An entire Bixler kit is only $42 from HK. Of course finding it in-stock is another issue all together.

Originally Posted by Eagle202

How about using a piece of an old fishing pole. I know they are tapered but all you need is a section with the big end being the same diameter as the old spar. It should still give you some support and flexibility without breaking.

I'll check what I have in garage. Also thinking about nylon rods (but didn't saw them as well).

Originally Posted by mrwaug

...
I have had at least 100 flights with no instruction or trainer and am able to do most acrobatic moves...

I started without trainer as well. I do some basic acrobatic and low flights on second flight. Just uploaded the video.

Bixler Flight #02.mp4 (2 min 32 sec)

Originally Posted by mudcow007

damage to my wing after a crash with a tree - i think the actual damage was caused by tryign to retrieve it

should i cut the damage out an replace with foam?

any ideas on how i could shape the wing tip?

is it even possible?

Mmm it's a trail edge not a leading one. As suggested better to purchase a new wings or kit.
But is you can cut a foam with hot wire, you should be able to cut any curve.
In this case cut the wing as here

and use cutted piece to draw the shape.

If not but you already have good enough flight experience just cut wing tips on both wings.

They are for roll stability and not for the lift. Bixler will get more speed BTW. It was mentioned in FPV theead as far as I remember. Somebody cut them already in 1 cm after ailerons.

Originally Posted by Scorpio9999

Mmm it's a trail edge not a leading one. As suggested better to purchase a new wings or kit.
But is you can cut a foam with hot wire, you should be able to cut any curve.
In this case cut the wing as here
Attachment 5201366
and use cutted piece to draw the shape.

If not but you already have good enough flight experience just cut wing tips on both wings.
Attachment 5201367
They are for roll stability and not for the lift. Bixler will get more speed BTW. It was mentioned in FPV theead as far as I remember. Somebody cut them already in 1 cm after ailerons.

now thats an idea, i thought the wing tips were for lift!!

would there be any adverse effects of trimming the wings?

Originally Posted by mudcow007

would there be any adverse effects of trimming the wings?

I didn't cut mine as I have only 5 flights.
So, in theory:
1. little lower lift capability - higher speed (think about flaps if you going to put a lot of electronic)
2. moderate lower roll stability (zero self leveling) - more aerobatic
3. little-moderate lower dependancy on cross winds

As another idea you can add your own winglets (as on Boeing or Airbus). They are for another purpose but...

well as far as i can see it cant fly the way it is

so i think i will have a go at trimming the wings i will trim as little as possible

i just hope she is still controllable after its surgery!

if all fails i will wait until they are in stock again or more likely go to version 2

Originally Posted by mudcow007

well as far as i can see it cant fly the way it is

so i think i will have a go at trimming the wings i will trim as little as possible

i just hope she is still controllable after its surgery!

if all fails i will wait until they are in stock again or more likely go to version 2

It will fly fine, but you will need to apply a little more speed to keep it in level flight since lift will have been reduced somewhat. When on approach for landing, speed will need to be higher than stock as sink rate will increase (unless you throw some flaps on, but they really won't be necessary). Might also want to ensure that the wings are well attached for all flights.

Aeronca

Just after ordering my Bixler2, I found out about a new plane:
http://www.bananahobby.com/super-sky-surfer.html
Bigger in all dimensions. 8-foot wingspan, 4-1/2 pounds flying weight, a sweet flier. Drove to Banana Hobby in Los Angeles to pick one up (ARF version), just so I could resolve any problems on the spot (there were none). Five flights on it so far.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Just after ordering my Bixler2, I found out about a new plane:
http://www.bananahobby.com/super-sky-surfer.html
Bigger in all dimensions. 8-foot wingspan, 4-1/2 pounds flying weight, a sweet flier. Drove to Banana Hobby in Los Angeles to pick one up (ARF version), just so I could resolve any problems on the spot (there were none). Five flights on it so far.

Mine Just arrived yesterday. Did you use all stock pieces/parts? CG=100mm? Where is the video of your maiden? You know what is said around here -> "If is ain't on video, it didn't Happen." It is very OK to post your thoughts (and videos) here. After all, it is a Sky Surfer, too.
AJ

Originally Posted by ajbaker

Mine Just arrived yesterday. Did you use all stock pieces/parts?

Yep, so far. Except the tail pushrods were too skinny IMHO, so I clipped them short and spliced on some 5" threaded rods for nylon Kwik-links for rudder and elevator. And used nylon bolts to bolt the tail on and make it removable, for transportation purposes.

Mine came with the decals not applied, they were still on their separate sheet in the box. I didn't put them on, I sort of prefer it without them. Might paint it somehow, later.

Oh, CG=100mm?

That's what the manual says. Mine is currently at 105mm, which is barely an rch from where the manual calls for on a plane this big, yet it flies like it's distinctly tailheavy. I haven't adjusted it yet, but I have a feeling that putting it at 100mm will still result in a tailheavy plane. I'll know more soon.

My plane is flyable, but bobs its nose and stalls pretty easily, and is hypersensitive in pitch. If I were you I would put the CG no further aft than 100mm. And bring a few bolts to the first flight, put them in the nose as needed.

My guess is, 90mm or so will be about right. But I haven't tried that yet.

Where is the video of your maiden? You know what is said around here -> "If is ain't on video, it didn't Happen."

Had my hands full, didn't shoot any. Perhaps another day.

Did you get an RTF or ARF version?

P.S. We've started an info-and-FAQs page in the Super Sky Surfer thread. See Post #829 and later posts, here:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...706026&page=56

It is very OK to post your thoughts (and videos) here. After all, it is a Sky Surfer, too.

Would you settle for a still shot?

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Yep, so far. Except the tail pushrods were too skinny IMHO, so I clipped them short and spliced on some 5" threaded rods for nylon Kwik-links for rudder and elevator. And used nylon bolts to bolt the tail on and make it removable, for transportation purposes.

Mine came with the decals not applied, they were still on their separate sheet in the box. I didn't put them on, I sort of prefer it without them. Might paint it somehow, later.


That's what the manual says. Mine is currently at 105mm, which is barely an rch from where the manual calls for on a plane this big, yet it flies like it's distinctly tailheavy. I haven't adjusted it yet,
1. but I have a feeling that putting it at 100mm will still result in a tailheavy plane. I'll know more soon.

My plane is flyable, but bobs its nose and stalls pretty easily, and is hypersensitive in pitch. If I were you I would put the CG no further aft than 100mm. And bring a few bolts to the first flight, put them in the nose as needed.

My guess is, 90mm or so will be about right. But I haven't tried that yet.

2. Did you get an RTF or ARF version?

P.S. We've started an info-and-FAQs page in the Super Sky Surfer thread. See Post #829 and later posts, here:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...706026&page=56

1. I think you mean nose heavy. (when moving the CG from 105mm to 100mm). As you move the CG more forward, the plane becomes more nose heavy (I am pretty sure you know this because the rest of your references to CG is correct.)

2. I got and ARF. All but battery, receiver, xmitter.

I had the same thought about the control rods. But, I put in the stock ones in. Does the stock motor have enough power?
AJ

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

<Snip>

P.S. We've started an info-and-FAQs page in the Super Sky Surfer thread. See Post #829 and later posts, here:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...706026&page=56

Great. I will post over there starting immediately. This thread moves fast and has a LOT of posts (as you know). This thread does not need another new plane added to it even if it is a Sky Surfer (just BIGGER). I think this is the most popular thread on RCG.
AJ

Originally Posted by ajbaker

1. I think you mean nose heavy.

Nope, tailheavy. With the CG at 105MM behind the LE, it's definitely that way, and you're right that moving it to 100mm will make it less tailheavy (more noseheavy if you will). But my point is, I don't think it will make ENOUGH difference, and the plane will still be slightly tailheavy, even with the CG at 100mm. Putting enough weight in the nose to move the CG to 90mm behind the LE, would make it about right, is my guess. But I haven't tried it yet.

2. I got and ARF. All but battery, receiver, xmitter.

Ditto. Not sure why my decals came un-applied, other people in the SSS thread expressed surprise too. But I sort of like it better that way - to me the milky-white finish is gorgeous. I'm completely unbiased, of course.

I had the same thought about the control rods. But, I put in the stock ones in.

It's really the one thing I recommend changing right off the bat. Many people in the SSS thread have replaced them with thicker music wire, though some had difficulty finding long enough wires at the LHS. I compromised, simply grafted Kwik-links onto the existing rods in their unsupported areas at the tail. But I'd imagine there are a number of these planes flying even now, with the originals, so maybe I'm a little paranoid.

Does the stock motor have enough power?

Barely, if you ask me. But you've seen the motors I put on my regular SkySurfer and Easystar. I've got something similar (but bigger) on order now for the SSS.

Nearly all my flights of the SSS have been with stock motor and propeller, since I had nothing else to put in it. The plane hand-launches OK even in zero wind, though it takes a pretty good heave. And it climbs adequately at full throttle, though nothing spectacular. The stock motor/propeller are a good place to start, I guess. The plane was designed as a powered glider, and flies like one. No real problem.

Two notes:

1.) Mine came with noticeable left thrust in the motor mount. I left it as it was, and the plane flies and climbs straight. Several others in the SSS thread have said theirs also had that left thrust. It may have been designed that way. I like the way it flies with it, and have no intention of taking it out.

2.) One of the posters in the SSS thread pointed out that the stock ESC is rated at 40W. The manual that comes with the plane, names two 40W ESCs, I'm not sure which is in the plane (probably the cheaper, linear-BEC one). But the manual says both the 40W ESCs are rated for either 4 or 5 servos, and the SSS comes with six!
Putting in an external BEC, or a new ESC with a 4A or more BEC, might be a good idea, just in case. Maybe even a separate battery for receiver and servos, since the plane needs more weight in the nose anyway? I'm flying mine with the stock ESC and its built-in BEC, no problems yet. But I have a new 60A ESC on the bench, which I'll put in with the new motor (3642, 3200KV naturally ).
I've wondered how the manual-writers arrived at their "rated for 4 servos" evaluation. Maybe they mean 4 "standard" size servos, which I believe are around 55 grams each? The SSS servos are smaller, 17g each, and probably have less current draw. Maybe six of those still come in under the limit, whatever that is?

Originally Posted by ajbaker

Great. I will post over there starting immediately. This thread moves fast and has a LOT of posts (as you know). This thread does not need another new plane added to it even if it is a Sky Surfer (just BIGGER). I think this is the most popular thread on RCG.
AJ

AJ, I subscribed to that thread when it started and there are a lot of good Ideas and that CG thing was a big part of getting it right.

I unsubscripted, I track too many threads now. Besides it seems to have been designed mostly for gliding and flying FPV gear. I have no interest in a flying camera. 'Oh look it's a corn field, theres a barn and another corn Field, wait till the kids see this!'

It's a Saint Barnard but the SSS thread one can learn how to make that dog bark. Have fun with it.

DJ