Originally Posted by rcmonster99

Cralis, you are right they dont fit the indent so stick them end screw them, trim the excess length with cutters. the rudder thickness is not a problem, you can just grab the plate on the other side. use the longer ones

rcmonster99 - how did you attach the rudder servo rod holder thing? You said, 'use the longer ones'. Which longer ones? I have sued the 4 longer screws on my ailerons... And the short ones don't fit the ailerons... or the rudder.

Edit: Fixed it. Got a thicker nut and bolt... drilled the hole a bit bigger, and now that rudder horn will NEVER come off.

Originally Posted by zaguruinzasky

I flew this model this week but for me is a no go...

main reason is too fast, too much weight on nose to get it balanced, tail is very shaky. I needed 2x 3s 2200 lipo + a gopro on nose to have it balanced. way too much, we should be able to balance it with a single 3s 2200. there is enough room in the middel fuselage to add all the equip.

On a future newer version I would like to see a longer nose for easier cg balance with less weight use, a stronger tail , a thicker canopy, precutted flaps with servo holes ready, longer cf tubes inside the wing and absolutely better shipping box and packaging, looks like almost all of us received it damaged somewhere...

it's a nice plane but still some upgrades to do imho.

Maybe I will try twin engine on wings instead, more efficiency, less noise, less vibrations and no torque with counterprops..

Tail heavy!? Really?? I have a feeling that was mentioned quite a few times in this thread. The plane needs a 3s5000 or bigger pack to balance.

What motor did you end up with? Most on this thread had aspirations of putting in motors that were way too big and heavy.

What servos? again there was talk of HS81/82s. Too big and heavy.

The plane, as I stated just a page or two back, cruises at about 50 kph. This is about min to keep altitude.

I do agree the plane could do with a longer nose to help balance though.

The other thing I noticed is that the plane is not that sensitive to CoG. So a little tail heavy doesn't present a real problem.

Oh and what about twin motor setup is more efficient!!?? Quite the opposite I think you will find.

Originally Posted by ashdec87

well I think I'm gonna take the plunge and get one of these from FPV flying.com Picking up the FY 20 as well.

Gonna get the DL and ET OSD PRO. That should make for a nice setup.

EDIT: Actually I will not be ordering from fpvflying.com. $100 for shipping is ridiculous, especially since they are charging $40 for the plane and an additional $40 for the FY 20.

I think that's a mistake in the shop software, because it assumes that the FY-20 gets shipped with DHL while the Skywalker gets shipped with EMS. I am sure Hooks (FPVflying) can clarify.
I had the same issue when I ordered the FY-21AP II and a video switch from him and he resolved it to my satisfaction. Recommended therefore.

Miha

Originally Posted by wilsonj

Tail heavy!? Really?? I have a feeling that was mentioned quite a few times in this thread. The plane needs a 3s5000 or bigger pack to balance.

I know it needs that lipo, what I said is that it's too heavy, with a 5000 I can fly more than 40 minutes now... I'm happier with 15 minutes but slower airplanes, but that's imposssible, that's what I mean.

What motor did you end up with? Most on this thread had aspirations of putting in motors that were way too big and heavy.

I used a turnigy that has been suggested some pages ago, I have costant climb speed at about 40° with 8"x6" apc

What servos? again there was talk of HS81/82s. Too big and heavy.

I'm using microservos everywhere with no problems, the HTX900.

The plane, as I stated just a page or two back, cruises at about 50 kph. This is about min to keep altitude.

I know that's why I say too fast, the Solution cruises at 10 with double payload.

I do agree the plane could do with a longer nose to help balance though.

yes, easier balance, less weight.

Oh and what about twin motor setup is more efficient!!?? Quite the opposite I think you will find.

I could be wrong and I'll love to experiment but I believe with two bells brushless on wings with smaller contra-props these are the PROS:


cleaner airflow for props,
easier cg centering with LOT less weight,
less noise for sure (not pusher props near trailing edges),
the weight will be less, slower.
the pull will be more with same motor set weight,
the tail won't have strong prop wing coming from the motor.. shaking it.
for sure less glide in idle but better cruise,
the roll momentum will be slower because we move the weight to the outside so it should be a little less sensitive to turbulence as it was my twinstarII.
ESC will be away from electronics and with fresh airflow..
With contraprop there is no torque induced roll or other attitude variation that are reflected on the video.
lighter = can be hand launched with less RPM = safer/easier for the pilot.

overall I think it will be better but it's nice to experiment, the Twinstar has been a very successful airplane

and these the CONS:
Less glide ratio when idle (but good brake if you need to brake otherwise just keep 1% rpm..)

I think you will find the reynolds numbers are better for a larger propeller. So running two smaller propellers fast will not be an efficient way to go.

Think of a mesi copter/quad copter, and compare that to a normal two rotor blade helicopter. Flight times are always a problem with the multi blade multi motor machines.

This is probably all moot anyhow, if you are not looking for long flight times.

Back to the skywalker.
What if you extended a dowl out the front with a small weight on it. So as to move the CoG right forward. This might allow you to run smaller lighter packs. Not the most elegant solution, but it would work quite well I think!

for the price of props, experiments are the best solution, I will try.. I'm considering two of these: http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/s...idproduct=6614 with APC 8"x3.8"SF and SFP (counter rotating) on a single 3s 2200

For me the only important thing is video stability, I don't have to do long range, I have to do nice videos and that only needs very low speeds and roll authority with good gyro.

What is this 'Solution' you speak of that can fly with a heavier load at 10km/h?

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=827488

Originally Posted by Cralis

What is this 'Solution' you speak of that can fly with a heavier load at 10km/h?

The AP Solution plane designed by Power in the aerial photography forum.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=827488
It will fly very slow, but requires little to no wind.

Morris

Yes, the "little to no wind" is a KO criterium for me. I have a Hawkeye for such conditions. But most of the time it is windy down here. And jobs can't be postponed until we finally get a calm day. Even 50km/h (and the Skywalker can easily cruise at less) is no problem if you image from 100-200m altitude and the shutter speed is 1/250s or faster. Just do the math...

wind is a problem with anything that flies.. even a real scale cessna shakes in the wind..

Yeah but increased mass makes the wind forces less noticeable.

Received the rest of what I need to finish the Skywalker. Im using a Turnigy 3530-1400, with a 9X6 APC prop it pulls around 37 amps static at full throttle, Im using a 40 amp Turnigy ESC, full throttle is wicked thrust, 3/4 throttle would be more than enough.

Here is my last flight:

Untitled (6 min 2 sec)

SPL,

very nice video !

Erwin