Originally Posted by guaglione87

Maiden flight today. Boy she flys real slow which will be nice for my fpv setup. Tip stalled and barely caught it, so learned my lesson there. Also it does not seem to handle wind too well. Other than that it flew great

Any chance it's tailheavy? Sounds vaguely like that.

The SSS is VERY sensitive to CG position. Move it a quarter inch and it's a whole different airplane.

The manual recommends a CG position 100mm behind the leading edge of the wing. I put mine there, and found that seems to be about the best position, at least for me and my plane. YMMV.

I also flew mine with the CG about a quarter inch behind that point, and it kept bobbing its nose up and down, with me trying to keep it steady with the stick, and stalled frequently. Sound familiar?

And I flew mine with the CG as far forward as 93mm behind the leading edge (which is about a quarter inch forward of where the manual recommends). Still flew fine. But with every hand launch, the plane would dip toward the ground, requiring a real fast up-elevator to yank it back up and avoid the grass.

Experiment with the CG position, and see where your plane flies best.
_________________________________

See the Technical Info/FAQ page for the Super Sky Surfer at http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...6#post22886340

Originally Posted by ajbaker

Of course. The CC ESC's come with a temperature control. It failed. That is why they replaced it with another one (which I still have not used). I thing it is obvious - the guarantee did not save the ESC or my plane. I told them exactly what I did and they said nothing and replaced it.

AJ

If I destroyed an ESC by exceeding the maximum current specs I would have figured it was my fault and would not have expected a free replacement.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

The SSS is VERY sensitive to CG position. Move it a quarter inch and it's a whole different airplane.

Very sensitive? lol... guess you havent flown any flying wings... +/- 1/2" is a HUGE window

I loved how mine flew at 90-95mm from leading edge. But with the new one getting 10Ah of 4s i think im going to take it back to around 98-102mm

Chris

I think the SSS looks like this..

A Shoebill

Originally Posted by chanyote66

Very sensitive? lol... guess you havent flown any flying wings...

A few very simple ones, long ago. Would I be dating myself if I mentioned Jetex?

I loved how mine flew at 90-95mm from leading edge. But with the new one getting 10Ah of 4s i think im going to take it back to around 98-102mm

Chris

Someone in this thread mentioned that he was using a gyro to keep things steady, and that his CG was WAY back of the manual's recommended location. The gyro kept it flying straight and level.

Interesting, and rather F_16ish. The Falcon is a pure fly-by-wire aircraft (no physical connection between the stick and the control surfaces), and is deliberately built with a way-aft CG, so that it would wildly unstable and unflyable by any modern standards. But the computers keep the plane in line, and the pilot with his joystick isn't really flying the plane, he's telling the computers how he wants it to fly. And the computers guide it along a razor's edge of instability to make it respond just the way the pilot says. The pilot never notices, and most pilots say the F-16 is a great-flying plane, a pleasure to handle.

Interesting. I guess it's possible to do that with a model plane and some of the gyros we've seen around, such as the KK2.0 or other discrete gyros.

Good luck if you ever have a gyro malfunction, control failure, or power failure, tho.

Originally Posted by kaptondave

If I bought a product and destroyed it through that kind of abuse I would have been ashamed to ask for a free replacement.

Why? The temperature control is guaranteed. I told them exactly what happened and they gladly gave me a replacement. I haven't tested the new one yet. I did over amp several old Turnigy ESC's and they cut out just like they are supposed to. As far as abusing it, I was unaware that I was overamping the ESC. So, it was an accident, not abuse. Testing other ESC's is exactly that. If I can't depend on the built in protection, I won't use it. After all, it HAS to be there to protect the plane against overamping. You might be ashamed. I am not in the least. I expect any ESC to operate according to its specs. If it doesn't, why bother buying it. And, if it fails, I expect it to be replaced. Expecting them to replace the whole plane would be unrealistic. But, I lost an entire airplane because of their failed ESC. Certainly, they have a responsibility for the failure. That is just good business.
AJ

Originally Posted by chanyote66

Very sensitive? lol... guess you havent flown any flying wings... +/- 1/2" is a HUGE window

I loved how mine flew at 90-95mm from leading edge. But with the new one getting 10Ah of 4s i think im going to take it back to around 98-102mm

Chris

I use a 3A Lipo and the CG is at 210mm from LE and flies perfectly. Of course, I use a gyro and I can put the CG anywhere from 60mm to 200+mm because the gyro takes care of all of it. As a bonus, any little gusts upon landing does not bother the plane at all. The gyro can correct a sudden change in attitude at least 100+ times faster than a human. I use a gyro (EK2-0704) on almost all my planes. They make even a beginner look like an expert when landing.
AJ
P.S. Without a gyro, the plane would be unflyable.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Interesting. I guess it's possible to do that with a model plane and soem of the gyros we've seen around, such as the KK2.0 or other discrete gyros.

Good luck if you ever have a gyro malfunction, control failure, or power failure, tho.

Well heck, or how about a surface failure, ESC failure, motor failure, LiPo failure, or any one of many, many other failures. BTW-I have never had a gyro failure in over a 1000+ flights with them. I have had Dean's plug failures that totaled out 2 planes though. - And they are supposed to NEVER fail. Of course, I tossed all of mine and went to XT-60's. I have yet to have any problems at all with them. All 32 of my flying planes are using the XT-60's. For me, I swear by them.
AJ

Originally Posted by ajbaker

Why? The temperature control is guaranteed. I told them exactly what happened and they gladly gave me a replacement. I haven't tested the new one yet. I did over amp several old Turnigy ESC's and they cut out just like they are supposed to. As far as abusing it, I was unaware that I was overamping the ESC. So, it was an accident, not abuse.
AJ

They did not really "gladly" give you a replacement. According to your story they wanted to split the cost and you declined, so they gave it to you as a good-will gesture. The failure was caused by negligence on your part. Negligence is not an accident. If you had used a watt meter to test the unknown prop load as others have suggested it would not have happened. I always test new motor/prop combos that way and have never had a problem.

We all have our own standards of ethics. If you are happy with yours that is what matters.

Perfect day for flying.
AJ

SSS New Prop (3 min 21 sec)

Originally Posted by ajbaker

Perfect day for flying.
AJ
http://youtu.be/udn_pRlyPs0

sweetness !! landing in a area that small ! and flying with the power lines and houses wohoo !!. Im going to make my wings removable,and put the servo plugs under the wings in fuse so just slide wings in and plug them in. hope to get her out this week Nice flying man !

Originally Posted by ajbaker

Why? The temperature control is guaranteed. I told them exactly what happened and they gladly gave me a replacement. I haven't tested the new one yet. I did over amp several old Turnigy ESC's and they cut out just like they are supposed to. As far as abusing it, I was unaware that I was overamping the ESC. So, it was an accident, not abuse. Testing other ESC's is exactly that. If I can't depend on the built in protection, I won't use it. After all, it HAS to be there to protect the plane against overamping. You might be ashamed. I am not in the least. I expect any ESC to operate according to its specs. If it doesn't, why bother buying it. And, if it fails, I expect it to be replaced. Expecting them to replace the whole plane would be unrealistic. But, I lost an entire airplane because of their failed ESC. Certainly, they have a responsibility for the failure. That is just good business.
AJ

You said "I expect any ESC to operate according to its specs" but clearly you do not expect they should be operated within their designated amperage.

However, what bothers me the most is that you put out negative comments about a good company and their products based on your own negligence to do proper tests while using their equipment. You are basically saying that you rely on a BACKUP fail safe system to protect your planes rather than to do a simple calculation or watt meter test. Then when your ignorance causes your aircraft to pull WAY too many amps through an ESC that was never designed nor intended to handle that much current you claim their products are defective and not worth buying. To top it off, you even have the audacity to try to get it replaced for free! That is why kaptondave said (and I agree) he would be ashamed to ask for a replacement.

Edit: Granted, the CC ESC's current limiting function should have kicked in and shut it down BUT... that does not excuse your actions for poor implementation of their product.

Eric

I've gone to Anderson's with the crimpers and ain't looking back. Started with EC3's cuz of the PNPs and BNFs. Got tired of prying them apart. If I go to higher amp applications I'll consider something else, but my understanding is APPs can take quite a bit more than the rated power for aircraft as their rating is based upon constant current for much longer duration. Can be unplugged with one hand.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Any chance it's tailheavy? Sounds vaguely like that.

The SSS is VERY sensitive to CG position. Move it a quarter inch and it's a whole different airplane.

The manual recommends a CG position 100mm behind the leading edge of the wing. I put mine there, and found that seems to be about the best position, at least for me and my plane. YMMV.

I also flew mine with the CG about a quarter inch behind that point, and it kept bobbing its nose up and down, with me trying to keep it steady with the stick, and stalled frequently. Sound faPmiliar?

And I flew mine with the CG as far forward as 93mm behind the leading edge (which is about a quarter inch forward of where the manual recommends). Still flew fine. But with every hand launch, the plane would dip toward the ground, requiring a real fast up-elevator to yank it back up and avoid the grass.

Experiment with the CG position, and see where your plane flies best.
_________________________________

See the Technical Info/FAQ page for the Super Sky Surfer at http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...6#post22886340

I do believe you are correct. She was a bit tail heavy but I did all I could with the 3 s 4000 mah I had at the field. I will put my 4s 4000mah and move the cg up.

A thought about those using gyros to run cg way far back - that really kills efficiency. Reason being is that you more often have the control surfaces deflecting to keep the plane stabile. You can imagine in turn how constant up ele is not efficient as a properly balanced plane where neutral ele balances the plane. Not to mention that non sense kills ur range of deflection. Just my 2 cents

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Good luck if you ever have a gyro malfunction, control failure, or power failure, tho.

I agree with you on that one...

My first SSS was stabilized on all surfaces with the KK2.0 and OpenAero but I still made sure CG was right where it could fly without stabilization.

I am now taking the KISS method on my new one and only installing my OSD and RX... no stabilization...

Chris