Ultimate Biplane
#2
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
From: Flower Mound (near Dallas),
TX
Edited 11/17
I now understand you are talking about the lighter 3w70iUS side carb version.
That engine will be nose heavy on the Ultimate. It will work but you may need to move the batteries to the rear along with rudder servos.
Another good choice for that engine is the new Cap 232 with the 91" wings. However after reconsidering if you plan for the balance issue this (Ultimate/3w70US) could be a very neat combo.
TF
I now understand you are talking about the lighter 3w70iUS side carb version.
That engine will be nose heavy on the Ultimate. It will work but you may need to move the batteries to the rear along with rudder servos.
Another good choice for that engine is the new Cap 232 with the 91" wings. However after reconsidering if you plan for the balance issue this (Ultimate/3w70US) could be a very neat combo.
TF
#3

My Feedback: (30)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ithaca, NY
Hi,
The 3W-70 twin weighs 4.95 lbs and is only slightly more than the 3w-50 or the 3W-75 iUS. Perhaps Tom has this older engine confused with the newer 70 rear carb singles which weigh a lot, or the newer 78 twin which is a heavy engine.
I have the same engine as you on a 33% pitts and it balanced fine. The plane flies like a rocket with unlimited vertical
Hope this helps
Elson
The 3W-70 twin weighs 4.95 lbs and is only slightly more than the 3w-50 or the 3W-75 iUS. Perhaps Tom has this older engine confused with the newer 70 rear carb singles which weigh a lot, or the newer 78 twin which is a heavy engine.
I have the same engine as you on a 33% pitts and it balanced fine. The plane flies like a rocket with unlimited vertical
Hope this helps
Elson
#4
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
From: Flower Mound (near Dallas),
TX
Several people have used heavier engines on the Ultimate and are very happy. It seems to me that this should be a good combination, I just wanted to warn the person about what to expect with the balance.
TF
TF
#5
Thread Starter

My Feedback: (3)
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Tampa,
FL
Elson,
I was also considering a Pitts...what kit do you have it installed on ?? One of my concerns also, is whether the cowl will be wide enough to encompass the cylinder heads without having to notch them out.
Bruce
I was also considering a Pitts...what kit do you have it installed on ?? One of my concerns also, is whether the cowl will be wide enough to encompass the cylinder heads without having to notch them out.
Bruce
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
The Quadra would easily fit. You will need to cut the bottom of the cowl for the head, but you have to do that for all the singles anyway. It should be a pretty fair match. The Quadra is not one of the lighter engine designs but should not be considered too heavy for the application by any means. Consider tail mounting the rudder servo(s) to compensate, and try to keep any weight other than the ignition module aft of the front of the wing saddle. The inside of the fuse has a lot of room to locate components in.
Pat
Pat
#12

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: jackson, OH
Thanks for the reply, it is an older quadra and has no ignition module. I currently have it on Weeks Solution and it is pretty under-powered. The weeks was scratch built and is pretty heavy. I'm just looking around for a model to put it on. Does anyone know who makes a giant scale cub? I have a Hangar 9- 1/4 scale and i am looking for a bigger one for some local scale contests next summer. Thanks



