HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Apr 24, 2012, 04:57 AM
Registered User
France
Joined Sep 2011
100 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by maca55 View Post
traumkumy, hearing about your "Leek Farming" experiences has made me feel much better. I really like the term 'make a leek'. Is that a literal translation of a French RC phrase? Beautiful slope soaring by the way!
Thanks for the vid, and yes it's a literal translation of a french expression used for this situation which is "faire un poireau", I like this expression because it speak by itself.

Cheer up for the following, by fixing and checking everything you are on the right way.
traumkumy is offline Find More Posts by traumkumy
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Apr 24, 2012, 05:06 AM
Rebelliously devoid of tattoos
H2SO4's Avatar
Australia, New South Wales, Sydney
Joined Jan 2011
2,531 Posts
Congratulations on becoming an RC pilot. I really admire your attitude and your methodical approach to analysing what went wrong on a previous flight. You'll go far in this hobby

Quote:
Originally Posted by maca55 View Post
The glide tests also let me fine tune the Flaperon settings and apply some elevator correction.
As a suggestion, stay away from flaperons and instead cut out and activate the real (inboard) flaps. The length of the P2K's wing means that the inboard flaps work very, very well - they can slow down flight to an unbelievable extent when deployed downwards to 40 or 50 degrees. That same wing length also makes flaperons less than ideal, because even minor differences in the wings' respective lift can lead to tip stalling. It's not exactly a small plane, and it takes a significant drop in altitude to recover from a stall.


Quote:
Originally Posted by maca55 View Post
As others eosglider and StarHopper44 have commented it is puzzling how many appear to be able to use the battery tray fine with no over hang, so I wonder whether there is some weight variations between models. Not overall weight so much, but perhaps a variation in the distribution of the plastic in the fuselage?
Mine is of the nose-heavy variety, like yours. In order to balance on the design COG with a 2200mAh 3S, the battery has to be basically all the way behind the battery tray

I've literally ripped every component out of mine and put it back together, and there's no lurking ballast blocks or anything obvious (to me) that would explain why some are supposedly heavier in the nose than others. Hence, I wonder whether they're in fact all the same, but different pilots expect and accept different handling?

Personally, I much prefer the Phoenix with a lighter battery. I'm using a 1250mAh right now, and the plane is really floaty - much more so than with a 22000mAh pack. It's still easily possible to achieve 5-10m flight times as long as I lay off the throttle, but with a light battery that's not so hard.
H2SO4 is offline Find More Posts by H2SO4
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 05:48 AM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Chadstone
Joined Dec 2011
136 Posts
H2SO4, Thanks very much for the kind words of encouragement!

Regarding flaperons, I recently came to the same conclusion and have installed the Inboard Flaps. I then realised that the 9x stock firmware was not going to do what I wanted with Crow/Butterfly, and full span ailerons.

I modded the 9x and am now using open9x - WOW what a difference Crow makes! I have been practicing steep landings by diving down with full airbrakes (Crow deployed) and landing in as short a length as possible.

I have uploaded some keychain videos of my flights, but being unedited I am a little embarrassed to share here due to the high standard of videos I've seen posted!
maca55 is offline Find More Posts by maca55
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 06:45 AM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Chadstone
Joined Dec 2011
136 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2SO4 View Post
Personally, I much prefer the Phoenix with a lighter battery. I'm using a 1250mAh right now, and the plane is really floaty - much more so than with a 22000mAh pack. It's still easily possible to achieve 5-10m flight times as long as I lay off the throttle, but with a light battery that's not so hard.
I'm with you on the lighter battery. Out of my 1600/1800/2200mAh batteries, I have had my best flights with the 1600mAh. If you are getting the climb performance you want, is there any reason to carrying around extra battery weight when you you are flying purely as a glider?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLT_GTI View Post
Also to order the light batts for it.. the problem is that in 1000mAh this needs the battery to be 30C nimimun with 40-50C to be on fair side (i have had 2200 20Cs get puffy in 27-28A loads),. i guess i should go with the nanotechs
I recently bought a nano-tech 1000mah 3S 25~50C. It weighs in at just 79g. I was hoping with that C rating it would sustain 20A for at least 45s, but from my tests so far it seems to struggle and the voltage drops off quickly.

I have only had one flight so far with the 1000mA and the extra float was nice but the loss of power in the initial climb to altitude was noticeable. There is a 45C rated nano-tech in the same size that would no doubt fair better at full throttle, but it weighs as much as the 1300mA 25C Zippy Compact.
maca55 is offline Find More Posts by maca55
Last edited by maca55; Apr 24, 2012 at 08:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 06:24 PM
Earthbound Skyhound
StarHopper44's Avatar
United States, NC, Richlands
Joined Jun 2011
4,441 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by G550Ted View Post
Does it matter? I mean, really matter?

Who here bought or built a model based on it's claimed weight? Did you pass up buying a Whizbang444 because it was advertised to have a flying weight of 986 grams and bought a P2K because the box said it weighed only 921 grams (or whatever)? Show of hands. As I thought, I don't see anyone raising their arm. ...

...Ted
First off, I was rather shocked at a couple of the responses I've received to my post on weight & CG. One makes me wonder if someone I don't know is using his computer, the other, an unexpected and I feel, unwarranted slam, intentional or not. I've literally held off respondiing, and stayed away to mull over what my response(s) would be.

Ted, yours was the first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G550Ted View Post
Does it matter? I mean, really matter?
To which I can only say, I suppose it depends on what one considers it matters ABOUT. Because for that matter, what I said, how it relates to the subject at hand, and in fact the whole freakin' RC industry on out thru the existence of the human species does not REALLY matter in the Grand Scheme of Things.....as they will all soon enough be worm food, and on that scale, eventually there won't even be worms or a moist Earth for them to burrow around in, and all of it will matter even less.

So what MATTERS and what DOESN'T are entirely subjective -- what might to me doesn't necessarily to you, & vice versa, I'd say is the best summation. But what the hell kind of existentialist argument or debating point - is THAT, and your "didn't see any raised hands" supposed to be?!? I don't suppose you heard anyone fart, either, but I did when I nearly crapped my pants in disbelief.

Insofar as "who bought....based on", one answer would be, "I DID!"
The subject was claimed weight specification & where it should balance out, but the latter (CG) is moot here. The CLAIMED weight however, which we have NO control over before it's bought, HAS A DIRECT EFFECT ON WING LOADING, WHICH IS A SALEABLE POINT afa meeting performance criteria that buyers might be, or better said, intelligent buyers should be, considering in their shopping.

How did it affect me, you might wonder? When I had the gliders I was shopping for narrowed down to, IIRC 4 models, I saw a recommendation wherein the advice was "Why don't you get the 'Model X' instead of the 'Y' as the wing loading is so much better" - (words to that effect) and, as both X & Y were candidates on my list, that revelation & the factors wing loading affects caused me to eliminate the 'Y' from my choices. I still think 'Y' is a prettier plane than the one I wound up buying, truth be told.

The bottom line is, claiming false specifications that directly affect flight performance, IS FALSE ADVERTISING. And THAT MATTERS to me. Sure you can make a cinderblock fly....and some folks might want to. But after seeing what it'd take, I don't care to try. Nonetheless, don't tell me thru your ads it will float like a feather and the task will be easy!


Then came.....
Quote:
Fugitive Bill: "Agreed TED. I thought that was curious whinge too! "
And you, Bill....you're a bit of a piece o' work to figure out, too. In one breath you comment you've always enjoyed reading my posts, & in the next, accuse me of whining. I know the American English spelling is different, but presume the meaning is the same unless in Oz it does mean something different (what, I'd have no idea)....but in my land being called a whiner is a pretty strong insult....and that's the way I take it.

It's somewhat akin to before on another board where you elaborated at some length how you'd taken so many pains to do something "your way" and a paragraph later told some guy that whatever he suggested, you'd follow his lead. When I commented that seemed a bit counterintuitive, as well lightly mentioning several other points where you'd contradicted yourself, it became that I was "jumping down your throat". What made it worse, you expressed it in a manner like you were 'talking behind my back', ie to others, like I wouldn't 'hear' what you said. Just as you've done here to Ted. I don't know if you noticed it or not, but at that previous point I completely stopped responding to your posts, even those directed expressly to me. At this point I'm inclined to suggest that perhaps we should return to that arrangement.

I'll allow that perhaps I read you wrong....but that's my take, & how I feel about it.
StarHopper44 is offline Find More Posts by StarHopper44
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 06:35 PM
Earthbound Skyhound
StarHopper44's Avatar
United States, NC, Richlands
Joined Jun 2011
4,441 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by eosglider View Post
I totally agree with you SH. Why don't we just go ahead and create one post here (let's say it's this post #1656 for example) that compiles an initial summarized list of mods and Basic build steps that one of us can edit and then have the OP just link to that post (#1656) on his post #1. I think a few of us (since we're pretty active on here) would certainly qualify to be able to maintain that post and if whomever that is gets tired of being the one to maintain that list, someone else willing can take over and that post can be edited and moved over, and then a pointer can be added to point to the new post location. The Aurora 9 thread does something like this.

I would be happy to volunteer to get this started if everyone is OK with this, and if I miss something, or you guys would want something changed, I can edit it.

In my spare time, I might also re-write the P2K manual to something actually useful in a PDF format and we could add that document to the thread too. I can edit this post (#1656) to be "the one" post to link to from the OP's first post. :-)

What does everyone think? Let me know and I'll get it started.
EOSG;
Sorry for the delay in responding while I cooled down a bit & tried to organize my thoughts.
If you want to take on the task, you certainly have my blessings! The major downside I see to starting a 'Unification Post' here & now (besides the work it'll take to glean & compile - a pretty huge task in itself) is the fact it'll be soon 'stuck in the middle' of all this, & not the convenient & ready-reference point I/we would likely hope for. In my mind the "cleanest" solution would be as someone (my apologies, can't recall their name without breaking away) suggested - ie starting a new thread.

That's just a brief summation....and I'd venture you might do well to gauge your potential efforts on the reaction you get from the Group as a whole re the concept....asking yourself would it be worth the effort for the interest the work would generate.
And I'll leave it at that!
StarHopper44 is offline Find More Posts by StarHopper44
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 07:29 PM
Rebelliously devoid of tattoos
H2SO4's Avatar
Australia, New South Wales, Sydney
Joined Jan 2011
2,531 Posts
Written words are devoid of visual cues which we normally rely upon to gauge the overall tone. The same sentence can come across as either a mechanical assessment or an emotional complaint, a dispassionate response or a personal attack, and it's the speaker's tone of voice and body language that are sometimes necessary to discern the differences.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

As for a summary post, anywhere within the first ten or so would be fine, since such a post would dominate the first page anyway. If any of the first ten posters are active, IMHO it would be preferable to take over an early post as opposed to placing the summary deep within the thread.

If none of the early posters are active, perhaps we can ask a mod for assistance. Maybe they have the ability to insert posts.
H2SO4 is offline Find More Posts by H2SO4
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 08:40 PM
Registered User
United States, IN, Bloomington
Joined Feb 2008
118 Posts
SH,

Chill. If we were all sitting around a table someplace having a beer and all of this was said, I have a feeling that you would be the first to start laughing your ...ummmm.. butt. off. I like reading this thread, your posts and all of the other posts because of just that. Every body seems to be a little community that can say things as they mean them. The problem is that the written word can be hard to interpret. That is one of the reasons that email can get people into trouble, what is written is not what is read.

And by the way..... It's your turn to buy a round.
bamoore01 is online now Find More Posts by bamoore01
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 09:02 PM
Row 0, Seat A
G550Ted's Avatar
Savannah, GA
Joined Jan 2008
2,648 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarHopper44 View Post
First off, I was rather shocked at a couple of the responses I've received to my post on weight & CG. One makes me wonder if someone I don't know is using his computer, the other, an unexpected and I feel, unwarranted slam, intentional or not. I've literally held off respondiing, and stayed away to mull over what my response(s) would be.

Ted, yours was the first.

<snip>
SH,

I'm sorry that you found my post offensive or in any way an affront. It was certainly not meant to be that way in any manner whatsoever. You should know me by my posts, here and in other threads, to use the absurd (raise your hands) as a style of humor or to buffer my statements so as not to offend. (Now, stop waving your arm in the air and saying 'OOH, OOH, OOOH!)

Back on subject, I don't think anyone should give absolute credence to any advertising whether it is for Chinese model specifications of the efficacy of a Viagra overdose. If you or someone should base a purchasing decision only on a fine line of some relatively minor detail like a small difference in wing loading for a couple of considered models I think you are being a bit too myopic. Beyond that one characteristic, and otherwise greatly influencing the possible performance you expect, are other (often unstated) design features that may or probably have greater impact on what you want to obtain. Things like airfoil section, aspect ratio, drag coefficient, yadda, yadda, that most often aren't defined but are otherwise just as or more significant as wing loading. Wing loading alone without consideration of it's affect on the intended use or expected performance is almost meaningless. Although 'lighter is better' is a good general rule for any airplane, sometimes that is not the case. For slopers with strong winds heavier can be better to take advantage of the energy potential. Stability ("wind penetration" if you will) is affected, and so forth. Maybe the advise you took wasn't complete in scope.

Now, CG is a horse of a different color. It has to be achievable and correct in the design. Here, we have to rely on the manufacturer's unstated assertion that it is correct, but all too often we find that is not the case. Buyer beware.

I know that you are one who places great difference to detail but you are going to have to accept that may not or even probably not be forthcoming in this endeavor or others. Be happy with a 20% variance if you can otherwise compensate to make it work for you, and don't buy on "pretty" as you will most likely be disappointed.

I'm counting on you for more advice when I finally get to the build on my P2K so keep gathering your data and good ideas on how we can make them better.

Ted
G550Ted is offline Find More Posts by G550Ted
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 09:13 PM
Registered User
Tom Eutsler's Avatar
Asheville,NC
Joined Jun 2002
773 Posts
UN Subscribe 'd

I thought this thread had to do with the various aspects of the Phoenix 2000 ?

seems it has turned into something else ??
Tom Eutsler is online now Find More Posts by Tom Eutsler
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 01:25 AM
Reap the wild wind
headlessagain's Avatar
Bristol,UK
Joined Feb 2007
3,763 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by G550Ted View Post
SH,
If you or someone should base a purchasing decision only on a fine line of some relatively minor detail like a small difference in wing loading for a couple of considered models I think you are being a bit too myopic. Beyond that one characteristic, and otherwise greatly influencing the possible performance you expect, are other (often unstated) design features that may or probably have greater impact on what you want to obtain. Things like airfoil section, aspect ratio, drag coefficient, yadda, yadda, that most often aren't defined but are otherwise just as or more significant as wing loading. penetration" if you will) is affected, and so forth. Maybe the advise you took wasn't complete in scope.
I think that you have agreed with SH's point. As you stated above, for models at this price point we don't often know "Things like airfoil section, aspect ratio, drag coefficient, yadda, yadda". The one stat that manufacturers do provide is the weight and wingspan (ok, not chord) so I would also expect them to quote an accurate weight so the buyer can at least compare the weight of model X with model Y.
Andy
headlessagain is offline Find More Posts by headlessagain
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 01:52 AM
Heli's and gliders, what else?
BarnOwl's Avatar
Nederland, GE, Slijk-Ewijk
Joined Apr 2006
719 Posts
As far as COG goes, mine just balances out perfectly with a 1300mAh pack:
BarnOwl is online now Find More Posts by BarnOwl
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 09:00 AM
Addicted to lift
eosglider's Avatar
United States, FL, Miami
Joined Jul 2010
487 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarnOwl View Post
As far as COG goes, mine just balances out perfectly with a 1300mAh pack:
For reference purposes, what kind of motor are you using and how far back on the battery tray does the battery sit at?
eosglider is online now Find More Posts by eosglider
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 09:15 AM
Addicted to lift
eosglider's Avatar
United States, FL, Miami
Joined Jul 2010
487 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2SO4 View Post
If none of the early posters are active, perhaps we can ask a mod for assistance. Maybe they have the ability to insert posts.
We may be able to get one of those guys in the first page to edit their post and show a summary, but it will be a static post and we'll have to go through the same effort to have them make any edits to it. If we have a more dynamic process like the one I described that uses pointers, it's much easier to keep things relevant and up to date and we'd only have to contact the OP one time.
eosglider is online now Find More Posts by eosglider
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 09:28 AM
Addicted to lift
eosglider's Avatar
United States, FL, Miami
Joined Jul 2010
487 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarHopper44 View Post
EOSG;
In my mind the "cleanest" solution would be as someone (my apologies, can't recall their name without breaking away) suggested - ie starting a new thread.
You might be right, it is probably the cleanest, but the only thing I'm concerned with doing it that way is there would be 2 separate threads about the same bird at that point. I've experienced how annoying that is on both the "Dream-Flight Alula" and the "Alula Teaser" threads. Two threads covering the same exact plane. And what you see there many times is users posting the same thing, like videos, maiden reports, tips, etc. to both threads at exactly the same time. Again, I find that duplication annoying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StarHopper44 View Post
That's just a brief summation....and I'd venture you might do well to gauge your potential efforts on the reaction you get from the Group as a whole re the concept....asking yourself would it be worth the effort for the interest the work would generate.
And I'll leave it at that!
My thought on that is that if I can help just one P2K peer, it's worth it for me. I can't count the number of times this community has helped answer my many stupid questions and taught me soooo much, so if I can do the same for someone, that give me a sense of satisfaction.
eosglider is online now Find More Posts by eosglider
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale HK Phoenix 2000 glider blk822 Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 4 Aug 23, 2011 07:21 PM
Discussion Still having electric problems with my hobbyking Phoenix 2000, Crashvideo kyrkbymannen Electric Sailplanes 3 Jul 09, 2011 07:34 PM
Discussion Ohhh noo, 2nd flight on the HobbyKing Phoenix 2000 KillerCut Electric Sailplanes 14 Jun 06, 2011 09:57 AM
Discussion hobby king Phoenix 2000 EPO Composite R/C Glider doomracing Electric Sailplanes 3 May 31, 2011 10:09 PM