View Single Post
Old Aug 29, 2012, 11:38 AM
dbc is online now
dbc
Find More Posts by dbc
dbc
Registered User
United States, FL, Brooksville
Joined Apr 2008
2,376 Posts
Good point, sammyc. It could have been sold for $30 less as good kit or $30 more than current price, as a good ARF. Instead, it's really neither.

Besides the component quality, my beef with the plane is the short tail moment. Just take a look at the picture of the small and large SS's in post #164.

The small one has a boom length to wingspan ratio of about 26%, about the same as the Bixler and FMS planes. The SSS ratio is about 21%. It's tail is too close to the wings. It will fly ok like this, but would have flown much smoother and more stable with a longer boom. It would take about an additonal 4" of boom to get the plane in the same proportion as the smaller one and most other EZ planes.

Now you would think that 4" of foam doesn't cost that much. Why not do it? I'm pretty sure this could be a big part of the reason:

Relatively inexpensive foam planes have a high proportion of cost in the shipping. The shorter fuse is just about the same length as the wing halves and; therefore, can be packaged in the smallest possible box. 4 inches additional boom and the required 1.5 inch of nose would mean a good bit longer box or a two piece fuse. We've got to keep the cost down!

Do you think this could be the reason?
dbc is online now Find More Posts by dbc
Last edited by dbc; Aug 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM.
Reply With Quote