HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Mar 19, 2015, 12:03 PM
Registered User
United States, FL, Gainesville
Joined Jan 2015
28 Posts
Thought I'd share a recent Gee Problem/Solution. Earlier posts show my extensively repaired "humpty dumpty" Gee Bee, which continues to be a rock-solid flyer. I decided to compare a very slightly used and undamaged Gee Bee I'd acquired. It didn't fly at all like the first -- worst problem was a tendency to climb nearly straight up at full throttle. At lower throttle, it flew OK, but still tended to "float" no matter what I tried. I carefully compared and checked CGs between both models and against the manual recommendations (to make sure it wasn't NOSE heavy, which, although a bit counter-intuitive, can cause such behavior according to Joel -- TurboParker). The plane seemed to glide fine and flew "OK" on lower throttle settings. After trying several things with no success, I started to direct my attention to the motor thrust lines. The second had the same right thrust as the first. Down thrust seemed the same as well, which is to say that neither seemed to have any at all. In spite of the first one flying fine as-is, I finally decided to slice around the motor mount of #2, and add 1/16" shim's worth of down thrust and reglue. Got to fly it yesterday, and happy to say it flies like it's on rails, like Humpty. One thing about these foam UMX models -- the motors seem to be glued in place without a lot of consistency. Recently I had a new UMX Corsair that wanted to float at high throttle -- I eventually reglued the motor/gearbox with some down thrust and it was like night and day. Anybody run into similar? Nick in Florida
MrSmoothie is offline Find More Posts by MrSmoothie
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Mar 19, 2015, 07:05 PM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
13,215 Posts
Marblekit,

Nice work! Good luck with the re-maiden. Looking forward to the video!
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
Last edited by turboparker; Mar 19, 2015 at 07:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2015, 07:38 PM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
13,215 Posts
MrSmoothie,

Yeah, we've seen thrust-alignment issues, and we've also seen decalage issues. However - a nose-heavy condition is, by far, the most common cause of ballooning under power. The symptoms of all three conditions are similar, but a series of defined power-on/power-off flight-tests can be used to differentiate between CG, thrust-line, decalage, and wing-incidence issues. See the standard flight-trimming troubleshooting guide in the link below for details on how to do this. For your convenience, I have also attached a printable copy. Be sure to follow the troubleshooting steps for each test in the exact order & do not omit any steps. Any deviation from the defined procedures will cause you to chase your tail, as the adjustments are interactive, and therefore must be done in the proper order.

Regarding ballooning under power being a symptom of a nose-heavy condition - this is not something that I made up. Rather, it is a fact of aerodynamic theory that has been well-known for nearly a century. It's not the least bit counter-intuitive if you think about what's going on:

Assuming the airframe is built straight & true and the thrust-line is correct, a nose-heavy plane needs up-elevator trim for level flight. Of course, the amount of up-trim needed is determined by elevator authority, which is determined by airflow over the horizontal stab, which is determined by throttle-setting & airspeed. This introduces undesirable throttle-pitch coupling, in which the plane balloons when you add more power & tucks toward the belly when you reduce power. In contrast, a tail-heavy plane requires down-elevator trim for level flight. This introduces undesirable throttle-pitch coupling, in which the plane tucks toward the belly when you add more power & balloons when you reduce power.

Here's a flight-trimming tutorial I wrote that should explain things:

Aside from creating an unflyable condition, CG settings are largely a matter of preference. However, many pilots find that with purpose-built aerobatic ships, adjusting the CG for neutral or near-neutral handling usually works best for all-around aerobatics & precision flight, while a slightly aft CG usually works better for 3D, and a slightly forward CG typically improves stability & tracking - which may be desirable when flying in turbulent air. Understanding the effects of flight-trimming & CG placement, plus experimenting to find the settings that work best for a given airframe and flight condition, will allow the pilot to optimize most any airframe to suit one's purpose and flying style.

The neutral handling point, or CG 'sweet spot' as it is called by some, is the balance point which provides neutral pitch stability. No pitch-change with changes in throttle or airspeed. No pitch change when rolled to knife-edge or when rolled inverted. When balanced at this point, an aerobatic plane simply goes where it's pointed until commanded to do something else. Pattern planes are usually balanced at or slightly forward of the sweet spot. 3D planes are usually balanced at or slightly aft of the sweet spot. The manufacturer's recommended CG range for most trainers & sport planes is typically well-forward of the sweet spot. Assuming that the airframe is straight & true, adjusting the CG in small increments will allow one to tune the plane's behavior.

I will attempt to explain what's going on in non-technical terms.

First off - my comparisons below assume we are talking about a plane that is properly built - correct thrust-line, wing incidence, decalage, etc.

Nose-heavy:

All else being equal, the slightly nose-heavy plane will be less sensitive in pitch & yaw than a neutrally-balanced or slightly tail-heavy plane. The nose-heavy plane will also have to fly faster & land faster to prevent stalling. These two factors are largely responsible for the improved wind penetration vs. the neutrally-balanced or slightly tail-heavy plane. Unfortunately, they are also detrimental to slow-speed flight. The nose-heavy plane will have more drag in level flight at a given airspeed, and will therefore require more power to maintain cruise speed. Additionally, the nose-heavy plane will usually have a lot more throttle/pitch coupling. If it's extremely nose-heavy, the nose will drop dramatically during turns or when power is reduced. There may not be enough elevator authority to establish a power-off glide. It may also be impossible to flare during a power-off landing. Conversely - when power is applied, the nose-heavy plane will tend to pitch up. During knife-edge, the nose-heavy plane will tend to pull to the canopy, unless down-elevator is used. These things happen because the nose-heavy plane requires a certain amount of up-elevator trim for level flight at a given airspeed.

Compensating for a forward CG with elevator trim causes the plane's behavior to change as the power setting or flight angle changes, because the trim required is dependent on speed and flight angle. For instance, if up-trim is required for level flight, when rolled inverted, the up-trim becomes down-trim, which is the opposite of what is needed, so the plane dives. In KE flight, that up-trim turns into "side-trim" which makes the plane pull towards the canopy. The extra nose-weight is now acting on the yaw axis, and is being compensated with 'top rudder', so the up-elevator trim now pulls the plane toward the canopy. A change in speed will change the effectiveness of the up-trim, which will make the plane pitch up as power is added, and pitch down as power is cut. (Note: most trainers and many sport & scale general aviation planes will also tend to climb/dive when power is added/cut, but in these cases, the behavior is to be expected.)

Most full-scale general aviation planes are balanced somewhat forward of the neutral point for safety/stability. RC trainers are also designed to be very stable, and usually specify a forward CG.

Neutral CG:

The neutrally-balanced plane will usually have very little (if any) throttle/pitch coupling. The nose will stay put when power is increased/decreased. The nose will not drop much (if at all) during turns. The plane will also stay level in knife-edge - even without rudder (of course, top-rudder will still be required to maintain altitude). Also - there will be little, if any rudder/pitch coupling during knife-edge. Slow-flight will be much improved, and establishing a shallow power-off glide will be much easier - as compared to the same plane in nose-heavy trim. Very short landings are also easier, as there will be plenty of elevator authority to come in a bit nose-high, and then flare at touchdown. Aerobatic maneuvers become much easier, as the neutrally-balanced plane has no tendency to self-recover. Put it into a climb or dive, and it will stay on track until commanded to do something else. The nose will stay put regardless of power setting. When trimmed for level flight, the neutrally-balanced aerobatic plane will fly level inverted with little, if any elevator input, and should fly a knife-edge pass with no tendency to pitch toward the canopy or tuck to the belly.

A plane that is balanced at or very slightly forward of the neutral point will typically be well-suited for precision aerobatics. This is where pattern planes are usually balanced. Purpose-built full-scale aerobatic planes may also be balanced close to the neutral point. For less-experienced RC pilots, the neutrally-balanced plane can be challenging to fly. For instance, the nose doesn't drop as the plane slows down; the plane usually descends in a level attitude, and may stay level after it stalls - or iit may suddenly drop a wing if aileron input is given. Hence, there are typically no visual clues of an impending stall. When put into a dive, the neutrally-balanced plane will not self-recover; it will continue on the path until the pilot gives some stick input. Same is true for climbs.

Note: With flat-plate and symmetrical airfoils, a certain amount of trim is required for level flight because they must fly at a positive angle of attack to generate lift (unlike semi-symmetrical, flat-bottom, or under-cambered airfoils). Therefore, when trimmed for level flight & rolled inverted, they will require a hint of down-elevator for level inverted flight - even though the CG is set at the sweet spot.

Most full-scale purpose-built aerobatic planes & fighters are balanced for neutral or near-neutral behavior. Same goes for their RC counterparts.

Tail-heavy:

The slightly tail-heavy plane will excel in 3D maneuvers - especially harriers, elevators, flat-spins, hovering, tail-slides, and tumbling maneuvers. Precision flying usually suffers due to the effects of negative pitch stability. Pitch-instability will cause the tail-heavy plane to become extremely sensitive to elevator input. Throttle/pitch coupling will also return, but the effects will be reversed as compared to the nose-heavy scenario: When trimmed for level flight, the slightly tail-heavy plane may have a tendency to tuck its nose when power is applied, and will tend to balloon when power is cut. It will also have a tendency to pull to the belly during knife-edge. When trimmed for level flight and then rolled inverted, the tail-heavy plane will usually climb. These things happen because the tail-heavy plane requires a certain amount of down-elevator trim for level flight at a given airspeed.

Many fly-by-wire fighters and most (if not all) thrust-vectoring fighters are purposely designed to be aerodynamically unstable so they can do wild, uncoupled flight maneuvers. The flight-control computer(s) sort it all out for the pilot. Some 3D RC pilots also prefer a slightly tail-heavy condition because it enhances extreme 3D maneuvering. The downside is that the instability caused by flying slightly tail-heavy hampers precision flight.

Undesirable coupling caused by attempting to compensate for a nose or tail-heavy condition with elevator trim:

Compensating for an aft CG with elevator trim causes the plane's behavior to change as the power setting or flight angle changes, because the trim required is dependent on speed and flight angle. For instance, if down-trim is required for level flight, when rolled inverted, the down-trim becomes up-trim, which is the opposite of what is needed, so the plane climbs. In KE flight, that down-trim turns into "side-trim" which makes the plane tuck towards the belly. The extra tail-weight is now acting on the yaw axis, so the down-elevator trim now pulls the plane toward the belly. A change in speed will change the effectiveness of the down-trim, which will make the plane drop the nose when power is added, and pitch up when power is cut.

A bit more tail-heavy, and the plane may become so unstable in pitch that it is impossible to fly. Some airframes are more forgiving than others in this respect, and some are not at all forgiving with CG placement. Some airframe types may immediately crash after take-off when they're even moderately tail-heavy. Others may remain flyable until they're put into certain situations, such as a spin - and then become completely unrecoverable.

Trimming aerobatic RC planes:

It has been said that a nose-heavy model may fly poorly; however a tail-heavy model may fly only once. For the most part, that's true. It's best to start out toward the nose-heavy side of the manufacturer's recommended CG range, and then sneak up on the neutral point.

The main problem with tuning RC airframes for one's desired flight characteristics is that many of the adjustments are interactive, and some parameters have similar symptoms when they're out of adjustment. Things must be checked/adjusted in the proper order - otherwise the process can become quite frustrating. The guide below will allow the pilot to sort out various handling issues in a scientific manner. Courtesy of the NSRCA (National Society of Radio Controlled Aerobatics):

http://nsrca.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=177:t rimchart&catid=114:flying&Itemid=187

Remember - the guide above is intended to be used for flight-trimming purpose-built aerobatic planes, aerobatic sport-planes, and fighters. One would not expect neutral behavior from, say, a J-3 Cub, WWII bomber, transport plane, or passenger jet when flying inverted. That said, the general flight-trimming rules still apply. For instance, a nose-heavy Cub, bomber, transport plane, or passenger jet will drop the nose excessively in turns or when power is cut, and it may lack the elevator authority to execute a power-off flare.

Joel
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
Last edited by turboparker; Mar 19, 2015 at 08:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2015, 09:20 PM
Registered User
United States, CA, Tustin
Joined Oct 2014
41 Posts
Gee Bee Re-maiden / Battery issue!

Quote:
Originally Posted by turboparker View Post
Marblekit,

Nice work! Good luck with the re-maiden. Looking forward to the video!
I maidened the Gee Bee today and she flew pretty well. It may have been a touch nose heavy as it would pitch up with power, but I also discovered that the elevator was trimmed up a little bit as well.

I will have a video up shortly....

What was unexpected was the end of the flight.
A little over 3 minutes into the flight the motor started to pulse and I hit LVC.

I had to ditch in the grass with no throttle and I broke one of the landing gear and a rigging, but it's an easy repair.

What was surprising was the fact the battery gave out so quickly. Its a nearly new battery and 300mah to boot. It's a Turnigy Nanotech 35-70c 300mah battery with a JST connector. I used an E-Filte to 2S JST adapter to connect this battery to the Gee Bee board.

When I checked the voltage of the battery I was shocked that one cell discharged to 2.6v! The other one was at 3.6v.... WTH!!!???

The battery also felt warm... not hot, but pretty warm.

Any idea why the battery discharged at such an unbalanced rate? This is the first time I've ever seen a lipo do this. Is the battery defective?

I let the battery sit for several hours then checked the voltage again and it appears the higher voltage cell charged up the low cell and the low one was at 3.1v and the other one at 3.2v... I'm charging it right now to see if it will work again.

I'm worried that maybe something on this Gee Bee's board is causing the battery to drain oddly, but I'm leaning more that the battery is defective and I'll need to contact Hobby King...

Any ideas?
marblekit is online now Find More Posts by marblekit
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2015, 09:25 PM
JOHN 3:16
Sammy70's Avatar
Central Ohio
Joined Feb 2008
6,905 Posts
Bad lipo would be my guess.
Sammy70 is offline Find More Posts by Sammy70
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2015, 12:38 AM
Heli's rule!
dacaur's Avatar
Midvale, Utah, USA
Joined Mar 2005
9,994 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by marblekit View Post
I'm worried that maybe something on this Gee Bee's board is causing the battery to drain oddly, but I'm leaning more that the battery is defective and I'll need to contact Hobby King...

Any ideas?
There is 0% possibility that the plane caused it. For the plane to have been the problem, it would have had to have access to the center balance tap to be able to discharge each cell on its own, but the battery connector only has pins on the outer two, which is the + of one cell and the - of the other, so it can only drain the two cells together. One of the cells is defective or a much lower capacity than the other...
dacaur is online now Find More Posts by dacaur
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2015, 12:14 PM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
13,215 Posts
Marblekit,

As Dacaur noted - it's impossible for the plane itself to cause one cell to discharge faster than the other. One cell in the pack is bad. That's fairly common with Turnigy packs. Turnigy's QC is notoriously poor, and they use cheaply-made, low-quality cells in their packs.

FYI - if you want to enjoy the full performance that this plane is designed to deliever, pick up some high-performance, ultralight UMX packs from RCBabbel. He makes the lightest, highest-performance UMX packs you can get, using premium high-performance cells from Hyperion & Thunder Power. His packs come with the UMX connector, so they don't need a lossy adapter. Not only will you see a very significant increase in performance, Hyperion LiPos are designed to last for ~300 cycles at 5c charge before they start to fade, and TP's 70C LiPos are designed to last for ~600 cycles at a whopping 12c charge before they start to fade. In contrast, Turnigy LiPos typically fade away after only 30-50 cycles or so - even when pampered.

Here's an example of how the plane flies on a Hyp 450 Babbelbatt. Note the high pitch of the motor/prop, which equates to motor power. It performs even better with his Hyp VX 500 Babbelbatts. Roger's TP 325 70c Babbelbatts are an excellent choice for flying a bit lighter, and they're nearly as fast as the Hyp VX 500s.

Eflite UMX Gee Bee w/Hyperion 450 2s pack - WOT passes, touch & gos (9 min 52 sec)



Joel
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2015, 03:52 PM
Heli's rule!
dacaur's Avatar
Midvale, Utah, USA
Joined Mar 2005
9,994 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turboparker View Post
That's fairly common with Turnigy packs. Turnigy's QC is notoriously poor, and they use cheaply-made, low-quality cells in their packs.
Joel
+1 on that statement. I was a turnigy battery fan when I first started using them, but now that I have had a few, from 1 cell 150mah to 3 cell 2200mah, I have changed my tune.... When my eflight packs that I bought USED a year before the turnigy packs still perform like new, and my turnigy packs are relegated to low amp draw apps after just one year, it makes the cheaper turnigy packs not such a good deal... when my 2200mah 3 cell eflights finally go south, I will replace them with more $35 eflight packs, rather than $20 turnigy packs, because the eflights are WORTH the extra money, IMO.... If you are going to be using them at 15C or less, turnigy are ok, but if you need more than that, look elsewhere... The turnigys are great when new, but go south fast....
dacaur is online now Find More Posts by dacaur
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2015, 06:38 PM
Registered User
United States, CA, Tustin
Joined Oct 2014
41 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turboparker View Post
Marblekit,

As Dacaur noted - it's impossible for the plane itself to cause one cell to discharge faster than the other. One cell in the pack is bad. That's fairly common with Turnigy packs. Turnigy's QC is notoriously poor, and they use cheaply-made, low-quality cells in their packs.

FYI - if you want to enjoy the full performance that this plane is designed to deliever, pick up some high-performance, ultralight UMX packs from RCBabbel. He makes the lightest, highest-performance UMX packs you can get, using premium high-performance cells from Hyperion & Thunder Power. His packs come with the UMX connector, so they don't need a lossy adapter. Not only will you see a very significant increase in performance, Hyperion LiPos are designed to last for ~300 cycles at 5c charge before they start to fade, and TP's 70C LiPos are designed to last for ~600 cycles at a whopping 12c charge before they start to fade. In contrast, Turnigy LiPos typically fade away after only 30-50 cycles or so - even when pampered.

Here's an example of how the plane flies on a Hyp 450 Babbelbatt. Note the high pitch of the motor/prop, which equates to motor power. It performs even better with his Hyp VX 500 Babbelbatts. Roger's TP 325 70c Babbelbatts are an excellent choice for flying a bit lighter, and they're nearly as fast as the Hyp VX 500s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn7hAlhTNpA


Joel
Very nice piloting, Joel! Impressive touch and go's with a Gee Bee!
marblekit is online now Find More Posts by marblekit
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:13 PM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
13,215 Posts
Thanks for the compliment, MK! Back when I was learning to fly RC, I spent the majority of my time working on my landing technique because I figured that a flight is only as good as the landing. On that note, it's been 2 years & 5 days since I last posted my Gee Bee setup & landing tutorial. I think it's time for a re-post:

For effortless KE:

1) Be sure that the rudder pushrod is in the innermost hole on the horn (factory position). Make sure that you're not using low rates. This plane has a scale empennage, which means that it needs all the rudder throw you can get.

2) Trim for level flight @ WOT. Perform a KE pass. If it won't do sustained KE circuits & climbing KE passes, it's either nose heavy or your pack isn't good enough for this app. Or both.

3) Trim for level flight @ WOT. Perform a level KE pass into or with the wind (no crosswinds). Correct for roll-coupling with aileron as needed, but don't touch the elevator. If the plane pulls to the canopy during KE, it's nose-heavy. If it tucks toward the gear, it's tail-heavy. Adjust the pack, take her up again, trim for level flight @ WOT and do another KE pass. When you get it right, the plane will do a straight KE pass without elevator input. After the flight, be sure to transfer any tx trim to mechanical trim & reset your tx trims.

4) Perform a KE pass @ WOT. The plane should have no trouble with sustained or climbing KE passes, and you should be able to fly as many sustained KE circuits in a row as you wish. If not, you need better batteries (assuming that you're flying at lower elevations and are already running a 5030 prop).

Improving landings & minimizing nose-overs:

1) Make sure the plane isn't nose-heavy (see above). Verify that the tail-wheel is properly aligned with the rudder. Make sure the plane is trimmed to fly straight & true, with no visible yaw. Move the elevator pushrod to the innermost hole & be sure to use full rates, as this plane needs all the elevator authority you can give it, thanks to its scale tail-feathers. And remember that a good approach is key to a good landing. Any landing will only be as good as the approach which precedes it.

2) Start setting up your approach about halfway through your downwind leg. Reduce throttle & ease the stick back to slow down a bit. Manage airspeed with elevator, and manage descent-rate with throttle. You want to be just above approach altitude by the time you turn to base.

3) Be sure to keep the nose up during the turn to base so that you don't gain airspeed. Continue to slowly descend & slowly reduce airspeed. Remember to manage descent rate with throttle & manage airspeed with elevator. You want to be at approach speed & altitude by the time you turn to final.

4) Turn to final & line up with the runway. Be sure to keep the nose up through the turn so you don't gain airspeed. You should now be lined up with the runway. Reduce throttle to begin the final descent. Pick a spot on the runway, set up your glidepath, and aim for it. The plane should be descending at a slightly nose-down attitude.

5) Be sure to manage descent-rate primarily with throttle, and manage airspeed primarily with elevator. Remember to aim for the spot you chose in step 3. If it looks like you'll land short, ease into the power a bit. If it looks like you'll land long, pull the power back a bit. If you're coming in hot, gently ease back on the stick to raise the nose slightly & slow down. If you're getting slow, relax the elevator to gain airspeed. Use rudder for course corrections, and use ailerons only to keep the wings level. The goal is to reduce pilot workload as you get closer to touchdown. Make all major course & glidepath corrections during the first part of the final, so that only minor corrections are required during the last part.

6) At this point, you should only need gentle, subtle control inputs to maintain the glidepath. If you're frantically rowing the sticks in an attempt to get things right during the last half of the final - smoothly go to full power, keep the nose level, gain airspeed, pull up, and go around. (A poor approach is the #1 cause of botched landings.) As you cross the runway threshold, smoothly reduce power & ease back on the stick - but remember to carry some power all the way to touchdown. For two-wheel landings, continue to step 6. For 3-point landings, go to step 7.

7) You're going for a 2-wheel landing. Just as the mains touch the ground, smoothly close the throttle & steer with rudder. When the tail comes down, ease the stick back all the way. Keep the stick back all the way during the rollout and while taxiing.

8) You're going for a full-stall three-point landing. When the plane is about a foot off the runway, start to ease the stick back for the flare, while managing descent-rate with throttle. The plane should now be slowly settling-in, at a slightly nose-high three-point attitude. Continue to ease back on stick & smoothly reduce throttle. The elevator stick should be almost all the way back just as the wheels touch. Immediately after touchdown, smoothly close the throttle as you pull the stick all the way back. Steer with rudder, and keep the stick all the way back during the rollout.

Mastering the above landing technique will maximize your chances of keeping the Gee Bee right-side-up during the rollout. It will also allow you put any plane right where you want it to be on the runway, and land in the shortest possible distance.

Joel
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
Last edited by turboparker; Yesterday at 04:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:01 PM
Registered User
United States, CA, Tustin
Joined Oct 2014
41 Posts
UMX Gee Bee Flies Again

Finally got around to editing my Gee Bee video. Had to cut out all the far away flight as this plane is small and turns into a speck on the video... Enjoy!

UMX Gee Bee R2 Flies Again (5 min 10 sec)
marblekit is online now Find More Posts by marblekit
Last edited by marblekit; Today at 12:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:41 PM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
13,215 Posts
MK,

Your video is private, so we can't watch it. You need to edit the video properties on YT & make it public. Also - be sure to post the URL that doesn't have a period between the u & b in 'youtube'.

Joel
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 12:22 AM
Registered User
United States, CA, Tustin
Joined Oct 2014
41 Posts
Sorry about that! I thought I fixed that. Should be viewable now!
marblekit is online now Find More Posts by marblekit
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help! Adrienne Paige Gee Bee R2 Plans Eric Giorgiantonio Fuel Plane Talk 5 Jan 29, 2012 11:02 PM
For Sale Herr Gee Bee R2 (NIB) 25" wingspan pdawg Aircraft - Electric - Micro & Indoor Airplanes (FS/W) 0 Oct 12, 2011 10:20 AM
Wanted Adrian Page Gee Bee Z 1/5th and/or Gee Bee R2 1/5th (looking for) Xanix Aircraft - Fuel - Airplanes (FS/W) 0 Jul 23, 2007 06:16 PM