Originally Posted by ssassen

Dissapointing, that's all I can say, especially considering the price of the Tuning power set!

Flew my Xeno for the first time last week, using the Tuning power set and a couple of Rhino 1300mAh 40C 3S packs. Unlimited vertical, yeah right, not by my standards. Also the fins are not large enough to provide enough stabilization for proper tracking, so it wobbles when turning. So I went ahead and modified my Xeno to suit my needs.

- bigger motor, approx 500W of power (Graupner 345Z 35 size outrunner).
- moved fins to the tips and angled slightly inwards.
- made room for a more common 3S/2200 LiPo
- cut out a larger propellor slot to reduce propellor noise.

Flew her again yesterday and the difference is night and day, she now tracks properly, doesn't wobble anymore in turns and unlimited vertical is indeed unlimited vertical now. All this added about 160 grams in weight (motor and larger LiPo) and she still balances out nicely on the CG without additional weight.

Cheers,

Sander.

Well done Sander ...... I must say I don't like the 'Wobble ' either and your wing tip mod looks good ..... could you give us more info on how you did it and some close up photo's .....

ps. I think your motor setup is great ..... Sleurhutje has done something similar to you and he seems to be flying well too .....

Originally Posted by hobie14

ps. I think your motor setup is great ..... Sleurhutje has done something similar to you and he seems to be flying well too .....

I think the extra cut out for the prop gives you some more room to put the motor up front, so less lead in the nose.

Originally Posted by Sleurhutje

I think the extra cut out for the prop gives you some more room to put the motor up front, so less lead in the nose.

Exactly, and this generates less prop noise as well, as the prop blades now clear the fuselage by about 2cm, this used to be less than 1cm on the original setup, making the Xeno a bit of a screamer.

Cheers,

Sander.

Originally Posted by ssassen

Exactly, and this generates less prop noise as well, as the prop blades now clear the fuselage by about 2cm, this used to be less than 1cm on the original setup, making the Xeno a bit of a screamer.

Oooh, that's the fun part I like too much...


*still thinking about one or two EDF's on top*

Just dropped my Xeno in the trunk; will do some flying after work tomorrow. Will check the c.o.g. and "how" vertical mine will go with the 140-150W setup. Didn't configure the setup for vertical by the way. Last week on the first flight I did notice a slight wobble, but perhaps because my Xeno is relative light, it's not a real issue.

Will post results tomorrow; 'glad I didn't buy the powersetup ;-)

Sander that is top notch! Did you heat the material in order to get it to bend?

I'm fairly happy with my Tuning setup, it goes straight up but we are at sea level. (?) It is perfect power for my park.

Did some flights today. I like the plane, but I don't think it will be my favourite to bring to the club; had a little bit more fun with my Gemini today. The Xeno will be the one to take to the slope, on holiday etc.

The setup works fine; can't do vertical climbs, but that's not what I intended.
Re-measurement showed that I'll need an extra of about 20g weight in the front to get de c.o.g. exactly on the second spar (you can easely use some kind of thin rope/wire and "loop" that through the rod that is used as hinge between the fuse-halves). Total weight of the ballast with the limited powertrain in the back will be in this case 45g.

Is the c.o.g. exactly on the spar really needed, or can it be a little more afterwards? With the current amount of weight, the Xeno flies ok, but because of the wind this afternoon it was difficult to tell I still could improve significantly.

Edit: AUW is now 800g, so will be 820g with extra weight, which is almost equal to the Tuningkit I presume...

I've been watching this model for awhile now. I really like its aerodynamic shaping and of course being made out of very dependable Elapor foam, but I am not at all crazy about the "tuning power" setup. It is way, way overpriced IMHO. That was one of the reasons why I have not bought the plane. The wobbling in flight I can easily fix with larger fins/winglets etc... Any way I was brainstorming last night about just getting the Xeno, but without the power kit, while making my own motor mount. I was going over the spare parts list for the Parkzone Stryker and noticed its motor mount. The motor mount is a clamp down one that *might* work on the Xeno. For me, being able to fold the plane in half is a gimmick and is not necessary. What do you guys think, I already own all of the electronics/radio gear/batteries etc, but was being held back with the Multiplex power setup. Do you think the Stryker's motor mount could work on this plane with some modifications? If so, I would thumb my nose at Multiplex!


Motor mount: http://secure.hobbyzone.com/PKZ4234.html

For a start: if you mount a 45g outrunner far in the tail with a very light motormount (carbon, cnc’d) and a folding prop, you’ll need a lipo of about 160g in the front to achieve the right c.o.g. (I have 1050 mah Rhino’s, so I needed about 50g weight as far as possible in the front). In this case, you’re AUW will be comparable with the Tuning-setup (with smaller lipo), which has a bit more power.

So:
- a motor in the tail (even a relative light setup, 100-150 W) will almost certainly make the Xeno at least as heavy as with the Tuning-setup (using the recommended lipo), because you’ll need more weight in the nose (bigger lipo or lead)
- if you want power and don’t want to go too heavy, you’ll have to place the motor more forward. In that case the Tuning-setup is an option, but expensive and with a fragile shaft
- if you want more power in the tail, the weight needed in the nose will be much, much more, making the AUW 10-20% more compared to the Tuning-setup

best regards,
Dennis

Originally Posted by ZamBeZi

Pook, I made the Hub myself, customised for the Aeronaut folding blades; works brilliantly and very well balanced.
Because the Hyperion outrunner has no possibility to bolt directly the hub on the motor (like the Axi-motor with the hub made by KD), I unfortunately had to use a propadapter, which means a few extra grams on the worst possible place in the airframe. Because of that I needed a little bit more ballast in the nose.

I had to make front- and backplates in various lengths (in steps of 0.50 mm) to find the sweet spot to prevent the blades cutting the foam:

Any chance of a cad copy of this ?

Originally Posted by ZamBeZi

For a start: if you mount a 45g outrunner far in the tail with a very light motormount (carbon, cnc’d) and a folding prop, you’ll need a lipo of about 160g in the front to achieve the right c.o.g. (I have 1050 mah Rhino’s, so I needed about 50g weight as far as possible in the front). In this case, you’re AUW will be comparable with the Tuning-setup (with smaller lipo), which has a bit more power.

So:
- a motor in the tail (even a relative light setup, 100-150 W) will almost certainly make the Xeno at least as heavy as with the Tuning-setup (using the recommended lipo), because you’ll need more weight in the nose (bigger lipo or lead)
- if you want power and don’t want to go too heavy, you’ll have to place the motor more forward. In that case the Tuning-setup is an option, but expensive and with a fragile shaft
- if you want more power in the tail, the weight needed in the nose will be much, much more, making the AUW 10-20% more compared to the Tuning-setup

best regards,
Dennis

Yeah, thanks. I have experience with flying wings and the criticality of C.O.G and its inherent sensitivity as compared with more conventional layouts. I know that I could fix the "wobble" issues on this plane along with the C.O.G difficulties, but there is no stinkin' way I am going to fork over my hard earned cash for their power setups. I *think*, but could definitely be wrong, that the Stryker motor mount *might* work, since the Stryker is similar in regards to the thinness of the trailing edge foam of the plane. Again, I could care less to fold this plane in half as I view it as unnecessary. I still think the Xeno has a lot of potential, but it just needs a few issues addressed. In all fairness to it, it is only Version 1.0 after all

Got my xeno today looks great and the finish and fit of the parts is second to none. can’t wait to get this thing in the air.

You will love flying it Nick but you will probably want to make the fin mod at least to make it really handle well.

I'm going to fit some FPV gear into mine in the next week or so. Got most of the bugs ironed out on my EZ* and it's now flying well with the RVOSD computer - even flew it FPV today in a gusty 15mph wind. It was difficult making headway into wind but managed to land it on our strip which was behind a barn from where I was sitting - almost lost the video link though

George

George, i will defiantly be making some kind of mod to the fins they do look very small. The fins on my funjet look like they would work well but i will try a more locost solution instead of getting a set of replacement funjet items.
Sander, when you say "- moved fins to the tips and angled slightly inwards." i take it you mean the front tips are closer together than the back edge? what is your thinking behind this dose it add a more positive (self centering feel) in flight a bit like toe on a car ?

Originally Posted by fpvnick

Sander, when you say "- moved fins to the tips and angled slightly inwards." i take it you mean the front tips are closer together than the back edge? what is your thinking behind this dose it add a more positive (self centering feel) in flight a bit like toe on a car ?

Yes, exactly like toe on a car, it tracks much better now, but also adds some drag, hence top speed is slightly reduced (nothing a bigger motor or prop can't fix).

Cheers,

Sander.