ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
06-05-2007, 05:42 AM
#28
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brunswick, OH
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
The most important thing you can do with this plane is to open up the bottom of
the wing and reinforce the gear mounts in the wing. Most, if not all of the planes
I have seen or heard about have had to do this either before the first flight
or a few flight after. The factory build is way to weak.
Other than the poor gear mounts, the plane is a keeper.
Been there, done that.
Darrell
the wing and reinforce the gear mounts in the wing. Most, if not all of the planes
I have seen or heard about have had to do this either before the first flight
or a few flight after. The factory build is way to weak.
Other than the poor gear mounts, the plane is a keeper.
Been there, done that.
Darrell
06-05-2007, 10:13 AM
#29
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
The GT 80 should be a great engine for this plane. See the thread on my first Zero for how I reinforced the gear mounts. You can do it with out cutting into the wing. Also move the elevator servos to under the cockpit.
06-12-2007, 10:56 AM
#31
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Medford,
NJ
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
Flew my zero on Sunday. I had three flights on her and three very gentle landings. I have a few issue to work out. The first is I was having carb issues with my 3-w 75. I believe the low end needle valve in backing out under vibration and changing the setting in the air. I placed some high temp thread sealer on the needle valve and hopefully that will correct that issue.
Second, the plane required about 1/4-3/8" down elevator trim to fly level. I am assuming this was due to a tail heavy situation. It did not fly like it was very tailheavy with any adverse reaction to imput, but it did feel a little floaty. I had already added 3lbs lead ring just behind the cowl front. It is ass forward as the cowl will allow. I added another 6oz to it and will see if that changes the elevator position.
Lastly, I had some problems with the tail wheel not being stiff enough and when the plane would land it did a pirroette just before coming to a stop. I have pull-pull cables andf have made the tighter.
The plane flys very easily from what I can see so far. It lands like a trainer with or without flaps. Like I said above I am running a 3-W75US on the plane and I have it move forward as far as possible. I have almost 1inch between the spinner back plate and the cowl. It is plenty of power. The heavier the engine the better with this plane because you will need plenty of nose weight.
I did not use push rods for my elevator, but put the servos in the tail. I initially built it as scaleman did, but when it was finished I felt I had to much flex in the elevator surfaces because of the length of the rods. I thought it was to much play and sacrificed the weight.
Scott
Second, the plane required about 1/4-3/8" down elevator trim to fly level. I am assuming this was due to a tail heavy situation. It did not fly like it was very tailheavy with any adverse reaction to imput, but it did feel a little floaty. I had already added 3lbs lead ring just behind the cowl front. It is ass forward as the cowl will allow. I added another 6oz to it and will see if that changes the elevator position.
Lastly, I had some problems with the tail wheel not being stiff enough and when the plane would land it did a pirroette just before coming to a stop. I have pull-pull cables andf have made the tighter.
The plane flys very easily from what I can see so far. It lands like a trainer with or without flaps. Like I said above I am running a 3-W75US on the plane and I have it move forward as far as possible. I have almost 1inch between the spinner back plate and the cowl. It is plenty of power. The heavier the engine the better with this plane because you will need plenty of nose weight.
I did not use push rods for my elevator, but put the servos in the tail. I initially built it as scaleman did, but when it was finished I felt I had to much flex in the elevator surfaces because of the length of the rods. I thought it was to much play and sacrificed the weight.
Scott
06-12-2007, 01:25 PM
#32
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
Scott,
I do not think your problem is ballance, but with the tail plane v wing incidence. The fellow who has the Zero on the video on Ultra's web site adjusted his tail plane to add incidence so he wouldn't have to use so much down trim. If you notice right at the end of the video he is pointing that out to the other guy. He told me Ultra was made aware of this and that it would be fixed in future releases...
I do not think your problem is ballance, but with the tail plane v wing incidence. The fellow who has the Zero on the video on Ultra's web site adjusted his tail plane to add incidence so he wouldn't have to use so much down trim. If you notice right at the end of the video he is pointing that out to the other guy. He told me Ultra was made aware of this and that it would be fixed in future releases...
06-12-2007, 04:13 PM
#33
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Burlington,
VT
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
ORIGINAL: docgboy
Flew my zero on Sunday. I had three flights on her and three very gentle landings. I have a few issue to work out. The first is I was having carb issues with my 3-w 75. I believe the low end needle valve in backing out under vibration and changing the setting in the air. I placed some high temp thread sealer on the needle valve and hopefully that will correct that issue.
Second, the plane required about 1/4-3/8" down elevator trim to fly level. I am assuming this was due to a tail heavy situation. It did not fly like it was very tailheavy with any adverse reaction to imput, but it did feel a little floaty. I had already added 3lbs lead ring just behind the cowl front. It is ass forward as the cowl will allow. I added another 6oz to it and will see if that changes the elevator position.
Lastly, I had some problems with the tail wheel not being stiff enough and when the plane would land it did a pirroette just before coming to a stop. I have pull-pull cables andf have made the tighter.
The plane flys very easily from what I can see so far. It lands like a trainer with or without flaps. Like I said above I am running a 3-W75US on the plane and I have it move forward as far as possible. I have almost 1inch between the spinner back plate and the cowl. It is plenty of power. The heavier the engine the better with this plane because you will need plenty of nose weight.
I did not use push rods for my elevator, but put the servos in the tail. I initially built it as scaleman did, but when it was finished I felt I had to much flex in the elevator surfaces because of the length of the rods. I thought it was to much play and sacrificed the weight.
Scott
Flew my zero on Sunday. I had three flights on her and three very gentle landings. I have a few issue to work out. The first is I was having carb issues with my 3-w 75. I believe the low end needle valve in backing out under vibration and changing the setting in the air. I placed some high temp thread sealer on the needle valve and hopefully that will correct that issue.
Second, the plane required about 1/4-3/8" down elevator trim to fly level. I am assuming this was due to a tail heavy situation. It did not fly like it was very tailheavy with any adverse reaction to imput, but it did feel a little floaty. I had already added 3lbs lead ring just behind the cowl front. It is ass forward as the cowl will allow. I added another 6oz to it and will see if that changes the elevator position.
Lastly, I had some problems with the tail wheel not being stiff enough and when the plane would land it did a pirroette just before coming to a stop. I have pull-pull cables andf have made the tighter.
The plane flys very easily from what I can see so far. It lands like a trainer with or without flaps. Like I said above I am running a 3-W75US on the plane and I have it move forward as far as possible. I have almost 1inch between the spinner back plate and the cowl. It is plenty of power. The heavier the engine the better with this plane because you will need plenty of nose weight.
I did not use push rods for my elevator, but put the servos in the tail. I initially built it as scaleman did, but when it was finished I felt I had to much flex in the elevator surfaces because of the length of the rods. I thought it was to much play and sacrificed the weight.
Scott
In regards to your elevator trim issue, I can tell you my Ziroli Zero is the same way. I carry just about 3/8" of down elevator trim to fly neutral. The plane is balanced perfectly and I have spoken with Ziroli about this issue and apparently, from what I am told, this is normal?...?...? Surprisingly, it has no affects that I can tell in the way the plane flies. Looks strange, but flies great.
I have a little more than 3lbs of weight in mine as well, same as you, a form of lead stood off from the firewall. These planes are sooo short coupled......the firewall is just infront of the leading edge of the wing. I have flown a few others with G-62's and a ZDZ 80. They all fly very well, just with a little more power. I am amazed seeing Ultra's fly with a DA-50. He must have had some serious weight in front of that one.
Good luck with it.......the Zero by far is one of the easiest and best flying warbirds. Have fun.
Ryan
07-15-2007, 04:15 PM
#34
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
Good news sports fans. The Zero has flown! The maiden pretty much went off without a hitch. We did a through pre flight checked everything 3 times (this time). We had the 24" solo prop dialed in to about 21" of pitch, and we were taching 4000 rpm on the prop, which is 7000 on the engine. Taxi tests went smoothly, the Zero tracks better than any warbird I have flown. No tendency to veer or trouble getting behind the plane on the takeoff roll. I expected more torque swing than I did, very easy to compensate for. I kept it simple on the first flight. Just got it trimed out, tested the stall characteristics: Wheels down, flaps up it broke quite suddenly off on the left wing. Speed was decient, considering the gear were down the whole flight. I expect to see and improvement when I pull the gear up, but left that for next time. With about half flaps it just mushed ahead. I made several practice approaches, and then shot my first landing attempt. With half flaps I was landing long, and started to osolate, so I powered up, and went around. The 2nd attempt was better, still a little long but was a deceint landing. Post landing inspection revelaed the glue goint on the forward retract rails had failed, causing some cracking of the sheeting and covering. Nothing major, but when I repaired it I added fiberglass to the rib bays in the retract area on both the top and bottom sheeting.
Unfortunatly my 2nd flight attempt was less than a success. I think the left main tire starte to rub against the strut, causing drag, and the tail to pitch up on takeoff roll. Result was a confetti shower of solo prop blades, and a Gene Barton spinner worse for wear.
Unfortunatly my 2nd flight attempt was less than a success. I think the left main tire starte to rub against the strut, causing drag, and the tail to pitch up on takeoff roll. Result was a confetti shower of solo prop blades, and a Gene Barton spinner worse for wear.
07-16-2007, 01:07 PM
#39
My Feedback: (2)
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
Way to go Robert. But that prop strike had to hurt the pocket book. Is that the solo prop in the pictures? I've flown at that field awhile back. Being in the middle of a golf course doesnt hurt. Do ya'll get advice from the grounds keepers?
Edwin
Edwin
08-31-2007, 12:24 PM
#43
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
The 450 should work fine. Just be prepared to add nose weight as needed.
Update to the Zero: I ate up a 2nd set of prop blades when the nose pitched over again on take off. Worse, the plane had veered onto the grass runway, and when the nose went over, the plane flipped onto it's back and broke off the vertical fin. I have now re-attached the fin, and am about to try, try again. When I had the fin/rudder off the plane I was supprised how heavy it was; must have weighed a pound! I melted the foam out of the fin, and chipped away some solid glops of resin to lighten it up a bit, before re-attaching. I beleive the issue is that on the first take-off that went without a hitch, the plane needed a bunch of down trim to fly level. Having dialed that in, I wasn't holding enough back elevator on take off. Don't know of another possibility, and nothing else had been changed, and the weels wern't binding. I also recall not using flaps on the initial takeoff, but did on the other tries. Probably will go back to no flap, and full back elevator, then get ready to ease off fast! I have to do the same thing with my Hangar 9 PT-19, or it goes right over on the prop. The nose over also broke the canopy front and center sections. I had a spare front section, but needed a new middle section. Repeated calls and e-mails to Ultra-rc went unanswered, so I ordered a canopy from Ziroli. Just need to cut out the center section, as that's all I need. Plan on flying Sunday. Will post results.
Update to the Zero: I ate up a 2nd set of prop blades when the nose pitched over again on take off. Worse, the plane had veered onto the grass runway, and when the nose went over, the plane flipped onto it's back and broke off the vertical fin. I have now re-attached the fin, and am about to try, try again. When I had the fin/rudder off the plane I was supprised how heavy it was; must have weighed a pound! I melted the foam out of the fin, and chipped away some solid glops of resin to lighten it up a bit, before re-attaching. I beleive the issue is that on the first take-off that went without a hitch, the plane needed a bunch of down trim to fly level. Having dialed that in, I wasn't holding enough back elevator on take off. Don't know of another possibility, and nothing else had been changed, and the weels wern't binding. I also recall not using flaps on the initial takeoff, but did on the other tries. Probably will go back to no flap, and full back elevator, then get ready to ease off fast! I have to do the same thing with my Hangar 9 PT-19, or it goes right over on the prop. The nose over also broke the canopy front and center sections. I had a spare front section, but needed a new middle section. Repeated calls and e-mails to Ultra-rc went unanswered, so I ordered a canopy from Ziroli. Just need to cut out the center section, as that's all I need. Plan on flying Sunday. Will post results.
09-03-2007, 08:09 PM
#44
Junior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kingwood,
TX
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
Mine also needed lots of down trim. Stab incidence is off. Nothing you can do about it unless you want to change the incidence. Will make tail section look funny. You could try to add 1-2 degrees of downthrust by adding a washer or shim to the engine. The increased downthrust would help the horiz stab need less lift allowing for less downtrim. The end result is the plane will not climb as much under power. Mine flies great regardless. Will fly super slow with flaps and no bad tendencies. I have about 20% down mixed in with full flap deflection and there is absolutely no change in the planes attitude. When taking off you could (1) move your elev trim back where you would normally like it and then adjust the trim after take off each time, or (2)Hold about 1/4 up elevator during your initial take off roll to compensate for the tendency to nose over. I stick with option #2 cause it is easier. I take off and fly on high rates and use 50% expo. Hope this helps. Let us know the results of your next flight.
09-24-2007, 12:05 PM
#48
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: rio rancho,
NM
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
Ok, scalebirdman, looks like this Zero is pretty Fugly. I try to put the saito 450 in but it does not fit so I put a 3w50 insted. Just to ask The last Question from you. Can you tell me what should i look forward to in the first flight? How should I approch this plane during takeoff and Landing? I put a lots of money in to this thing and sound like I made big mistake buying CHINESS again! Sounmd to me like you know way more then me and have more experiance flying, and if this bird did not do you good it must be something wrong with design. I may should just hange it for conversation. Tell me that I am wrong so it make me feel better. and after all do you thing 3w50 would pull this fugly bird? Thanks for your thought
09-24-2007, 12:57 PM
#49
Junior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kingwood,
TX
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ULTRA-RC 92" ZERO ARF #2
Azad,
Maybe I can help you. My plane flies great with a ZDZ 80. The stab incidence is off. Ultra knows about this but it fixing it would require new plugs and I guess the Chinese are too cheap to make them. This makes the plane climb as the the tail incidence counteracts the natural downthust that occurs under power. This means that if you set the elevator as it would normally be at neutral then the plane will climb. It also means that the tail will not come up to quickly causing nose over. However, once in the air you will have to use just about all of your down trim to get it to fly without climbing. You will find that this plane will need about 1/8 - 1/4 of down to fly level. This may look funny but I assure you this is what it takes. So what I would do for your maiden is to mechanically start at 1/8 down (or the thickness of the elevator). This will give you a little down to start but you should have enough trim to adjust if you need more. My plane took alot of lead to balance but is perfect at 6" behind the leading edge at the sides of the fuse. The plane will land without flaps but at this weight it will need to come in hot. I land mine with about 45 deg of flap and mix in 20% down trim. With this setting my plane does not change attitude at all when flaps are deployed. I also have the flaps drop with a 1 second delay. If you have a JR9303 you can program this in. Slows down even more than my Stuka and does not seem to want to stall. When it does stall it is extremely slow and the nose drops. Thats it.
Actually this is a good flying plane. I know that it has some short comings but you will be happy once you fly it. Good luck and let us know how it goes.
Maybe I can help you. My plane flies great with a ZDZ 80. The stab incidence is off. Ultra knows about this but it fixing it would require new plugs and I guess the Chinese are too cheap to make them. This makes the plane climb as the the tail incidence counteracts the natural downthust that occurs under power. This means that if you set the elevator as it would normally be at neutral then the plane will climb. It also means that the tail will not come up to quickly causing nose over. However, once in the air you will have to use just about all of your down trim to get it to fly without climbing. You will find that this plane will need about 1/8 - 1/4 of down to fly level. This may look funny but I assure you this is what it takes. So what I would do for your maiden is to mechanically start at 1/8 down (or the thickness of the elevator). This will give you a little down to start but you should have enough trim to adjust if you need more. My plane took alot of lead to balance but is perfect at 6" behind the leading edge at the sides of the fuse. The plane will land without flaps but at this weight it will need to come in hot. I land mine with about 45 deg of flap and mix in 20% down trim. With this setting my plane does not change attitude at all when flaps are deployed. I also have the flaps drop with a 1 second delay. If you have a JR9303 you can program this in. Slows down even more than my Stuka and does not seem to want to stall. When it does stall it is extremely slow and the nose drops. Thats it.
Actually this is a good flying plane. I know that it has some short comings but you will be happy once you fly it. Good luck and let us know how it goes.