still fly (well, own; I haven't flown a pattern contest in over three years) YS-powered PL Prod Partners. I receive no kickbacks or benefits from sharing anything from ANYBODY. The closest I get to a kickback from a hobby company is the paycheck from my full-time job as a developer for Horizon, which does not involve me working on anything remotely close to this type of aircraft. Marketing campaigns are written by people who are employed by the company/entity that compensates them for getting the message out. I am nobody.

I am sorry that people are upset and feel that the airplane was misrepresented. At the end of the day, the fins are an added area of complexity that I doubt most people would want to fool with anyway. They are a great idea, help a lot, and I'm sure you will see quite a few of these airplanes out there with the fins, but it doesn't REQUIRE them to fly well.

I hope this clears a few things up.

guille2006

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I had to say...)

My point of view; it's normal that a prototype has a lot of differences form the series airplane; I can tell from experience. This is specially true while specifically speaking about QQ personal plane. He's the designer and he MUST to push the limits of HIS designs in order to give and show a good plane without flaws. And then, there is OXAI... no more to add...
Note: some years ago a french guy CLPR showed a "small wing on the back of the plane"; I'm sure that about 90 to 95% of the persons that mounted "that lil'wing there" were unable to discover any benefit on the plane perfomance. It's just my opinion and of course I hope not to ofend anybody here.

Now let's focus on the Splendor; can you tell what technology was used to build the wing? Composite, Wood, foam+wood? Can you show a picture of the belly with the LG on place?

Thanks on advance

highfly3D

Yes as anyone else i am also interested to know how much really dose the T wing on the fuselage of CPLR & other pilots benefit... what is the advantage??

rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

One thing the T-canalyzer does is that increase rudder authority. Not only does it add a little more side area, but more importantly, it does straighten up the airflow back to the rudder, thus making it more effective. There are benefits, but some designs use them more than others. I've been flying the BJ Craft Episode recently and it has more rudder authority than anything I've ever flown. The rudder is slightly larger than the Nuance, but not enough to completely explain the difference. The Canalyzer obviously helps with rudder authority. I think on the Episode, which, looking at the new Axiom and others, I think they are using similar ideas to help the plane snap. They are reducing the wing area at the tip, but enlarging the canalyzer to put back the wing area they are losing on the wing. The Episode snaps harder than anything I've ever flown, and it is very easy to stop. I have not talked to CPLR about this, but judging by the looks of the new Axiom, I'm guessing he used the same thought process. I don't think any of these guys put stuff on their planes, just to put stuff, as that makes no sense. They experiment and try different things and determine if they work. The differences may be subtle, and may only make a change in one or two maneuvers, but if it helps, it helps. Once again, we have to remember, the people designing these planes are doing it for THEIR benefit with the sequences they fly.

Dave Lockhart is a perfect example of this. Dave experiments with different fences and such in various locations. If you look at his Bravo's, the one with the single prop has completely different fences and such as the one with the contra setup. Dave didn't just put this stuff on plane because he likes cutting up depron. Through hundreds of flights, he has experimented with them and found what works. Having had the opportunity to fly a lot of his stuff, I have to admit that it works. None of these top end FAI ships are designed to fly the lower AMA classes, and in many cases they can be harder to fly. The Episode, for example, has so much rudder, than you could easily get in trouble in the lower classes. It also has HUGE amounts of side area, whereas the Monolog, and Prolog have smaller fuse profiles and as such tend to penetrate better. They also design these planes to compensate for their weaknesses, while leaning on their skill to overcome some of the compromises it creates. If there was a magic airplane out there, we would all be flying it. All pattern planes are a compromise. QQ probably put the fences on the fuse to determine if they help. He determined they weren't necessary, so he suggested they leave them off. Plain and simple.

Arch

AmericanSpectre505

Well put Archie....


bholsten

vbortone

My Feedback: (2)

I second that. I still flying very old design (Abbra). I had the chance to install the canalizer too. I also noticed that mixing is reduced to around half of the original amounts without the canalizer. As Art said probably the main reason is that the amount of rudder deflection required is reduced so less mixing would be required.

jim woodward

Why the split ailerons?

MTK

The wing Root to Tip chordratio (RT ratio) is a key driverfor snaps and spins. Although some have gotten religion about the benefits of narrow tips (my Temptress (retired) sported the featuresince 2002 and so have my other two since) they may not fully appreciate the benefit of a much wider root. TheRTratioshould be at least 2.5 and preferably 3 or greater (Temptress has anRT of 2.95). Itty biddy wings (which has become voguelatelyin F3A),are not helping the overall flight envelope in my opinion.

Wings on my designs arearound 1100 squares and snap better than most. There is enough wing to support the weight. In fact my new Delta which still isn't finished unfortunately, sports a nearly 1200 square inch wing. Tip chord is 7" and root chord 23 1/2" and a half span of 39".... BTW, one of the biggest benefits oflarger RT ratiosis more advantageous location of the panel's AC. Cross wind affects these wing types less than wider tipped wings. I discussed these facts back 10 years or so ago, in K Factor articles

vbortone

My Feedback: (2)

It will be nice to get trimming comments and recommended settings from QQ.

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

I am sure that can come to light by flying season next year. Quique is very busy with his day job and family; in addition flying season is quickly drawing to a close here. Once he begins to fly next year some more, I am sure a lot more information has been released. A few days after I made that post, Quique left for China for two weeks and has been busy since working through a lot of the results from his meetings.

jetmech43

My Feedback: (9)

I asked the same thing but never got an answer

jim woodward

The plane looks awesome for sure. The first thing I thought of for the split ailerons would be for a small crow mix on downlines. I had a split aileron imac plane and it never stayed in trim though Is this intended for regular servos or minis? So for consistency and trim purposes, id be a little concerned. If there was an option, id take the retractable fins over split ailerons. Again though, plane looks awesome.
Jim

kochj

Too sterile looking for my tastes... ( I say that knowing I will not have a pattern plane anytime soon)
I would be very happy with one of his Biplane designs from Oxai though

cchariandy

Just say it....it's ugly. A little too Frankenstiens Monster for me..hahaha.

Sorry...not my taste at all but I am interested in the flight reports...and that's what really counts.

Colin.