Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old May 30, 2011, 08:04 AM
Registered User
Joined Sep 2010
3,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turboparker View Post
A UMX Stryker Q would be great! An A-26 would be a great twin! (Flaps, please!) However....the next UMX plane I want is a P-47. With flaps & retracts!

It would need to have a real warbird airfoil, though. I really dislike the under-cambered wing on the P-51, Mosquito, and F4U. Makes 'em fly like trainers, instead of like the warbirds they are. The u/c wing is also the sole reason the current crop of UM warbirds can't handle the wind as well as the Sukhoi XP. Horizon - please, no more under-cambered wings on UM warbirds!!

Joel
I can't figure out just what the difference is, and it may well be my lack of experience with just a few months of being involved in this addiction, but I find my Sukhoi much harder to fly in a wind than my um T28. If I get the don't keep the wings perfectly horizontal with the XP, the wind can blow it over or dump it in the ground before I can catch it. But the T28, with it's underchamber wing seems much less likely to get blown over by the wind. I always figured it had something to do with the slight tendency to want to straighten itself out with the slight diahedral and underchamber. For me, the Beast takes a bit of wind better than the XP also. Maybe it's something in the way I have the xp set up, or more likely lack of experience, technique or plain old "old slow reflexed dumb guy trying to learn a kids game".
bobly is online now Find More Posts by bobly
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old May 30, 2011, 10:15 AM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
11,630 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobly View Post
I can't figure out just what the difference is, and it may well be my lack of experience with just a few months of being involved in this addiction, but I find my Sukhoi much harder to fly in a wind than my um T28. If I get the don't keep the wings perfectly horizontal with the XP, the wind can blow it over or dump it in the ground before I can catch it. But the T28, with it's underchamber wing seems much less likely to get blown over by the wind. I always figured it had something to do with the slight tendency to want to straighten itself out with the slight diahedral and underchamber. For me, the Beast takes a bit of wind better than the XP also. Maybe it's something in the way I have the xp set up, or more likely lack of experience, technique or plain old "old slow reflexed dumb guy trying to learn a kids game".
Bobly,

The difference is that a properly-trimmed ship with a symmetrical wing will penetrate the wind far better than it would with an under-cambered wing. It's simply the nature of aerodynamics. At a zero-degree angle-of-attack (AOA), a u/c wing produces a large amount of lift; while a symmetrical wing will produce zero lift. To fly level at speed, a ship with an u/c wing must fly at a negative AOA. Due to its high-lift nature, the u/c wing will also be much more sensitive to changes in airflow. Therefore, a plane with an u/c airfoil will fare much worse in the wind than the same plane with a symmetrical airfoil & similar wing-loading. Also - u/c airfoils are the worst possible choices for aerobatics & high-speed flight. Of course, WWII fighters were designed to excel at both.

To look at it another way - high-performance aircraft never use u/c airfoils. Aerobatic aircraft never use u/c airfoils. WWII fighters never used u/c airfoils. The principles above also apply to our models. Larger-scale WWII warbirds never use u/c airfoils. High-performance and/or purpose-built aerobatic ships never use u/c airfoils. Typically, u/c airfoils are used on certain gliders, indoor fliers/slow-fliers, and the slowest, least-aerobatic RC trainers.

BTW - if your XP (I assume you're referring to the Sukhoi XP) can't handle 10-15 MPH winds, you may have the CG set for aerobatics (neutral handling point, or 'sweet spot'). It is expected that the pilot will adjust the CG on any RC plane to suit the flying conditions. For better wind penetration, move the CG forward from the 'sweet spot' by a few mm.

With the 5043 prop & Hyp 180 cell, top-speed on my XP is ~40 MPH (sans gear). With a forward CG, she can easily penetrate a 15 MPH wind. I fly mine in 15-17 MPH winds with no problems at all.

From what I've read, the majority of those who fly the XP and also fly the UM fighters with u/c airfoils also agree that the XP handles the wind far better than any of the UMs that use u/c airfoils. The UMX Beast is the only UM that handles the wind as well. Notice that the Beast also uses a symmetrical airfoil.

For a more thorough explanation regarding airfoil choice & performance, I suggest that you do some reading on the subject.

As I have said many times - I do not want another UM warbird that handles & performs like an aileron trainer. Rather, I want UM warbird that handles & performs more like a 60 or 90-size warbird.

Joel
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by turboparker; May 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2011, 10:46 AM
Electric baptism 1975
DavidN's Avatar
Vernon, BC, Canada
Joined Dec 2000
2,869 Posts
Joel, however there are many, many more buyers of UM warbirds who don't have your skill, or need the slow speed for indoor. How about an optional upgrade, difficult on a twin but easier on say P51 or the upcoming Spit (LOL).
DavidN is online now Find More Posts by DavidN
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2011, 12:05 PM
Park Stormer
United States, NJ, Brooklawn
Joined Jul 2008
823 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidN View Post
Joel, however there are many, many more buyers of UM warbirds who don't have your skill, or need the slow speed for indoor. How about an optional upgrade, difficult on a twin but easier on say P51 or the upcoming Spit (LOL).
This.

The parkzone brand is about accessibility before performance. The idea wasn't to make these planes handle wind well, but to be floaty and slow for indoor flight. Maybe E-flight will get one, but I wouldn't hold your breath. More likely is an e-flight/parkzone stryker coming down the pipe.

Also, keep dreaming with retracts and flaps. HH suppliers can't even get a decent, homogenous batch of Mossies out, now imagine all the issues that come with a complex UM plane. In addition, you say you want all that, but what happens when Horizon hands you the $300 bill? Plus a complex plane like that is limited to people using spektrum equipment, as it's tough to make it RTF with a 6 channel radio...

We might get there one day. If you look, the parkzone park flyers (the FW190, spitfire, mustang) started out as gearless, brushed motor planes powered by nimh. Now we have a P-47 that matches your description in all but size. For now though, I'll take each plane for what it is: A nice, relaxing way to commit some aviation before the sun goes down in the early evening.
AggressorBLUE is offline Find More Posts by AggressorBLUE
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2011, 01:05 PM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
11,630 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidN View Post
Joel, however there are many, many more buyers of UM warbirds who don't have your skill, or need the slow speed for indoor. How about an optional upgrade, difficult on a twin but easier on say P51 or the upcoming Spit (LOL).
David,

I agree that there are many newcomers to the hobby who want/expect everything to fly like their UM Champ/T-28/P-51. However, this is not a realistic expectation, nor is it desirable for the majority of us. To advance one's flying skills, one must be challenged - as is the case for any skill. If everything flew like an aileron trainer, this would be a very boring hobby.

Regarding the u/c & symmetrical wing option - that wouldn't work very well, as other parameters would have to change. Off the top of my head - thrust-angle & wing incidence come to mind. If down-thrust & incidence were optimized for the u/c wing, the plane would fly poorly with a symmetrical wing. The inverse would also be true. Pretty much defeats the purpose.

There are many, many seasoned pilots who have steered clear of small planes (especially foamies) for precisely the reasons I have noted. Build a UM plane that handles similar to its larger-scale counterparts, and many veteran pilots will buy one.

For instance...

In comparison to, say, the UM warbirds, there are many more veteran pilots who have purchased the Beast. You can see the evidence of this just by reading the UMX Beast threads. There are far fewer complaints of it flying too fast, or being too tough to handle. Also, there isn't the same reluctance to swap props or use high-performance batteries. One of the reasons for this is that those of us who build & fly larger planes regard experimenting with CG settings, props, powerplants, and batteries to be essential parts of the aeromodeling experience. We would never expect the factory recommended flight-trimming, powerplant, and prop suggestions to be ideal for all flying styles.

In the other UM threads, a relatively larger number of people seem to regard changing props & batteries to be 'modding' their aircraft. Definitely, a minority opinion in this hobby.

I do not believe that the majority of RC pilots want all of their planes to fly the same. This seems to be prevalent amongst the 'charge & fly' group; however it is not at all common amongst those who build kits or even ARF models. Most of the pilots I know would rather have a model with flight-behavior that is at least vaguely similar to its full-scale counterpart. For instance, a Piper Cub should not fly exactly the same as a Champ. Nor should a P-51 fly the same as a P-47. Most pilots I know actually look forward to experiencing the handling qualities of a new plane. Many of them relish the challenge of mastering more advanced planes - such as warbirds, true-scale ships, gliders, high-performance aerobatic ships, or jets.

As is true with most other aspects of life, the sense of accomplishment one feels after mastering a new plane is usually commensurate with the difficulty of the challenge.

To the unlimited aerobatic side of the hobby, the UMX Beast and upcoming UMX Sbach are exactly what I have described. They are UM planes that fly as similar to their larger-scale counterparts as physics will allow. You don't hear people complaining that the Beast isn't for beginners. I believe that a performance-oriented UM warbird would be met with a similar level of enthusiasm from veteran warbird pilots as we have seen from veteran aerobatic pilots regarding the UMX Beast & upcoming UMX Sbach.

There are enough 'trainer-like' UM warbirds for now. It's time for one with performance & handling similar to its large-scale counterpart - as is true with the UMX Beast.

Joel
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
RCG Plus Member
Old May 30, 2011, 01:31 PM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
11,630 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggressorBLUE View Post
This.

The parkzone brand is about accessibility before performance. The idea wasn't to make these planes handle wind well, but to be floaty and slow for indoor flight. Maybe E-flight will get one, but I wouldn't hold your breath. More likely is an e-flight/parkzone stryker coming down the pipe.

Also, keep dreaming with retracts and flaps. HH suppliers can't even get a decent, homogenous batch of Mossies out, now imagine all the issues that come with a complex UM plane.In addition, you say you want all that, but what happens when Horizon hands you the $300 bill? Plus a complex plane like that is limited to people using spektrum equipment, as it's tough to make it RTF with a 6 channel radio...

We might get there one day. If you look, the parkzone park flyers (the FW190, spitfire, mustang) started out as gearless, brushed motor planes powered by nimh. Now we have a P-47 that matches your description in all but size. For now though, I'll take each plane for what it is: A nice, relaxing way to commit some aviation before the sun goes down in the early evening.
AB,

Some PZ UM planes are all about performance. For instance, the PZ Sukhoi XP is a purpose-built pattern/precision aerobatic ship that flies more like a larger-scale aerobat than a UM foamie - and it handles 10-15 MPH winds with ease. No RTF version either - as it should be with a plane of this caliber. The XP was a raving success - largely because of its high-performance & excellent handling. I see no reason why PZ couldn't do an 'XP-like' warbird with a proper airfoil.

Of course, I expected that most on here would understand that I wasn't really serious about the retracts. I do want my flaps, though.

Like I said - I think there are enough UM warbirds that behave like aileron trainers. It's time for a UMX warbird that caters to those of us who want our UM ships to handle similarly to their larger-scale counterparts. The concept worked well enough with the UMX Beast that HH is doing a repeat-performance with the UMX Sbach. An 'Sbach-like' UM warbird would most likely garner a similar level of interest amongst veteran warbird pilots as the UMX Beast & Sbach have done amongst seasoned aerobatic pilots.

Regarding the PZ Jug - I was looking at it. However, it's large enough that I'd have to go to the club field to fly it. If I'm going to the field, I may as well fly a 60/90-size warbird & have something that can handle a 20-30 MPH wind with ease. I already have planes that fit the bill for that. What I'm looking for is the UM warbird equivalent to the UMX Beast or Sbach. I bet that there are many seasoned pilots who feel similarly.

Joel
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
RCG Plus Member
Old May 30, 2011, 04:22 PM
Registered User
Joined Sep 2010
3,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turboparker View Post
Bobly,

The difference is that a properly-trimmed ship with a symmetrical wing will penetrate the wind far better than it would with an under-cambered wing. It's simply the nature of aerodynamics. At a zero-degree angle-of-attack (AOA), a u/c wing produces a large amount of lift; while a symmetrical wing will produce zero lift. To fly level at speed, a ship with an u/c wing must fly at a negative AOA. Due to its high-lift nature, the u/c wing will also be much more sensitive to changes in airflow. Therefore, a plane with an u/c airfoil will fare much worse in the wind than the same plane with a symmetrical airfoil & similar wing-loading. Also - u/c airfoils are the worst possible choices for aerobatics & high-speed flight. Of course, WWII fighters were designed to excel at both.

To look at it another way - high-performance aircraft never use u/c airfoils. Aerobatic aircraft never use u/c airfoils. WWII fighters never used u/c airfoils. The principles above also apply to our models. Larger-scale WWII warbirds never use u/c airfoils. High-performance and/or purpose-built aerobatic ships never use u/c airfoils. Typically, u/c airfoils are used on certain gliders, indoor fliers/slow-fliers, and the slowest, least-aerobatic RC trainers.

BTW - if your XP (I assume you're referring to the Sukhoi XP) can't handle 10-15 MPH winds, you may have the CG set for aerobatics (neutral handling point, or 'sweet spot'). It is expected that the pilot will adjust the CG on any RC plane to suit the flying conditions. For better wind penetration, move the CG forward from the 'sweet spot' by a few mm.

With the 5043 prop & Hyp 180 cell, top-speed on my XP is ~40 MPH (sans gear). With a forward CG, she can easily penetrate a 15 MPH wind. I fly mine in 15-17 MPH winds with no problems at all.

From what I've read, the majority of those who fly the XP and also fly the UM fighters with u/c airfoils also agree that the XP handles the wind far better than any of the UMs that use u/c airfoils. The UMX Beast is the only UM that handles the wind as well. Notice that the Beast also uses a symmetrical airfoil.

For a more thorough explanation regarding airfoil choice & performance, I suggest that you do some reading on the subject.

As I have said many times - I do not want another UM warbird that handles & performs like an aileron trainer. Rather, I want UM warbird that handles & performs more like a 60 or 90-size warbird.

Joel
Joel

Don't find fault with the biggest part of your statements and do understand the importance of airfoil choices for different applications. I know that my T28 will not roll like a drill bit like my Sukhoi and Beast do and have no aspirations of making it do that. It is my lazy flyer in my um fleet. But I still find it much easier to fly in a breeze than my Sukhoi. My Sukhoi xp doesn't really care which side is up and flies a straight line in most any orientation as long as it's calm but the wind will blow it over if I don't work hard enough to keep the wings level. I do run the Sukhoi a bit nose heavy, but that's my preference also. But my T28 really prefers and has a slight tendency to try to keep the wheel side on the bottom. I believe it's this tendency that makes it easier for me to handle the breeze with it. As I said, it may well be my flying style or lack of experience, but it is not from lack of understanding of what airfoil's are about.
bobly is online now Find More Posts by bobly
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2011, 08:23 PM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
11,630 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobly View Post
Joel

Don't find fault with the biggest part of your statements and do understand the importance of airfoil choices for different applications. I know that my T28 will not roll like a drill bit like my Sukhoi and Beast do and have no aspirations of making it do that. It is my lazy flyer in my um fleet. But I still find it much easier to fly in a breeze than my Sukhoi. My Sukhoi xp doesn't really care which side is up and flies a straight line in most any orientation as long as it's calm but the wind will blow it over if I don't work hard enough to keep the wings level. I do run the Sukhoi a bit nose heavy, but that's my preference also. But my T28 really prefers and has a slight tendency to try to keep the wheel side on the bottom. I believe it's this tendency that makes it easier for me to handle the breeze with it. As I said, it may well be my flying style or lack of experience, but it is not from lack of understanding of what airfoil's are about.
Bobly,

OK. I don't get it, I guess, You are the first person I'm aware of who says that the T-28 handles the wind better than the XP. I know the XP can fly & maneuver just fine in a 15 MPH wind. I'm betting that the T-28 would have a tough time just making headway in a wind that strong. That u/c wing would be ballooning like crazy with every gust or hint of up-elevator. Pilots I know who own the T-28 & P-51 say that the P-51 handles the wind far better than the T-28. I've flown the P-51 many times, and it's no where near close to XP in terms of wind-handling. Given that the P-51 handles the wind much better than the T-28, I cannot imagine how the T-28 could possibly handle the wind even remotely as well as a properly-trimmed XP.

So, what you're saying is completely contrary to my experience. It is also contrary to the experiences of the other pilots I know personally and on RCG who have flown the planes in question. Even more unusual - you say that you like to fly your XP nose-heavy - which, to a point, typically improves wind-handling. Unless it's too nose-heavy, that is. Then wind-handling gets worse again. Alternatively, something may be wrong with your XP's airframe. Where do you have the CG located on your XP?

Joel
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
RCG Plus Member
Old May 30, 2011, 09:00 PM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
11,630 Posts
Static RPM testing

All,

Now that my Mossie has ~10 hours on the clock, I decided to repeat the static RPM test I did back when there was just 8 minutes of time on the motors.

As usual, the RPM was measured with a calibrated tach under natural light - 30 seconds into the run on a freshly-charged cell.

First test (only 8 minutes of break-in)

Conditions
Elev: 910' AMSL
Temp: 70 F
Stock cell

Port: 6810 RPM
Stbd: 6720 RPM

Second test (~10 hrs of run-time)

I repeated the static RPM test with the stock cell. I also tested with a Hyperion 240 mAh cell.

Conditions
Elev: 910' AMSL
Temp: 70 F

Stock 250 mAh cell:

Port: 6720 RPM
Stbd: 6720 RPM

Hyperion 240 mAh cell:
Port: 6900 RPM
Stbd: 6900 RPM

Cell weights as tested:

Stock 250 mAh ----- 8.36g
Hyperion 240 mAh -- 6.78g

Observations:
The motors seem to be better-balanced than they were during the first test, which was before they were broken-in. As expected, the Hyp 240 mAh cell provides a noticable increase in power over the stock 250 mAh cell, with a significant reduction in weight. In this case, thrust is up by 5%, while cell weight is down by 19%. The Hyp 320 should perform even better, as the Hyp 240 gets rather warm in this app. As we have seen in the past, the Hyperions are clearly superior in the higher-current apps - and the Mossie is most definitely a high-current app!

I will also be testing the new TP 65c 325 mAh cells.

Joel
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
RCG Plus Member
Old May 30, 2011, 09:24 PM
Registered User
Cheese5's Avatar
United States, CA
Joined Jul 2010
4,348 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turboparker View Post
Bobly,

OK. I don't get it, I guess, You are the first person I'm aware of who says that the T-28 handles the wind better than the XP. I know the XP can fly & maneuver just fine in a 15 MPH wind. I'm betting that the T-28 would have a tough time just making headway in a wind that strong. That u/c wing would be ballooning like crazy with every gust or hint of up-elevator. Pilots I know who own the T-28 & P-51 say that the P-51 handles the wind far better than the T-28. I've flown the P-51 many times, and it's no where near close to XP in terms of wind-handling. Given that the P-51 handles the wind much better than the T-28, I cannot imagine how the T-28 could possibly handle the wind even remotely as well as a properly-trimmed XP.

So, what you're saying is completely contrary to my experience. It is also contrary to the experiences of the other pilots I know personally and on RCG who have flown the planes in question. Even more unusual - you say that you like to fly your XP nose-heavy - which, to a point, typically improves wind-handling. Unless it's too nose-heavy, that is. Then wind-handling gets worse again. Alternatively, something may be wrong with your XP's airframe. Where do you have the CG located on your XP?

Joel
Hmm, interesting. I flew my friend's micro t-28 at the club field and also brought along my sukhoi xp. I flew them both in the gusting wind. THe t-28 seemed to be easier to fly in the wind. It would hold its position and stay level. While the sukhoi xp will jerk around slightly the t-28 would stay and fly like its on rails. The micro p51 on the other hand would have performed badly in that wind. The sukhoi xp could penetrate wind easily and keep going ( I overshot my friend's aircraft a couple times, could fly circles around it ). But it takes some concentration to keep the wings level. While the t-28 would just stay in place, although it can't cut through the wind that much, it can hang there for a while.
Cheese5 is online now Find More Posts by Cheese5
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2011, 09:36 PM
Registered User
Joined Sep 2010
3,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese5 View Post
Hmm, interesting. I flew my friend's micro t-28 at the club field and also brought along my sukhoi xp. I flew them both in the gusting wind. THe t-28 seemed to be easier to fly in the wind. It would hold its position and stay level. While the sukhoi xp will jerk around slightly the t-28 would stay and fly like its on rails. The micro p51 on the other hand would have performed badly in that wind. The sukhoi xp could penetrate wind easily and keep going ( I overshot my friend's aircraft a couple times, could fly circles around it ). But it takes some concentration to keep the wings level. While the t-28 would just stay in place, although it can't cut through the wind that much, it can hang there for a while.
Sounds like my experience. Also to Joel, I didn't say the t28 handled wind better, I said "I" can fly it better in the wind than the Sukhoi. Maybe if I was good enough it might be the other way. Anyhow, the explanation above pretty well sums up my results of the two in wind.
bobly is online now Find More Posts by bobly
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2011, 11:13 PM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
11,630 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobly View Post
Sounds like my experience. Also to Joel, I didn't say the t28 handled wind better, I said "I" can fly it better in the wind than the Sukhoi. Maybe if I was good enough it might be the other way. Anyhow, the explanation above pretty well sums up my results of the two in wind.
Bobly,

I understand, now. You were talking about one facet of a plane's ability to handle the wind. Wind penetration & the ability to make headway are usually of primary concern when assessing a model's wind-handling ability. If one must choose, it would be more preferable to have a plane that requires some effort to keep upright but penetrates the wind well, than to have a rock-steady plane with poor wind penetration. The ability to remain upright with minimal pilot intervention is of minor concern if the plane cannot penetrate the wind & make headway.

Having both would be better yet. But that usually requires a higher wing-loading - which increases cruise & landing speeds. And so the circle goes...

Joel
turboparker is online now Find More Posts by turboparker
RCG Plus Member
Old May 30, 2011, 11:38 PM
Park Stormer
United States, NJ, Brooklawn
Joined Jul 2008
823 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turboparker View Post
All,

Now that my Mossie has ~10 hours on the clock, I decided to repeat the static RPM test I did back when there was just 8 minutes of time on the motors.

As usual, the RPM was measured with a calibrated tach under natural light - 30 seconds into the run on a freshly-charged cell.

First test (only 8 minutes of break-in)

Conditions
Elev: 910' AMSL
Temp: 70 F
Stock cell

Port: 6810 RPM
Stbd: 6720 RPM

Second test (~10 hrs of run-time)

I repeated the static RPM test with the stock cell. I also tested with a Hyperion 240 mAh cell.

Conditions
Elev: 910' AMSL
Temp: 70 F

Stock 250 mAh cell:

Port: 6720 RPM
Stbd: 6720 RPM

Hyperion 240 mAh cell:
Port: 6900 RPM
Stbd: 6900 RPM

Cell weights as tested:

Stock 250 mAh ----- 8.36g
Hyperion 240 mAh -- 6.78g

Observations:
The motors seem to be better-balanced than they were during the first test, which was before they were broken-in. As expected, the Hyp 240 mAh cell provides a noticable increase in power over the stock 250 mAh cell, with a significant reduction in weight. In this case, thrust is up by 5%, while cell weight is down by 19%. The Hyp 320 should perform even better, as the Hyp 240 gets rather warm in this app. As we have seen in the past, the Hyperions are clearly superior in the higher-current apps - and the Mossie is most definitely a high-current app!

I will also be testing the new TP 65c 325 mAh cells.

Joel

Awesome data, good to hear the motors are syncing up. I've also be concerned at the heat the 240's pick up during use. I think a major factor is the poor ventilation in the nose. The batts sit there baking under the nose cone, where as the other UMs place them right in the slip stream. Interested to see your data with the other cells.
AggressorBLUE is offline Find More Posts by AggressorBLUE
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2011, 12:09 AM
Registered User
Eugene, Oregon
Joined Feb 2011
593 Posts
Joel,

My wife and I raised our kids on 10 acres southwest of Eugene....boy do I wish I had that now!!!! However, the well water was hard and didn't taste good and those drives into town got longer all the time.

I fly the slow UMs in front of the house and go to a nice school field about a mile away to fly the park fliers. Very large open field, mowed grass....flew several night flights during the winter after work there also.

I bought some 180s and 240s from Roger...going to get some 120s also. Going to buy the Beast soon.

Don
allelectrik is offline Find More Posts by allelectrik
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2011, 11:06 AM
F18
Registered User
United States, MA, Onset
Joined Apr 2008
233 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggressorBLUE View Post
Awesome data, good to hear the motors are syncing up. I've also be concerned at the heat the 240's pick up during use. I think a major factor is the poor ventilation in the nose. The batts sit there baking under the nose cone, where as the other UMs place them right in the slip stream. Interested to see your data with the other cells.
Same experience......once the front motor bearing. prop shaft bearing, pinion and spur gear are broken in the motors even out as long as the end play is adjusted the same on the prop shafts.

Interesting that the stock battery and the Hyperion have a 1.58g difference in weight. Did you need to use extra nose weight to make up the difference to keep the CG correct with the Hyperion?
F18 is offline Find More Posts by F18
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Product New Hobby-Lobby micro P-51 and Spirfire! - direct competitor to Parkzone Ultra Micro? Smokescreen38 Micro Ready-to-Fly 316 Aug 22, 2012 11:51 PM
Discussion Parkzone New Ultra Micro Mosquito Mk VI ChuckTseeker Scratchbuilt Indoor and Micro Models 4 Feb 03, 2011 01:22 AM
For Sale parkzone ultra micro J-3 cub BNF trade for micro trojan ED3 Aircraft - Electric - Micro & Indoor Airplanes (FS/W) 3 Nov 06, 2010 02:19 AM
Sold Moved to micro section -Parkzone Sukhoi SU-26m Ultra Micro BNF - w/ Lots of new parts major.monogram Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 2 Jun 08, 2010 12:00 AM
Found Parkzone Ultra Micro P-51D BNF (New or like new condition) CGReload Aircraft - Electric - Micro & Indoor Airplanes (FS/W) 1 Oct 09, 2009 01:28 PM