RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

At 5Gs less motor I would think finding some plans out there would be a better path. Talk about WOW!

A few creative nights with some foam and you can be one of the cool kids too. I agree it's an awsome looker but not for that much. No disrespect to the kitter at all, it's beutiful.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Just finished. Try to crank the Taurus 62cc tomorrow and fly when weather permits.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Great job, it looks real nice.
Let us know how it flies.
I'd come and watch if I was a little closer to Montrose.

Jim

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Maybe it'll show up at the R.M. Big Bird Festival.

Jay

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Is it big enough? (80" wingspan)

Jim

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

88" W.S., 25lbs., Taurus 62cc. Go back to page 3 for some construction pics. Jay

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Cool. Maybe I will see it fly then.

Jim

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Anyone notice this model came in two different schemes?

That is, I have photos of what I believe to be the first offered ARF, where the Pants are mostly white, and the fuselage has white on the top.

Then there's the one that has red pants and no white on the top of the fuselage.

I have the second. I actually like the other one better. Bummer![:@]

To see this model, use this link. It's one of those sites where you cannot download a photo.

http://jsbmodellismo.it/Manuali/GEE%...20R3%20ING.pdf

Here's the other one. I really don't like the scheme. I think I may remove the white on the fuselage and in it's place put "TEXACO" I'll also add white to thefuse top. Not difficult for me because I do model graphics.

I also believe I'll paint the wheel pants. The white works and looks better.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Try reading the first few pages of this forum to answer your questions.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Mr. Casey,

I have absolutely no idea where you are directing me for answers about the two different schemes on the same models?

Are you speaking of apples and oranges?

I'm comparing two identical models.

Click on my link.

Charles

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Apparently I was one of the first to receive the Gee Bee R3 ARF. It arrived with no assembly manual, CD instructions, etc. I called the supplier and learned that the early ARFs were sent without instructions, but that instructions were available online. I had already searched online and found extremely inadequate instructions, even for an experienced modeler. The technician looked at the online instructions and agreed. Much improved instructions were soon available. Now to the point; during that discussion I mentioned that the covering scheme did not match the original ads. His response was simply that "licensing problems" arose and that the scheme had to be changed. I think that the new scheme looks fine, obviously a subjective decision. I did add black stripes to the wheel pants and used my Stika machine to had graphics to the rudder. I also wanted to cover up the fuselage structure showing through the canopy. I used Depron foam to make a cockpit floor and pilot backrest to accomplish that objective. Pictures shown in an earlier post.

One gripe; the method of using metal clevises to attach the flying and landing gear support wires is inadequate. If the lines are made tight enough to work properly, tension on the clevis pins prohibits the pin from aligning with the hole on the other side of the clevis; making the clevises particularly difficult to close; needle nose pliers and a small screwdriver are required. I suspect small turnbuckles would be better but have yet to locate some that are small enough. Twelve turnbuckles would be needed. Anyone have any suggestions?

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Have you finished and flown your R3 yet? As stated in an earlier post, my first flight was a near disaster. Despite an out-of-sight landing in a cornfield, the only damage was broken flying and landing gear support wires. Repairs made, waiting for warmer weather to try again.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Graupner has small turnbuckles at a reasonable price, about $3 a piece. Type Graupner turnbuckles in Google.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Combat,

Thanks for sharing that information. It all helps.

About that scheme I like. I actually do model graphics and offer the Texaco text and correct period logo.

I will attempt to remove the white material on the fuselage sides. With any luck, I'll cover the top third with white vinyl and add the thin black accent stripe to the fuselage. I'll place the color Texaco logo on the nose and size white Texaco lettering, outlined in black, for the fuselage sides. Possibly a black Texaco logo for the tail or numbers?

The Texaco for the wing could be just a bold black outlined letter allowing the white of the wings to be the letteringcolor. I don't believe Texaco would look good in any other color besides white?

I'm at a loss with the flying wires, because I haven't started assembly yet. However, I may consider aluminum welders rod. It resembles flying wires. Airfoil shaped aluminum is also available, but I don't know how small in width?

I may paint the pants so the red is just at the bottom.

I really like the other scheme.

I still have to decide on what engine to use.

What are others using? What's the largest this model will handle?

Charles

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

I just got mine. I'm planning on using a Saito 125, but I haven't started construction yet, and I don't know how well the saito 125 will work out on this plane.

Jim

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

I don't believe I'll go 4S even though I have a couple of Enya 120's and an OS 90. I don't do electric, so that'not a possibility either.

I have plenty of engines, from 40's, 55's, 60's and even larger 2S like 120's and 1.8 and a 1.2

Engine weight and balance should be taken into consideration also.

My Enya 55 may be a good choice?

Charles

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

In my opinionfor what that's worthnot much :). I'd go with as big a 4S as reasonable to make it as correct as possible. Even though this plane was never a true production plane, Gee Bees as you know were basically just an engine with a prop and some wings. I have not purchased this plane yet but I contemplated it. At that time I was considering a Saito 180 for it.

Again, for what it's worth. I don't think id like it nearly as much with a 2S in it from a sound perspective if nothing else.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Draces,

Does this model require extra weight to balance correctly on the suggested CG?

My personal guess is at least 50 to 75 of these models have been sold. A guess.

No one's talking?

The 75 2S that Combat 20 is using could be the best of both worlds. Looks like the weight and power is there, plus it fits under the cowling.

Am I correct with this observation?

Charles

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Avaiojet,

I don't have this plane. Sorry, I can't be of much assistance. I just wanted to put my idea of putting a big 4S in it, just like the real plane (even though this plane was never real).

I wish I had it but I went a totally different direction and purchased the 60-90 sized U-Can-DO.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Draces,

What is a U-Can-Do?

Photos?

Charles

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Well, it's in a box so no pictures of mine but it's a great planes model and it's supposed to be an 'easier' way to learn to do 3d maneuvers. We'll see.

Here is a stock photo.

http://www.greatplanes.com/airplanes/gpma1271-don-a.jpg

Nowto get back to the issue of the 4S question, what are others putting in these things?

I thought a 180 would be great because it would;
-sound good
-enable the plane to go fast (it is a racer after all)
-would be true to the design of the original gee bee's (really, probably way more motor than the plane needs)
-could easily be used in lots of other planes if the wings folded from the excessive speed :)

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

WOW!

It's a great looking model.



Charles

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

A reply to Jim and anyone else interested in this thread. Hello All!

I am working on my second Gee Bee R3 from Hobby Lobby. The first was ordered in June 2008, and got shipped into me in July. I had pre-ordered and was in the first lot of 50 imported by Hobby Lobby. I ran into the same problems that many others did; poor documentation, pictures did not match the model, lack of assembly detail, etc. Largely, I had to "wing it" and depend on many years of model building to get it assembled correctly.

I must say that I was tremendously impressed with the quality and craftsmanship of the model, and the overall completeness of the kit, but more than a little concerned about the engineering details (or lack thereof) and the relative "lightness" of the construction.

My plan all along was to go electric, and I debated long and hard about whether I should install the firewall block off plate on the F1 former. I decided to leave it off (bad decision!) and go with the open lattice work for good airflow under the flight. I also decided to put in two triangular-shaped vents in the belly of the fuselage, to aid in venting the airflow. Should have made them bigger! I also built a pair of magnet mounting rings for the cowl (using rare earth magnets, with one ring glued to the front side of the F! former, and the other to the inside of the cowl) to aid in lining up the cowl with the backside of the spinner back plate. The cowl is simply not long enough to hit the reinforced mounting plates on the fuse, without the prop sticking way out in front of the cowl. I also reinforced the female mounting bracket for the canopy, as this looked a little weak and flimsy to me (boy, do I hate being right, but in this case I should have gone further).

The maiden flight of the Gee Bee was in late July 2008, and resulted in a catastrophic failure of the airframe and loss of the aircraft.

At take-off, the plane veered "hard left" (due to the high angle of attack of the wing, and P-factor influence) and headed for the tall grass at our field. I was able to correct in time, but the controls were way too sensitive and I was over-controlling (I used the original .PDF instruction manual posted on July 2008 which contained erroneous flight control surface settings), but I started to get it settled down. I was another 10 seconds into the flight when the canopy blew off the airframe (ripping off the mounting tab, and blowing off from FRONT to REAR. The resulting buildup of air pressure in the airframe did a lot of nasty things to the interior, one of which ended up with the servo tray (for the elevator) popping off from it's supporting framework. Loose that, and you don't have any pitch control. The plane went in at a 20 degree angle. Ouch!

I documented the cause and effect nature of the failure and the resulting crash, and sent the report off to Hobby Lobby.

At this point in what is beginning to be a very long post, I must say that I can not say enough GOOD things about ;)Hobby Lobby; they are quite simply, one of the finest, most professional and ethical retailer that I have ever had the pleasure of dealing with. Bar none!

My letter to Hobby Lobby was assigned a case number, and was late picked up by Jay Graves, the President of Hobby Lobby. Jay got behind the note, and with a lot of help from Mike Hines in R&D, got the manufacturer to make some changes to the design, and between the manufacturer and Hobby Lobby, they agreed to replace the model at No Charge! Its not often that you meet good people like this, but in this crazy hobby / sport (?) of ours, you have a good chance of meeting them sooner rather than later.

I'm including some photos of the aftermath of last year's maiden flight, as well as some technical details of this year's build of the second Gee Bee. If there is enough interest in some of the construction details and photos from the second build, I'll be happy to do another post. I can also be reached at [email protected] for individual request for info, so as not to bog down this thread or forum.

Ciao,

B

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Thanks for this lengthy reply.

Absolutely, I'm extremely interested. Where does one start, you've written so much?

Interesting, I thought their first 50 were pre-sold by June? I'll have to see when I purchased mine. Based on what you claim, that is, "improvements" I hope I have one of the second batch with these improvments.


Glad to see you got through the assembly.


Models can sometimes be too light. Something hardly ever realized. Kudos for knowing this.

Obviously, the "firewall" plate is necessary. Live and learn. I know of no real aircraft or model that allows air to enter where the firewall is?

Nothing wrong with being right about something. I learn from those individuals that are "right."

Pilot error? One does have to build up speed slowly and wait for rudder response before leaving the ground, especially with light models. The rudder is your friend.

How do you know they were "erroneous? What about the other 49 modelers who didn't experience that issue? Or did they?

Please don't take this the wrong way, but that does have some amusement to it. You're lucky the covering didn't peel back or explode! I hope there wasn't many guys at the field.

About leaving off the firewall, what were you thinking?

Interesting. Every problem you had was caused by or brought on by your own actions and decisions. Good or bad. Agree or disagree?

Personally, I like long Posts. There should be more of them. It appears as though some details and sources are always left out, possibly deliberately from what I can gather in other unrelated Posts. Your's is better than fine. Good work!

Understandable.

Gee, pray tell, exactly what are the "design" changes. A list of changes or improvements would be nice. You are the only one that knows of these changes.

R&D changes can cost money. Be interesting to know exactly why "they," that is Mike Hines, missed these "improvements" the first time around. After all, these guys fly the piss out of the original mark-ups before going into production. Not hard to figure that out. They fly the piss out of production models also.

Bog us down, please. The more written, the more understood. Especially those "improvements." Lay them on us!

How many years of model building do you have under your belt?

I think this can be said for many ARF's that are in the marketplace.

They will raise the price, on the next batch of models, 3.00 because of that. :D

Is this your first Post about this model? Did you start building in June of 2008? Did you converse with anyone else that may have built one?

Don't forget that list of "engineering changes" brought on by your experience and recommendations to Hobby Lobby and Mike Hines.

I'm on the edge of my seat.

I have not yet taken my model out of the box. I did however, open the lid and look at it.

I'm still up in the air about the engine choice. No, it won't be electric.

I looked at my Gee Bee Z3 box. The delivery date was 9-26-08. I purchased it a few days before. Did I get lucky?

Charles

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Charles,

You raised a number of valid points in your reply, and I will try to answer them as best I can, but maybe not necessarily in the order that they came up.

First of all, I've decided to start a construction thread in another forum ([link]http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3589652/tm.htm[/link]) as this thread is over 4 years old, and this is a "Fantasy Scale" concept, not a true "Scale" racer. If the Kimball's decide to go ahead with their full scale build plans, then this forum becomes more valid.

Regarding kit versions, I believe there may have been two lots (of 50) produced in 2008; the initial lot in June, and another lot in September. I believe your kit may have come out of the 2nd lot. I spoke with Mike Hines in mid-December regarding the status of the next shipment, and was told it was being delayed until mid-January to allow the manufacturer time to make some changes to the kit. Mike said that among other details, the manufacturer was changing from chinacoat to Oracoat (Oracover) to make for a stronger and more durable finish, and was changing the canopy retention method (also for increased strength and durability).

Lot #3 was shipped in mid-January, and contained the new revisions, one of which I now have. Unfortunately, in parsing from English to French to Chinese and back again, something was lost in the translation.

Yup, the Chinese modified the canopy alright, but they modified the wrong end!

The original canopy blew off from the FRONT to the REAR as a result of the balsa F1 former splitting in half just above the mounting tab. The canopy on the new aircraft still had the single balsa F1 former (about 1/8" thick) up front, but the Chinese added a spring-loaded latch to the REAR of the canopy (which was never in question in the first place). After inspecting the new canopy, I decided to reinforce the F1 former by adding 2 lite-ply doublers to each side of the F1 former, and sandwiching a layer of glass cloth in between as well. I also added two hollow .250 dia. C/F tubes to the front of the canopy that mate up with mounting holes of the F1 former on the fuse. Photos below will show some of the details.

Of the other changes that I noted, there were precious few that I could detect, but the most notable was the firewall block-off plate which had been 1/16 plywood, and was changed to 1/16 balsa in the new version. I built the new version with the balsa block-off plate as provided, but added 6 - 1/2" dia. cooling vent holes under the engine mounting box. I will add ventral cooling holes in the fuse at a later date.

Regarding the differences in the two versions of the instruction manual, the original manual had the following specs for the flight control surface settings:

Elevator: 10 mm up/down
Rudder: 30 mm left/right
Ailerons: 5 mm up/down

The revised manual posted on 7/30/2008, had the following notation:

Elevator: +/- 30mm with 25% Exponential
Rudder: +/- 50mm with 50% Exponential
Ailerons: +/- 15-20mm with 40% Exponential

Which one was right? Which one was wrong? You be the judge. What I flew the first bird with is now irrelevant. What I'll fly the second bird with will be covered on the construction thread on the other forum.

Lastly, all decisions begin and end with the Pilot. Take offs are very optional, landing isn't. If I knew then, what I know now, I would not have flown the plane, but would have instead fixed all the problems that I didn't know existed in the first place. Suffice to say, the documentation that went out to Lobby Lobby was very detailed and far beyond the scope of this post, or this forum. I have however, learned from the experience and will apply what I've learned to the new Gee Bee when it flies in May.

Thanks,

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Bob,

Thanks so much for your descriptive explanations.

I will follow your new thread with great interest and I personally appreciate your efforts and the giving up of information.

Keep it coming!

Charles

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

r.boen,

I am not satisfied with the proposed method of connecting the wing and landing gear wires. Have you considered another method? Attached is a picture of the problem. The clevis pin gets pulled out of alignment, preventing the pin from going into the hole on the other side of the clevis.

Also shown are graphics I added to the rudder, pilot backrest, and cowl. I am using a Tower Hobbies .75 which fits fine within the cowl. Someone asked about that in an earlier post. I attempted to upload photos then, but the system kept freezing up.

This thread is suprisingly short of R-3 flyers. Are you aware of anyone who has successfully flown one? As expressed in an earlier comment, I crashed mine on maiden flight; I strongly assume due to my failure to account for high AOA and prop factors. It suffered minor damage, is repaired, waiting for better weather to fly.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Combat 20,

It's difficult for me to comment and offer suggestions, because I have as yet not taken my model out of the box. I apologize for this.

However, I am a modeler and have been building models for quite some time, mostly scratch built scale models.

I have flying wire experience on much larger models than the Z3. My guess is the Z3's wires are functional and not just decoration?

At first glance at your provided photo, what comes to mind, is the aluminum strip which is drilled to except the fastening screw/bolt and which is bent to except that clevis. Actually bent at an incorrect angle. For a quick and simple fix, set it higher on the bolt and re-shape the angle. A couple of washers will place it higher, but it won't appear or look as clean a set-up. Using a longer fastener may be necessary.

BTW. All the actual Gee Bee racers had blisters over the ends of the flying wires.

I would and will consider eliminating the aluminum strip.

you could attach a small flat piece or "ring" on the top of the attachment screw/bolt head to accommodate the clevis. Depending on the choice of metal, this can be accomplished by welding or soldering. I've used brass wires/screws and this method, on my 1/5 Waco, although the Waco's wires are decoration and not functional.

That's one way.

My second choice, and the one I would pursue personally is the following. I would take a steel screw/bolt and heat the head. Flatten the head by hammer or a vice/pliers to create the "flat" ring. I would then drill the proper size hole and file the remainder for a clean appearance. The end can be bent to the proper angle if desired to except the same angle of the wires. Like a simple screw eye with a much smaller opening.

I have actually used this method to construct landing gear using simple steel rod. See the gear on the modified Sterman in the center of this photo. Doesn't matter if there are threads to deal with. Just keep away from the threads as to not damage them. Or place a nut on them for removal afterwards.

Again, and as I said, I have not inspected the kit or the wires.

I personally would make my own wires using aluminum strips. Possibly those that are available from Hobby Shops with the airfoil shape in place. I believe they are available that small or thin. Round aluminum tubing can be flattened also.

I have also used electricians "snake" wire, for larger models. This snake wire can be filed thinner and nicely shaped, for smaller models like the Z3, with little effort, but it does take time. The ends can be welded to except threaded rods.

There are a few individuals who make great flying wires from your measurements. Scale in appearence but are costly.

There are or were once available tiny dies for threading small diameter wire to except threaded clevises.

I hope this helps. If anyone is interested, I can get a better photo of that Stearman gear set-up using this flattened rod method. This method does take a bit of work but is a clean set-up and will work as well for flying wires.

I believe the secret is to do away with that aluminum strip totally or, as I said, raise it up/re-bend for the easy fix.

Plenty of ways to accomplish or manage flying wires.

I hope this helps.

Charles

I'm adding an extra two photos. Different views of the same rod. Heated to cherry red than hammered flat. File takes care of the rest. Drill the hole to size.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Avaiojet,

After reviewing my post I realized that I did not explain the flying wire problem very well. I don't believe the flying wires on the top of the wing are functional, helpful, but not necessary. However; the wires on the bottom of the wing support the very long landing gear and are necessary. The specific problem with those wires is that the inbord pair on each wing must be disconnected to remove the wing from the fuselage for transport. Those wires are functional and must have a fair amount of tension on them to work properly. That tension is what pulls on the clevis pin and prevents the pin from fitting into the opposite side of the clevis. I can make the clevis pin fit into the opposite side of the clevis, but that requires a small screwdriver and needle nose pliers; meaning that someday, something will slip and damage the covering. The current system works, just very inconvenient. When you assemble your R3 I am sure the inconvenience will become very apparent to you.

Part of the solution if I continue to use the current method, is to use better clevises. The clevises supplied with the ARF are apparently cheap imports and the pin wobbles even before first use. Better clevises with a secure pin should help.

I don't think stiff rods with clevis ends would solve the problem. Another option might be spring-loaded wires. In the long run, I suspect I will try small turnbuckles. However; given the problems I had with the first flight, I am going to use the current setup, and verify the model flies well enough before I invest more time in it.

My current project is to figure out why a Hanger 9 Funtanna X likes to snap violently to the right during what I would call normal maneuvers. I have a list to check: incidence of each wing panel, wing warp, aileron warp, heavy wing, aileron differential, etc. I have already confirmed that CG, control throw, and exponential are okay.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Quite some time ago, I looked for a video of the Hobby Lobby R3, but couldn't find one. Looked again today. For those who are interested, here is a link to one. Apparently an R3 was flown at a SEFF event.


http://www.truveo.com/Hobby-Lobby-Ge.../id/3879843612

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Hello to all.

I do apologize. I had inadvertently posted a wrong link to the construction thread in another forum, but this wrong link did nothing but cycle the user back to the 1st page of this thread. Very confusing!!

The correct link is actually http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8446399/tm.htm, and I will be posting some more information in that forum ( Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes ) later today.

Thanks again,

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Hi Combat 20,

I really like and admire your detailing and finishing efforts to the R3, especially the headrest that you added. I wish that I had seen what you did earlier, as I would have liked to copy your efforts and have added them to my plane before I finished it up. Maybe I can go back and squeeze it in, in front and behind the "Helmet Head" pilot figure that I used (from Hanger 9), and post the results in the construction thread that I started (with full credit for the idea to you of course).

Like you, I too am extremely surprised that there are so few R3 related posts (or users) in this forum, or any where else on RCU for that matter.

No, other than Jason Cole who flew the prototype at last year's SEFF event, I know of no other pilots that have successfully flown this plane, and gotten it back in one piece. You would think that with over 100 kits being sold, there would be more threads or interest .I will be putting a call or email into Jay Graves at Hobby Lobby asking him to contact Jason and give him the link to the construction thread in Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8446399/tm.htm). I would like to see if he could share some of his experiences and flight control surface settings that he used to fly the prototype R3 with. Maybe we all can have a safer "1st flight" as a result...

My first flight last year (with model #1), started off the same, but ended far more disastrously. You are completely correct in your thinking that the high AOA & P-factor were strong reasons why your plane veered hard left on take-off. Mine did exactly the same. I should have gotten on the rudder sooner (and harder), but didn't. Fortunately (or unfortunately) I salvaged the take-off, only to crash later for completely different reasons. What happened with your first flight?

My own personal feeling is that even +/- 50mm (from the 2nd manual) will not be enough. I will probably set the rudder initially at +/- 30 to 35 degrees with 60% to 65% expo, on a 3 position (low-medium-high) triple rate switch and fly the 1st flight on my new model using that configuration.

The rudder is 180mm (approx. 7.125") long at it's longest point. Using +/-50mm (+/- 1.96") only equates to 16.17 degrees (barely 75% of what would be considered minimally sufficient for a IMAC setting. Going to +/- 90mm (+/- 3.54") works out to +/- 30 degrees of deflection. Granted, this is a long rudder with lots of leverage, but this is only effective at higher flying speeds. Using a high 60% to 65% expo gives you a "softer" feel around neutral to avoid over-controlling, but the ability to really get on the rudder when you to by going to full deflection.

Flying with high percentages of expo may not be for everyone (it's an acquired taste!) but it works; I normally drive giant-scale gas 3D aerobatic machines, so using a high percentage of expo for me is quite normal.

Regarding the flying wires; Avaiojet has many good suggestions, but I agree with you that solid hard flying wires might not work well here. My own personal observation is the same as yours; the upper flying wires are not functional. They only enhance the "30's Classic Scale Racer" look imparted by the lower flying wires, which are absolutely necessary to support the landing gear struts. I decided not to use the provided metric clevises and flying wire stud as they ARE too flimsy.

Instead, I elected to use flying wire rigging parts from Du-Bro. They come in black with the wire connector stud (in 2-56 and 4-40 sizes) and also have precut shrink tubing rather than silicone fuel tubing. Much neater. Use the provided aluminum connector brackets, but plan on spending some time with a pair of needle-nose pliers (with the bracket not mounted to the wing) adjusting the angle of the bracket to match the angle of the flying wire. If done correctly, the aluminum bracket should ride in the center of the clevis pin when assembled. When assembled, have the clevis pin point AWAY from the wing surface so as not to damage the covering. I used 2-56 x 1/2" socket head servo mounting screws everywhere (those damn pesky Phillips screws always strip out anyway), especially in mounting the aluminum brackets to the wing. Use a 1/16" drill and always harden the hole with C/A.

I haven't decided if I'm going to disassemble the wings from the fuse to take the plane to the field. Right now it fits in the Explorer with the wings on, but I'm limited to only one plane at a time. For the ease of disassembly, I've attached the upper flying wires to the fuse using a triangular-shaped bracket from Proctor Enterprises. They also make turnbuckles and other brackets. Instead of using a 2-56 servo mounting screw, I used a 2-56 x 1" socket head machine screw mating up with a 2-56 tee nut glue in to the backside of the reinforcing plate on the inside of the upper fuse. This will aid in easy disassembly if I need to take off the wings.

For the bottom side, I mounted the two pairs of flying wires from the wheels using 4 individual steel brackets (from Du-Bro's landing gear set) going into the reinforcement mount blocks on either side of the fuse center line. They're mounted using socket head servo mounting screws in C/A hardened holes, but I may convert these to threaded fasteners at a later date.

In either case, I will not be disassembling the flying wires from the wing tips, as these will travel with the wing if and when disassembled.

Hope this help. Photos attached.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Combat 20,

Send me a PM with a discription of what you are dealing with. Maybe I can help. I also drive a tweaked FuntanaX 100.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

r.boen,

My first flight was very short. Sunny day, left crosswind, model accelerated well (Tower Hobbies .75), but lifted off sooner that I expected. The model turned sharp left immediately after liftoff and headed for some trees. I was forced to pull-up, missing the trees, but adding to what I later realized was a high alpha, p-factor problem. I leveled off above the trees, but left turn\yaw continued to be a problem. Within seconds the model flew behind the trees which are behind our flightline. Since I couldn't see the model, I reduced throttle to idle and waited for the end result. Surprise, surprise; the model landed in a field of tall corn and was relatively undamaged, only the flying wires were ripped-out.

Model is repaired. Corrective action on next flight will be slow acceleration on takeoff, stay on the rudder, and allow the speed to build-up. Thereafter I will check the model at altitude for low speed, high alpha characteristics before landing. CG was and is right on the mark.

The cockpit mods were made using Depron foam and cheap craft paint. I just checked, the paint brand is actually called "Craft Paint." The cockpit floor had to be installed in two pieces to get it inside the canopy frame. I installed the mods because I didn't appreciate the appearance of all that wood showing throught the canopy. I would have used a pilot, but didn't find one to suit me. Just as well, he would have died on the maiden flight, probably heart attack.

I have decided to leave the flying wires as they are, until I verify how well the model flies before I invest any more time in it. My assumption is that it will fly well, but that it will have to be flown more carefully than a typical Ugly Stick-type model.

I too like to use expo as you mentioned, 60 percent or more on my Futaba radios.

I do like your idea of using threaded inserts and machine bolts. Even CA hardened holes will wear out, the screws will come loose inflight, the wires will flap around, etc.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Hi all, I'm about half way through building mine. Taking some advice to heart, i'll be shoring up the canopy, though the cowling seems to hold it in there pretty good.

It's an amazingly beautiful plane but some of the hardware and construction detail are dissapointing for such an expensive model.

Most fof the hardware is junk, the wheels wobbled so comicly they were compeltely unuseable. The two front wheels werent even the same size, one was about 3/4 of an inch and the other 7/8ths! Not a subtle difference. The collets for the wheels are cheap and strip out with very little torque. And even though the plans show all metal clevises during the build, half of them in my package were plastic :(

A little more bothering is that the wing saddles are of poor fit with large and wavy gaps (My Hyperion Yak 54 40e, a $160 plane had PERFECT saddles). And the vertical stab is not completely... vertical :/

Nothing that I wouldn't expect from a $150 model actually but for the price, I think we should expect real hardware (Obviously a lot of chineese stuff in there) and a little but better fit from the parts.

Anyway, got it sitting here with the wheels on and srung up, all control surfaces done but no power trane yet. Going to be doing it electric. It sure is nice looking!

I will DEFINATELY be paying attention to keeping the bird on the ground till sufficient speed is built up and be ready for a hard left just in case :D

Will let you know how it goes in a week or two, will post some pics and video too (Crash or fly!).

Oh and one thing wrong with the plans that cause me to poke several unnneded holes in my wing:
*** The upper and lower hard points for the wire mounts on the wing are at 5 and 16 cm, not 5 and 17.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Good idea Combat 20!

Let the tail come up (like the Jason Cole video) before you get on the throttle hard. Since you are used to using lots of expo with a Futaba system as I am, you can ride the rudder a little until it getsairborne.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Hi LAdams02,

Yeah, I learned about the 17cm goof the hard way too. Got a chance to go upstairs to the office to get my $.98 hole punch to repair the damage in my $405 airplane.

Neat how those Chinese tape measures work (or is is the French?).

Oh, well.

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

I mounted the motor today using the additional stand off box supplied with the kit. I mounted it so the "center hole" on the back of it lined up with the hole in the firewall. Then mounted the motor centerd on that as shown in the manual. This has the motor offset to the left by a small amount.

Since you want right thrust to counteract torque from the prop etc, in other models I have this is usually done so that you can spacer some right thrust angle into the motor mount and have the prop exit the cowling centered (Instead of off to the right if the motor itself were centered on the firewall). The Bee Gee manual says nothing about angling the motor to the right at all. I've also seen motors mounted slightly offcenter to the right but mounted prefectly straight line with the fuse. This will also give right thrust.

Since the motor is already mounted to the left, I plan to give it at least 2 maybe 3 degrees of right thrust angle for first flight.

How did others with electric power mount their engines? Offset from center line? Thrust angle?

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

Hi LAdams02,

Haven't heard what others may have done.

I mounted my motor (AXI 4130/16) by first lining up the cross hairs on the engine mount box with that of the electric motor mount, then after that was done, mounting the AXI motor to the electric motor mount box (dead center). The moter appears to be mounted about 2 degrees right thrust in this manner, but the C/L of the motor is still a little left of center in the cowl. I'm waiting for some new equipment to come in to measure the thrust C/L more accurately, then may make some adjustments later. Will plan to make the first flight with 2 to 3 degrees right thrust, then adjust from there.

What motor are you using?

Regards,

RE: GEE BEE R3 RACER??WOW!!!
 

I had planned on using a motor I got from hobby city, a turnigy 5060 but the motor was delivered with a GIANT glob of solder splattered between two coils. Fixing it is probably not possible (without rewinding) and sending it back would cost more than the motor. So I'm using a "spare" dualsky 5060 6 pole (500kv). If it seems lacking I'll look around for something more hot-roddy. Maybe higher kv and smaller prop. Got a 16, 17 and 18 inch prop to try ot on it. Going to try 5s and 6s on it too.

That is if I survuve the dreaded maiden! :D

Since there are so few recorded flights, it's going to be all experimentation :D

Edit: Ooops! Ok, I feel like an idiot. I just attached a tube to the prop adapter and measured the angle to the face of the fuse and the firewall is already set to 2 degreees of right thrust. With a large motor and prop, maybe that should be 3, but there is definately some built in already.

P.S.

The irony of complaining bout cheap chineese wheels in one post then buying a cheep chineese motor to put in it in another post is not lost on me! Just more proof that if you buy cheap, you buy twice. :)