Hi!
I received my Epsilon kit yesterday and I am pleased with its content. Here are some first impressions:
Later on, I will post some pictures.

The kit is delivered in a sturdy brown cardboard box filled with ripped newspaper to keep parts separated and to protect them from transport damage. There are three lite-ply sheets and one balsa sheet filled with laser cut parts. These parts seem to be of very high quality. It is obvious that the designers have tried to keep the aircraft weight down as there are many lightening holes in formers and fuselage sides.

The wing panels, stab and fin are supplied as balsa sheeted foam cores. All parts are very light and seem accurate in shape. Ailerons, elevators and fin has to be cut and in order to guide the cutting there are lines drawn on all parts. The wings have precut channels in the foam cores for servo leads and also for the plywood wing joiner. The servo wells are not precut. Since different people will use different servos I think this is a good thing. The front and rear turtle deck are also balsa covered foam, again accurately made and very light.

There is one thing that I don't like about my wing panels. They are sheeted differently. One panel is sheeted in the usual fashion with the grain of the balsa wood running span-vise. On the other panel however, the balsa sheeting has been glued together so that on the front part of the wing the grain is parallel to the leading edge, whereas on the rear part of the wing the grain is parallel to the trailing edge. I do not think it will matter but I would have preferred to have both panels sheeted in the same way.

The balsa supplied for leading and trailing edges are of light, uniform quality, balsa. The trailing edges are pre-bevelled but the leading edges have to be planed to shape. Balsa for sheeting the bottom of the fuselage is supplied already edge joined so that it can be applied in a cross-grain fashion. This balsa is of average quality and although the glue joints are good the thickness of the joined sheets varies somewhat, necessitating some extra sanding.

The cowl is gel-coated fiberglass of good, but not top-notch, quality. A coat of primer or two followed by sanding is probably needed to hide the structure of the fiberglass weave.

The landing gear is a simple pre-bent and pre-drilled two piece Dural affair, nothing fancy but it should work.

The canopy is of good quality but not crystal clear. I think I will choose to paint mine on the inside.

Apart from some small balsa parts, some dowel, a piece of plastic pipe and the building instruction that's about it. No hardware whatsoever is supplied. Again a good choice I would say. People building this kind of aircraft will have their own preferences when it comes to hardware and usually end up replacing most of the hardware supplied with other kits.

Unfortunately, in my kit, the wheel pants and the dowel for mounting the wing were missing. I have contacted my dealer and they have promised to send the parts right away. I hope they keep their promise.

The building instructions are the same as the one that can be found on the CA Model web page. The pictures are rather poor quality but there should be enough information for building this aircraft.

I have thought about what engine and servos to use and have decided not to use a 2-stroke engine as originally planned. Instead I will purchase a Saito 100. I measured the cowl and found that when mounted inverted the rocker covers of the engine will protrude about 1/2 in. below the bottom of the cowl. Servos will be Hitec 5745 digital servos. In order to keep the aircraft as light as possible I will use pull-pull linkages for both elevators and rudder.

I have a question for you guys who have already built and flown this aircraft:
All the servos are supposed to be mounted with their long side perpendicular to the fuselage datum line. I feel a little bit uneasy about this and would like to mount them in the usual fashion, i.e. long side of servos parallel to the fuselage datum line. Any thoughts about this?

/Red B.

Why would it matter one way or another? I have a sailpane with the servos installed diagonally in the fuse and it flies like any other plane.

Servos should ideally be mounted so that the horn is at right angles to the servo, and not in line. This would tend to mean the servo is paralel to the datum line of the plane. If it is in line, then the forces will cause the servo to pivot about the mounting screws, giving less deflection than intended, and changes to deflection depending on air speed. You would not notice this on the ground as a rule, as there is no back force from the control surfaces.

Throttle does not matter, forces are small and do not change.

Red B.,

Your kit sounds like my Widebody 40 that arrived on Monday. Same packing, sheeting, parts, etc. I'm glad there isn't any other hardware included. The Dural gear is okay, but not great. A bit pricey for the kit, but if it flies like everyone says they do, it's worth it.

I may mount my aileron servos on their sides so that the horns are all that show below the wing covering....if they mount well and the rods don't rub the wing. I'll have to do some fitting and shopping for long horns before I decide.

Sprink wrote: My thoughts exactly! That is why I was surprised to see that the cutouts for the servos in the fuselage are made in such a way that the servo horns would be inline with the servos. I will probably try to figure out a way to mount them in the traditional way.

/Red B.

But guys

This all becomes academic if the control is closed loop as the only real deflection will be on the tension of the cables.
I understand that if you use a pushrod the servo will rock on the rubbers when mounted sideways. But I have ised the carbon pushrod for my elevators as per Troy and see no real slop or inacuracy in elevator movement...Maybee I am not good enough to see it?
I am just getting the hardware together now for my next epsilon and I am definately going to go the closed loop method this time for all tail surfaces. No fear of failure like a Glued pushrod with the vibration asociated with a four stroke!! Added bonus it will be lighter
Just my thoughts?

Hy guys,

First, my english is very very bad........

I try to show my modifications on my Epsilon.

I add plywood for the support of engine, the fire wall is so thick. (1)

The place of the exhaust of the engine i do my way and it can do easy and fast (2)

Reforze all the corners with 1/16 stick in the interior next to the fuel tank (4)

To have access to screws of gear, i do a cover with 4 little screws (3)




In the ruder i do only 1 cut on the front line (1)
then i put 1 cmt. (- 1/2") of balsa because when i put hinge i touch the plywood of the fuselage.

I don´t remove the rear piece of ruder (2)

Then i put the preformed for hinges(3)




Sergio

philpop wrote: Height: 170 mm
Width: 133 mm

/Red B.

thanks Red. B

Good photos, EL ****CANO.

Have you considered using nylon bolts for the landing gear?

Blw Blw

really not

because at the first landing i think its broking, but i try to have a easy form to put and get out the gear, because in south of Chile in summer we do a lot of meeting in differents parts of the country, and we have to pack our planes and go for 2 days, it´s very nice....

Today i fly........mmmmmmmmmmmmmm its really a goood plane, i´m learning 3D and i hope i don´t can find a better plane to do it.

Sergio

Sergio,

Thanks. I know that you will probably be in some beautiful areas to fly. We have friends here from Chile, so we hear a lot about it.

I guess I'll stick with the stock landing gear for the moment. Good luck on your flying trips.

I just ordered an Epsilon fron CA Model. It will ship from Miami on Thursday and since I am in Florida I will have it Friday!

I plan on using it as a model to learn Pattern. Its too nice a plane to risk doing 3D with it right now. I have other planes for that.

CA Epsilon!

Not wanting to do 3D, just a pattern back-up model (Intermediate at that) and sport flier, love the looks of the Epsilon. Planning on building a Piedmont "Brio" once they are are available & will need a 1.40 for that so trying to avoid buying another 90 class engine if I can help it. I have a YS 1.10 on an MK Skystar 90.

I have a great running OS 61, is anyone flying this model with a 61? I could always try it with the 61 & retrofit a 91FX as I think the mounting is the same.

Scott

The Brio will be big $$. There may be another option soon...

When I ordered my Epislon I asked when they might have wood fuse/foam wing 2x2 meter version of the Epsilon. They said that they have had a lot of requests for this type of plane and that it is in the works right now. It will be built to use a common OS 1.60FX or a YS 1.40 Sport. I told them I wanted one as soon as the wood was cut!

They also said that they were making a 2.2x2.2 meter (85"x85") Artistic Aerobatics/3D plane for use with 50cc Gas engines. Like Chip Hyde's Vision but as a kit, ARC and ARF. Not sure if that will be wood fuse or fiberglass.

Lots of good stuff in the pipeline. I have too sell off some planes to make space!

Actually, a two meter version of the Epsilon would provide the perfect platform for the growing gasser crowd and could quite possibly become, the best selling kit of all times.
I'm courious, what do you think they'll call this new enlarged version .. Zeta or Algol ?

_________
Schpankme

>> I'm courious, what do you think they'll call this new enlarged version .. Zeta or Algol ?

Check out PL Products Partner or the Fiesta. It fits your description. I would not put a gasser in it however. I would go with a DZ, Webra 160, or even electric for good power and light weight.

Most 2 meter planes do not have enough wing area to fly properly with a gas engine. Even light engines like a ZDZ40/50 or a DA50 are still way heavier (with ignition and battery) than a 140DZ. Thats why CA plans to make a 2.2M gas AA plane. Chip Hyde came to the same conlusion with his Vision....its is also a 2.2M plane.

It's all about wing loading. The lighter it is the better the plane flies. A 10lb pattern plane will ALWAYS fly better than an 11lb plane. If you take a light plane like a ZN Partner and hang a gas engine on it, it will weight 11.5lb and fly like crap. Even it you get it below 11lb you will have all the servo's, batts and the kitchen sink in the tail to balance it and it will still fly like crap due to de-centralized mass.

To fly properly gas planes need a shorter nose moment (for balance with all flight gear on the CG) and enough wing area to get the wing loading down.

FYI, all current 25-40cc gas engines weigh the same as 50cc gas engines when fully fitted with ignition.

Well Hello AdrianM,

Hypathetically speaking, which of the two meter Pattern planes listed below would you prefer to compete with in Masters/FAI:

Note - both desgins are perfectly balanced and trimmed, with no bad tendencies, having unlimited vertical!

1.) 10lb design swinging a 17 x 12 or 15.75 x 13 (3-blade) prop

2.) 11lb desgin swinging a 22 x 12 prop

_________
Schpankme



"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW -- What a Ride!"

OK...Here we go

I'll pick #1...here's why:

Your Note cant happen...its pushed a hypothetical argument too far....the term no bad tendencies in particular given that we are talking about conventional 2M pattern planes.

A 10lb pattern plane files better than an 11lb plane. If your been flying anything for any period of time you cant argue that point. It doesn't matter what engine or prop you are swinging.

Case 1:

My GP Extra with a Saito 100 at 7.5lb flies better than my club mates 8.5lb GP Extra with an OS Surpass 120. He has more power but its not as nimble and light on the sticks as my plane. My plane lands way slower and can actually do some 3D. His has a nasty stall snap at low speed that my plane doesn't have at all. I can do everything he can do but slower and prettier.

Power coupled with more weight and a higher wing loading always result in a sluggish airplane trying to fly like its supposed to.

Case 2:

I have a Funtana 40 with a Saito 72 running CP 30% Heli. I can toss it all over the sky at any attitude (harriers, walls, parachutes, flat spins, etc), it hovers fine at ~60% throttle. Another club mate has the same plane with a Saito 100. He put it on because of posts here. It will hover just past idle..but...thats all it can do. It cant Harrier due to excessive wing rock, it snaps out of walls, he had to add a ton of lead to the tail to get the CG in the correct position and he has to fly way faster than me just to keep it in the air.

Again, power coupled with more weight and a higher wing loading always result in a sluggish airplane trying to fly like its supposed to.

2M Pattern planes and <=24% Scale Aerobatic planes will never be able to fly properly on Gas until manufacturers can get us a Gas engine with an all up weight (including ignition and mufflers) at least equal to a YS140/160DZ+pipe.

Adrian, a very good post.

I keep eyeing up the CA 27% extra, and was thinking that the new YS 160 would be a better choice than a 40 or 50 cc gasser for this, for the reasons given. You have just confirmed my view [8D].

Please keep us posted on any other developements at CA that you hear, a 2meter Widebody/Epsilon would be very nice

That plane is right on the limit of Glow and Gas. I've seen a CA 27% fly on a ZDZ40 and a DA50. It flew very well with both.

Hey 3D...

I just got my kit and I'm doing my prebuild studying of the manual. How did you install the landing gear? The instructions are unclear even though I read Spanish...lol!

Is everyone using pull pull on their elevator? The way the servos are designed to be mounted makes it very difficult to line up the D.E.P.S. I bought for it.
Tom

I got a DEPS setup for mine too. 3drukidding! used DEPS. Look back in this thread for the shots of his bare fuse to see it.