RE: Biplane Advanture
 

If anything could work well, I would think that it would be just the oposite~
Usually Biplanes can handle more weight w/o neg effects due to the lighter wing loading...
At least that is in the traditional sense of planes....
You are absolutly right though... There is a weight limit.
A Biplane would have to b made lighter to begin with just to meet the weight limits imposed by the FIA rules (not sure if I got that right)
and a gasser plane might need to be beefier to begin with...
The ZDZ 40F3a was designed with all this in mind though.... It is very light weight and very smooth...
Very little to no vibrations...
Compared to a YS 170! That is a monster of a engine! And a 4-stroke to boot!
I have not made a comparison between the two, but I would be willing to bet the dierences would by nominal...

But I guess it doesn't really matter anyway....
I am just raming my head against a wall...
Untlll I am able to design and build my own pattern plane I am out of luck! And that will not happern anytime soon...

Justin

RE: Biplane Advanture
 

Looks like my Trick 90 only with a extra top wing.

RE: Biplane Advanture
 

Justin it is not that Gassers have no place in pattern.

They may very well have a place. But the ZDZ 40F3A engine is likely not the engine for it. Its a full 10-12oz too heavy compared to the YS and who cares if it has more power. Its a brick compared. The YS 170 weighs 32 oz without exhaust the ZDZ 40FAI engine with ignition battery is at minimum 3/4lb heavier. You are talking it weighs 40% more than the engine the model was designed for. This takes and adds a full pound rough numbers to a 10-11lb model. It increases model weight by 10%...That is a huge the engine is a Brick. All this and the FAI rules require the model to be under 11lbs....So regardless of a bipe handling the weight....the Adventure will handle the extra overall weight it just won't handle it all in the nose and still balance. The plane however flies very well at 11.5-12lbs. I loaded it up and tried it at heavier wing loadings.

ZDZ in my opinion didn't get a pattern flyer involved in the design of the engine or there could be places to save weight. They say its designed for F3A and yet I don't know of anyone that has actually made it work on the level that a YS has worked. Right now its not a viable alternative except in special airframes and those airframes don't currently exist.

This Adventure while being a very special airframe is not that kind of airframe.


The F3A bipes that are currently on the market are at least 10.5lbs These are the light ones by Oxai and the airframes are over $4000 for the Oxai bipes. CA models makes the Scandalous and its a 11lb model with the YS in already. So now you are Even heavier yet. But the price tag is a bit better to swallow. The quality takes a bit of a gulp as well compared to the Oxai stuff. You get what you pay for.

So my comment this is not the plane to ruin for an experiment. If you would like one....I know there an Adventure in the USA that is in the box. Never opened.

There is not room for the pipe, there is no way to balance the model with that extra 12oz of weight up front and then add in the extra ignition battery, and the larger diameter prop...which means longer landing gear and even more weight yet.

Do all this in a model that is as light as it can be at 10.5lbs with the YS engine....so you are going to be an easy 1lb over weight and need another 5-6oz of tail weight to get it to balance.

So by all means if you feel its possible then I know where to get one.

To run a Gasoline engine, the engine needs to be lighter than the ZDZ 40F3A engine in my opinion, and you need to have specially built airframe for it.

Guys like Dick Hanson or yourself can built such a thing I'm sure. It will take special care and will be a totally new design around the gasoline engine.

As I said at $4000 price tag and the associated issues it would be a shame to ruin a good model.

This is not the model for that experiment.



Troy Newman
Team JR, Team Oxai, Team YS, Central Hobbies, Team Cool Power

RE: Biplane Advanture
 

At the end of the day if you are willing to spend 4k for an airframe, who cares about the expense of 30% fuel for the YS.

RE: Biplane Advanture
 

Troy,
You have a wealth of knowledge related to the pattern planes and the entire competition scene!
I guess when you look at the engine, it is very light when you compare it to other 40cc engines... But when you compare it
to the Needs of a pattern engine, it just won't fit...
If you are looking at a plane that cost well over 4,000 just for the airframe, there is no doubt that it is possible to make a engine of equall perrformace!
I not sure what that would involve but I think it would involve lots and lots of light weight titanium or some other rare metel!
It would be this or have a different class for aircrafts with gas engines! And this is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever!

I think I will use it in my orginal plan and just forget about trying to re-invent the wheel...

Sorry to get off topic and Hijack your post,....

Justin Koch

RE: Biplane Advanture
 

That ZDZ 40cc F3A is a US mod and not factury.
Its only a slightly lightened version of the standard engine. Apart from that, it has nothing repeat nothing that warents that "F3A" branding.

Why buy a 4000 buck pluss Sate of the Art beauty and strap on a cheap and simple, great big thumping gasser with no decent soft mount or even a well sorted pipe?
What do you achieve?

RE: Biplane Advanture
 

Troy

Any setting up tips for this model, In particular C of G. I assume you left the wing incidences exactly as set up on the model. Also engine thrust. Using the YS 170 Mount the spinner is not flush with the nose ring. There is a bigger gap at the top of the nose than the bottom (altho' I notice on the Naruke website the gap is bigger at the bottom of the spinner - http://homepage3.nifty.com/naru/page038.htm ).

Zi Chun Lin

Where did you get the model stand?

Brandon.

RE: Biplane Advanture
 

What I found flying the model is that the less down thrust and actually a little more right thrust was good on the model.

My Cg is about 70mm back from LE of the bottom wing. I put everything in as shown on the Naruke site...In fact my battery pack 2300mah nimh was up with the RX on top of the fuel tank. The Naruke site I think shows the battery pack back with the rudder servo.

The model grooves very well. I like the way it flies. It has different snap characteristics in that it snaps differently upright or inverted. So I set up a Flight mode for positive snaps. It took lots of elevator and lots of aileron. I even had to change servo arms to get the throw needed. Now the snaps are amazing....with the higher elevator and aileron throw.

Keep a close eye on the inter-plane strut pins. Mine got a little loose right away and I ended up putting some clear nail polish on the pins to tighten them up.

I have also made a mod to the center cabin strut to keep it tighter. I used some CF bracing to keep the front and rear uprights from moving independent of each other. Now the model is quite stiff.

I like the plane it has some good attributes. I have started doing some modification to mine since I have flown the Euphoria by Quique. I think the little changes I made will improve the Adventure even more.

Mine came out pretty light as its just a hair over 10.5lbs.... 4775grams I made some changes and added some weight and its much better now. It was a little floaty before...now its better in turbulence than before.

The model will groove very well with a 17-13APC on the 170.

I basically used all the same stuff as Naruke did on his. Of course I used JR sevros instead of the Futaba ones but... everything else was the same setup.

The model gets a thumbs up. I think the Euphoria is better in the wind for sure...They are just different models...Mixing is very low on both planes.

I have some new testing and trimming to do to the Adventure. I plan on getting on that in the next few weeks.

I'll have some more details on the changes I made to the model.

Troy