Don,

Just checked the email, but mine CG is at 11,5cm.

I have an (old) Saito 50 in mine at the moment. But if I could find a 62 with the same dimensions I would replace it. Power is scale with not much spare at the moment.

I have two videos online flying the model, one here:

http://youtu.be/XUjDE7uBhe4 And one here:

http://youtu.be/u_nfEaI4BFM

Thank you Don.. Don and I have a long history of sharing. Don loves to get into the nitty gritty of things. It's all good.
Except, 40+ years in engineering has taught me that overthinking a problem does not necessarily lead to a solution :P.
Sometimes you need to step back and look at what's trying to be achieved. The "process" in itself is not a solution.
I do have some experience with the SE5a. So its not a complete mystery to me on a practical basis.
The SE5a was SO STABILE when it was introduced early pilots re-rigged the plane to make it more aerobatic. They later discovered that the plane provided a much better gun platform
that what they were used to flying and returned the plane to the original rigging.
Essentially the design of the plane is very stabile with 5 degrees incidence and dihedral on the wings and stab. Zero thrust on the engine. So effectively -5 down thrust on the engine.
Because of this, its one of the reasons the plane doesn't respond to ailerons only.
Enjoy the winter all

Between alignment, incidence, struts, cabanes, rigging, the whole nine, I don't see anything out of the ordinary about spending upwards of two or three weeks sometimes depending on the plane and how much you want to put in to the detail. Bipes can be touchy if not properly set up. As for the OP, looks like you got a good grip on yours. Good luck with the re-maiden. I'll bet it flies a lot better.

Don....The Hangar 9 "Angle Pro" measures to 1/10 of degrees...
One thing I have noticed with many pilots maidening is the unexplainable urge to keep flying at full speed once airborne.
My routine is to get up to take off speed and slightly above , get airborne to about 30-40 ft and then cut back immediately to half gas to let the plane settle in, do a quick trim if necessary to keep it flying relatively straight for about 100 ft. then begin gentle circuits. This still may require holding in manual trim to keep her flying level until I can come around for a fly-by and then readjusting the trim as I am looking at the model coming at me, or flying straight away from me.
I have seen so many pilots getting their hands full in a hurry at full gas because the plans is over reacting at full speed to any rigging or incidence problems.
Just wondering what your "maiden routine" is or any other pilots have to say?
When were you planning on re-maidening?

It seems I was doing some "creative reading." Your model clearly flies well with that balance. With the current amount of nose weight in my model, it balances at a significant (but probably still acceptable) nose-down attitude, when I place my fingertips at the 11cm location. At 10cm back it looks perfect (to my eyes). Anyway, I think it's ball-park correct for the next flight.

Getting a model ready to fly is never too much work. Like I said the thrust angles aren't near as critical as the balance, incidences and alignment. As you have it, a little nose heavy for first flight requires adequate elevator throws. The first flights will be uneventful, now.

Answer: It was today!

This morning I drove over a mountain range and along a river valley to get to another club's field. It's Saturday here so I thought I'd just get a feel for the new field and do an engine test and maybe fly tomorrow. Well, the engine just couldn't have been any more perfect. It started immediately with the high end at 9800rpm and the idle at 2700, after not running for a year. And it ran consistently all during the test. Add to this, that it was a beautiful day with a nice breeze blowing right up the strip. So I knew I had to fly.

I final pre-flight check showed that all the rigging and assorted nuts were still tight...but that a couple of the screws holding on the radiator were a little loose. So I tightened those up and added a drop of CA to the wood underneath for good measure.

Then I fueled her up, started the engine, and taxied out onto the grass strip. The grass was a little thicker than the dirt field I'm used to so I had to taxi slowly to keep the tail down. Then I eased on the throttle and off she went right down the middle of the strip and then climbed gently into the air. While it did need some trim, I knew immediately that the prior serious problems were gone. The balance seemed fine. And a couple of clicks of right aileron and one of right rudder got it flying fairly well thumbs-off. It banked easily (in fact almost TOO easily) both to the left and to the right. It also needed a couple of clicks of down elevator. By the time I had gotten all the basic trimming done, the 5 minute warning on the Tx sounded and I called for a landing and settled into the pattern. I eased off the throttle and it settled right down onto the field and rolled out without problems.

This was the only flight of the day. A post-flight check revealed that two of the scale aluminum brackets that hold the radiator on had broken through (from vibration). I'll need to make some stronger ones from brass. Also the 5 minute flight looks like it used a little less than half a tank, so that's fine.

But it's good to know that I once again have a flyable model...and that flying really is like riding a bike.

Next time, I'll ask someone to take some in-flight photos/videos. It was a little hard since I don't really know anyone at this new club.

CONGRATULATIONS!!! Very happy you got everything all straightened out. That's a lot of rigging on that plane. A lot can go wrong if something's not right. But it sounds like you've got it set up pretty good. Have fun with it now.

Awesome!

Ta Da !

SWEET! The smile on your face after it flew well must have been big.

By the way, for those who asked about my recipe for PC10, here's my mixture: 1 pint of Nelson's PC10 (which I feel is a bit too olive), three small bottles of Testor's flat red, one bottle of flat brown, and one bottle of flat black. On the test piece you can see the unpainted solartex on the left, the unaltered Nelson's PC10 in the middle, and my custom mix on the right. The Testor's acrylic will separate from the Nelsons if it sits for several hours but it isn't a problem. Since this is a custom mix and probably hard to reproduce exactly, it's worth mixing up enough for the entire model...including any needed for future patches.

This mixture (which is somewhat similar to the mixture used in actually PC10) results in a color that looks (and photographs) more brownish in sunlight and slightly more greenish in shade, which matches historical descriptions.

"I love it when a plan comes together".
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith.

Good job.

Abu, awesome job. Your diligence paid off with a perfect maiden. Congrats.

Really appreciate the PC-10 formula. I think your custom color looks very scale and has the right hue.

FWIW from a UK site a while back: poss Dan San Abbott ( quote not sure)

"In Its earliest form PC10 was a mixture of 17 parts yellow Ocher to which 1 part of lamp black was added by weight of dry pigment. This was mixed with either a cellulose acetate an oil varnish or some other glossy liquid medium, giving the finished coat a tendency to look slightly green under certain conditions. Ex-works aeroplanes could therefore tend toward a greenish-brown shade-though still predominately brown-but after the machine was in service for awhile the effective color was a positive brown.

I'm sure I've read that before and it gave me a starting point for mixing paints. Technically, people will argue that PC10 (and later PC12) were not "paints" per se, similar to arguments about what "color" clear doped linen was.

I was surprised at how much red could be added while affecting the PC10 very little. In terms of glossy, I like the way my mixture looks under a couple of coats of Nelson's Flat Clear. It's also worth noting that when first applied it looks a bit greener and becomes browner as it dries.

I consider my color deficiency an advantage in these cases! I won't sweat the color stuff! It all looks good!

You may have a "note from the doctor" ( ) but I think a lot of modelers are just blind to color variations in the same way that non-musicians (like me) are "tone-deaf" to musical subtleties. Before you can see a difference, you have to care about a difference.

Very true indeed.

Don, congrats on your drama free flight! Next stop the 1/3 SE5a! You are ready for it! Lol
fyi about 8% of males are color blind while no females are! Go figure.

I don't think I'll ever be financially reading for a 1/3 scale model!

There's "color-blindness" and then there's "color-indifference." It has long been recognized that men (in virtually ever culture) use fewer color terms than women. Most researchers chalk this up to the "nurture" side of the nature-nurture debate. Male culture/language just doesn't stress color use. As evidence of this, males who work in design fields (artists, graphic designers, etc.) have a larger working vocabulary of color terms.

Check out the following very interesting interactive display of male vs. female color naming:

http://www.datapointed.net/visualiza...olor-names-d3/

Don, I assume you are talking about the coloration on your particular SE5 F-904?...I'm not sure anymore which was darker PC-10 or PC-12 but I can tell you that I personally tried to do a color match of F-904 with a printers Pantone Matching System book ( PMS) about 15 yrs ago before they refurbished the plane, ( in the same color again) It was a rather dull cloudy day as is usual it seems in England. There was not dark green in the book dark enough for the book to match it!!
But I did take my own photos using Kodak Echtachrome film to use as my documentation color.
Somewhere along the line of this particular aircraft somebody decided to paint it a very dark green almost black, I have never seen another WWI aircraft with this coloration.

Women see more shades of colors than men do or can. It seems as though in reds for instance women are more able to see variations in the shade etc. of reds. I was watching a program where 8 color cards where presented. Men would typically pick a difference in 4 or 5 at the most. Women on the other hand picked all 8 cards as being different. Which they were.
I was thinking after I posted my earlier reply how many scale judges are color blind? I would guess that over the years at least some were. Who's to know? I doubt if any judges are tested for it lol.

To be honest, I wasn't trying to match any particular aircraft. Rather I was just after a color that I personally found appealing. As far as photographing color, light and viewing conditions are everything. Consider the following two photos of my SE5a taken on the same day, literally minutes apart (with the same digital SLR). The first was taken in morning sunlight and looks very brown indeed. The second was taken no more than 5 minutes later in the "open shade" of the pits and looks extremely dark. This is not primarily an issue of exposure. It's how the wavelengths of the light bouncing off the pigments affects what our eyes perceive.