Lupomen

Has anyone built and flown one of these, what are they like to fly ? I am thinking of building one and putting a larger engine in the nose and two smaller ones outboard hoping to be able to conquer the asymmetric thrust issue should it occur by having two throttle settings, being able to isolate nose and outboard motors, comments please ! Thanks.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

That CANT Z is certainly a great looking project. Sorry Paul I know nothing about that airplane but you did ask for comment on the use of small outboards on a triple.

I have done a number of twins a triple and a quad. And the loss of an engine on a twin is far more tramatic than a triple or quad.

Its my feeling that doing the mixed engines thing on a triple is not really neccessary and that out thrust on both wing engines will provide that controllable edge. Another is a rudder gyro.

Another down side of the mixed engines and switch throttled outboards is the airplane never sounds quite right.

John

Dennismate

Paul

The January 2002 issue of RCMW featured an article on the Aviomodelli Cant Z built by Clifford Mcllwee in Northern Ireland.

I got his details from Traplet and gave him a call, very helpful bloke, I also bought the retracts he had custom made for it as I also have one of these kits awaiting construction. I believe he sold his through a Belfast model shop.

The big problem appears to be the lack of C of G position in the instructions, Clifford advised me to go with 25% of cord from the LE

I have some more info from Clifford if you need it.

Stuart

david polley

ALL,[sm=teeth_smile.gif]


I realize that this is 2009 and it would appear that no one has any information about the Cant Z 1007 ARF kit that came out at about the time this forum started. I purchased my Aviomodelli Cant Z in 2006, and it took a little over a year to get it from Internet RC which I believe is now out of business. The kit was not in stock of course and it had something to do about waiting for Aviomodelli to start the production run again on this kit,[&o] and waiting for clearence from customs and several other issues, including waiting for the boat to leave which took forever.[:'(] Anyway, I got the ARF kit late in 2007 and realized that this "KIT" is not anything close to an ARF as it was promoted on Internet RC.[:@] That is ok since I have been flying and building since 1978. I am just trying to find anything from anyone who might have built this kit and what kind of success they have had. I have seen about 3 videos on Youtube of which 2 are crashes. I want to start building mine and getting it framed up, and try and get any information from someone who might have had some success with it. I have engines for it and am ready to proceed. Waiting for any responses....

David

foodstick

here is one of my posts from youtube... about THE ITALION BOMBER of fame that my friend still has...(2nd owner)

Well, if anyone is interested ...this same plane was rebuilt TWICE since this crash, and has now flown twice...The kit design is a TOTAL disaster ..so many things had to be changed to make it flyable its scary..CG was way off
(has now been moved twice), plane was drastically lightened, tail surface area added ,washout built in to the wing tips, down thrust was added every test ..It has the weirdest airfoil (almost like a 3d wing? )the list is endless, Also eventually fitted with 60 in the nose and 46's outboard. I know both pilots that have attempted to fly it, and after the second one had the exact same problems as the first I have no doubt its the kit. As built to plans it wants to lift off with the tail still on the ground WAY before you expect it too. Then it climbs steep already in a stall, It doesn't need elevator input to start the whole trouble...



One of the most dissapointing aspects of the whole story is How many improvements My friend built in to make the plane more stable, and on the rebuild test flight the only change was that the plane stalled to the right instead of the left....

2nd pilot said as soon as it broke ground on his first attempt all control surfaces were not yet effective. Still tail heavy, and not enough tail surface...added down thrust in motors not enough..

My friend has been scratch building odd planes, and rebuilding other peoples crashs for 25 years, he is not a hardcore stunt flyer, but he is known for saving heavy warbirds when someone has trouble... So I believe he is a credible pilot for these types of projects....he doesn't eyeball and guess ,its measure ,incident meters and ,attention to any info he can get. He is presently slowly building a giant SHINDEN from blown up plans

One last thing, even though it has now flown, you will want a long field, my friend hasn't workd out all the small details, but the plane has no flaps if I remember correctly, and possibly due to engine setting on his 2 flights it sort of does a side to side yaw at near touchdown speeds...He has sidelined it for awhile and will eventually dig it back out.

P.s. I have seen a few attempted takeoffs of this plane, and i think there are a few flybys of one on you tube, But no landings...

david polley

Dear Foodstick

WOW[X(]

It looks as though I am going to have my hands full on this one. I have purchased off of e-Bay, and completely rebuilt 3 O.S. 40SF engines for the model because I like the "sound" of the older 2 stroke engines. They are now going on 20 years old, and I have rebuilt 2 more the same way that I put on my DeHavilliand Mosquito that CMP makes. I had to re-engineer that model quite a bit to get it the way I wanted it. It now fly's really well now after 2 years of trial and error.
I have a little video of that model on Youtube too. The address is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZPewtLpsCE

You can hear why I like these engines so much. However, I have just purchased 3 used O.S. 40FX engines (not the 46FX) because I bought one of those for my Goldberg Skylark Mark II that is now 28 years old, and it has very good power and runs very cool. It would now appear that I might go with the 3 FX engines instead. I like the 40FX better that the 46FX because it is heavier, and runs cooler than the 46. I figure this will help with nose weight and more reliable engines using the cowls. So....., can you tell me. Is the video on youtube you are talking about, the Cant Z taking off and crashing on to the runway? If not then I have not seen it yet. Can you give me the address so I can look at that video and any other videos of success you have of the Cant Z flying? Do we now know what the CG point is on the model, now that it has been moved twice? I sure would appreciate that little piece of mystry information so I do not have the same problem. I have been trying to upload some photo's but something is up with system and they will not go for now. I will up load them later. Let me know what you think of the Mossie.

Sincerely,
David

foodstick

Yes the crash on the runway IS MY FRIENDS CANTZ ...I don't need to tell you how ugly it was, but my other buddy had it back together and lightened in about a week. He did SO MUCH work and improvements on it after the intial repairs it is incredible. Then he repainted it..we took it out, and it did the same thing to the right, that it did to the left before...I was glad that miserable thing was totaled as my friend was obsessed with it and I thought it was a lost cause.. I go back to his house a week later, its up on the wheels again !

The first successful flight was into a slight breeze, and he BARELY got it down on our short field, no flaps,HOT landing, The next flight he had no wind, and he misread how much field he had and one wing spar was broke off at the joint when it hit deep weeds on the end of the field...

It really HAULS *SS and he said it is in no way relaxing to fly.

I will try to get his current CG measurement..

Try to keep the weight down...and good luck !

There is also one of the professionally made crash videos out there. Guess what? it builds speed, yanks vertical stall to the side and explodes in pieces.

Here is the only other footage I know of that I THINK is the same kit http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U16Lei...watch_response SCARY takeoff, 3 flybys, and no landing...

foodstick

Here is flight footage of the second flight of the ITALIAN BOMBER cantz

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FnMNdP...e=channel_page

david polley

Foodstick,

Just saw the second video. what on earth happened here.[sm=disappointed.gif] I found in the responses from a year ago that indeed it was found that the ailerons were reversed when trying to take off the model. It was stated that the pilot never checked for correct throws and such. Can you confirm. Also I commented on Youtube, that the model sill seemed to me to be underpowered, and very tail heavy. Any comments here? I so do much appreciate the videos and all of your feedback here. Thank you so much...
Where was this video shot. Who built the airplane. Has there been any updated video success flights. Very interested in trying to contact the builder.

Thanks Again
David Polley

david polley

Well, If you haven't seen it...Here is the fourth attempt to get this poor fellow's model off of the ground and finally success, except for the landing.

It still looks to be too tail heavy at this point, but "Hats Off" to the guy for not giving up. Here is the link on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6o-C...eature=channel

David

Mike_Psico

Greetings to the group.
Many years have passed but here I am with a CantZ about to fly. I have carefully read what has been published and taken note of the incidents of the flights. I know it is a model that has proven difficult to fly. I am certain that the Acione will take flight. Some doubts I have regarding your models. The motors have some incidences that are the following. Right and front engine two degrees to the right, left engine two degrees to the left. I think the center of gravity is the most important thing and I still have doubts about its location. I will put it on a seesaw to empirically verify its location. If anyone is still active in this forum, I would appreciate any information about this controversial and beautiful model. Best regards.

R8893

My Feedback: (20)

Mike,
I just finished building the kit that D. Polley owned and talked about above. I used an online CG calculator that has given me good results previously to determine where the CG should be. I ended up at 22% of the root chord. There is a complete build thread on RCscalebuilder. I don't expect the weather here in southern Ohio to be suitable for the maiden for 3 or 4 months.
Chuck

Mike_Psico

A spectacular job. Thank you very much for all the information, it is very useful for me. I have visited RCU Forums and viewed and saved all information. Again thank you very much for your attention. I will try to put the video of the Maidens, whatever the result. I'm sure it will be correct.
A cordial greeting, I will continue reporting through this forum.

Mike_Psico

Hello Chuk.
First Taxi test. 2 T.T.46 engines and an ASP.52 in the nose. It is overpowered, with the idle at minimum it does not stop. I'm thinking of a brake system for the wheels or directly stiffen their free spin a bit. The plane is unfinished and I have to make some minor modifications. I leave the link to said taxi test. The left engine stalled.
A cordial greeting

He could not leave URLs, the forum does not allow it, so if you want to see the video you will have to copy this address in the browser. http://www.dropbox.com/s/jk20nuv18r0...27.43.mp4?dl=0

Mike_Psico

Hello Chuck.
A doubt. What incidents have you given to the motors? What do the assembly instructions say?... The information that I have been able to obtain indicates; middle engine and right engine 2 degrees to the right, left engine 2 degrees to the left. It's right?. There is a debate about this among the members of my flying club.

R8893

My Feedback: (20)

Mike,
All three of mine are set dead ahead; 0,0. That is how the kit built up.

How much does your model weigh?
Chuck

Mike_Psico

Hello Chuck.
I'm sorry that I can't post a picture of the engine incidents, it's a controversial issue that's causing a lot of comments among the modelers of my club. They comment that the motors have to have incidence, others that one of the motors would have to turn upside down or with a counter-rotating propeller. There is no consensus. Could you see the Taxi test? In principle the impressions are good, the motorization on it looks adequate. On the other hand, I am thinking of installing a wheel braking system since the track start is expected to be quick.
As for the weight, I cannot tell you the weight since at the moment I have not been able to weigh it with the complete configuration as soon as I have it, I will tell you.
All the best.
Mike

R8893

My Feedback: (20)

Yes I saw the taxi test.

Mike_Psico

Hello Chuck.
I have not forgotten about you or your project. I have not been able to weigh the model since I have not obtained a scale. I have bought two, one did not work correctly for weights less than 20Kg. The other one has not reached me, it has been lost in the process, it happens rarely but it has happened. I'm going to buy another one as soon as possible and I'll send you the weight of the plane. Excuse me. I continually remember, I believe that in the entire known universe only you and I have this common project. An interesting piece of information is that a modeler from a well-known club built a CantZ years ago and on takeoff it screwed up due to the torque of the engines. All three engines were two degrees to the right. You say that your engines are at 0 degrees and my data is right and central engine 2 degrees to the right and central engine 2 degrees to the left. Well this is all Chuck. I'll send you the weight data as soon as possible.
A cordial greeting.

Mike_Psico

Hello Chuck.
I already have the weight data.
Plane 11lb.
wings 1.55 lb right and 1.48 left.
Motor fairings: 0.24lb,0.25lb,0.23lb.
Total weight without fuel 14.75 lbs.
This is all we keep in touch and I will share all the data I get. One last question. With the engines idling the plane moves. I have to try to adjust more or place a brake system or slightly harden the rotation of the wheels. I'll tell you my decision.
All the best.

R8893

My Feedback: (20)

Mike,
Thanks for the weight information. Yours is significantly lighter than mine (18#).
I am skeptical of brakes on a tail dragger; too easy to nose over. Does your radio have the capability to shut down the two wing engines after landing? Then you could taxi back with just the center engine. Prior to the take off with all three running a helper could "escort" your model to the runway.
Chuck

Mike_Psico

Hello Chuck.
It is true that mine is less heavy, but the retractable landing gear and the 4t motors are heavier, the flaps servos.....I am going to program the stop of the lateral motors and the three parking motors in the transmitter. The wheel brake is ruled out. I will continue to keep you informed of the advances prior to the flight.
All the best

Mike_Psico

I have one message left to complete the 10 post and be able to upload attached documents. I'm sending this, which is number 10, and I'll see if I can send you the attachment with the engine incidents.

Mike_Psico

Well, not that there were two. Let's see if this already fulfills the condition.

Mike_Psico