Originally Posted by Woodstock 1

Does anyone know what thickness (thinness?) servo is needed for the ailerons?

Woodstock, I used HXT900s which are 12mm thick. I stuck them to the servo covers with the double sided tape provided and did not use the clear spacer mounts. They just fit under the covering. So probably almost any ~9g size servo would work. I've used dozens of $3 HXT900s from HobbyKing, and only stripped one by inadvertently hitting the trainer switch and putting my Speedo1.2 straight into the ground from around 150 feet.

The servos mentioned by Cody and Rotozuk are thinner and probably better. I have been satisfied with both of those vendors too.

Thanks !

Those HXT900's have an amazing reputation, incredible considering the price..

Here I show the video of the first flight, my SPEEDO PRO 1.43, in Spanish skies, I hope you like it

NEW SPEEDO PRO 1.43 SLOPE GLIDER PRIMER VUELO (8 min 16 sec)

"Muroc'd" my Speedo 1.4 today. Found it nowhere near as acrobatically responsive as my modified Bobolink but still a lot of fun in a relaxing way. It is a very gentle flier and doesn't respond to French fudging upright but will when inverted. Showed no nasty stall habits, feels like a bigger glasser/floater type. It flies surprisingly well inverted especially considering its partial span ailerons which cannot provide full flapperon effect. It will produce a decent negative loop from a negative shallow dive. Spins much better inverted.

However, the wings bend frighteningly in both directions when g-loaded to any major degree and I don't know whether a catastrophic failure is the offing. As stock it has no provisions for ballast but I think loading it by any means would be fatal to the wings unless the weight were placed near the wing tips (which would do wonders for the already sluggish roll rate!).

Construction was fairly easy but I abandoned the included plastic servo mount rings & the grossly oversized servo covers & made my own simple balsa mounting bridges with servo faces flush with the wing underside. The spring & eye-bolt attempt at a wing lock turned out to be a subtle rendition of Chinese water torture so I glued the wings on with RC 560 canopy glue so that I can pull them off if I really need to stow this plane for extended travel.

All-in-all it's a good deal for the price & I try not to think of some poor devil chained in a ramshackle Chinese "factory" slaving away under pressure to crank out another toy plane for us "roundeyes". I hope it is good that he/she has some kind of job so I'll rationalize it that way.

Originally Posted by CFIMEI

"........... Found it nowhere near as acrobatically responsive as my modified Bobolink ....................

Do you have any pics of your "Bobolink? I would like to see some if possible.
And by the way, do you know why the word aerobatic has been replaced by the word acrobatic which describes the agility and skill of a gymnast? Well, at least in my dictionary it does.
Not meaning this to be personal, I've been waiting for a more general forum to come up in which to raise the subject.

I'm old and accordingly old fashioned. Such semantic liberties tend to grate on the (aging) sensibilities a bit......

Jim.

Originally Posted by Jimbello

Do you have any pics of your "Bobolink? I would like to see some if possible.
And by the way, do you know why the word aerobatic has been replaced by the word acrobatic which describes the agility and skill of a gymnast? Well, at least in my dictionary it does.
Not meaning this to be personal, I've been waiting for a more general forum to come up in which to raise the subject.

I'm old and accordingly old fashioned. Such semantic liberties tend to grate on the (aging) sensibilities a bit......

Jim.

You're right, & if you look at any of my previous posts I use "aerobatic" too. Just a one-time etymological error. I'm old too.

First real sort-of-aerobatic plane that I used to fly was called "Citabria" which is "airbatic" spelled backwards.

There is a year-old fuzzy vid called "VTPR Wood Ranch Hill" somewhere on this forum with some Bobolink stuff but it was not a great day there & that plane can do a lot more than is shown. Got to get a new camera to mount on my bike helmet. Last one was left in Zurich Airport, found by a Swiss Air worker, sent to me via Lufthansa for pickup at LAX, then sent through my washing machine cloaked in a pair of blue jeans!

Found URL to old Bobolink vid:

Wood Ranch VTPR (3 min 38 sec)

I took delivery of mine yesterday. I was actually ordering a spare for my "classic" Speedo, but they ran out of my colour choice. Not wanting a dark fuselage, I decided to upgrade to the new boy on the block, hoping that it's performance won't be too far from it's smaller sibling. CFIMEI, do you have an original Speedo, and if so, any comparisons?

Originally Posted by Woodstock 1

I took delivery of mine yesterday. I was actually ordering a spare for my "classic" Speedo, but they ran out of my colour choice. Not wanting a dark fuselage, I decided to upgrade to the new boy on the block, hoping that it's performance won't be too far from it's smaller sibling. CFIMEI, do you have an original Speedo, and if so, any comparisons?

No, I don't have the original type Speedo, any degree of dihedral is against my religion! Have only seen one at the local hill & it ended its flight with a broken wing from unintended contact with Earth. I suspect the larger version is slower but better inverted with its straight wing line.

BTW, since the 1.43 has an extremely narrow pointed nose & I wanted to use the least lead for CG I tried a new (for me) & oh-so-clever procedure to compact the required weight as far forward as possible: Pressed aluminum foil into the nose conforming to its shape, placed nose vertically in glass of crushed ice & water, melted lead fishing weight on outside barbecue burner in large spoon & poured it carefully into nose to prevent heat damage to fuse. Probably didn't need the foil but it may have helped with heat shielding. Final weight is 601.4g with TLAR CG. Flies well this way. Also added a small balsa tail sprit fairing below the rudder without which the rudder looks like an afterthought, ending square above/behind the curved fuse tail end in really ugly fashion.

Put almost 2 hours on it yesterday in moderate lift. Was originally concerned with vulnerability of wing covering to brush poking but it lands very easily & the leading edges take the shrub contact well. Be careful though with hand catches on the wings!

CFIMEI, The original Speedo has no dihedral.

Woodstock, I would say the 1.4 is a good plane. The original is fabulous.

Despite the thinner wings, the 1.4 doesn't seem to fly as fast as the 1.2. I think the 1.2's RG15 is a better airfoil than the SD6062.

Thanks Mr. coffin!

Yup, no dihedral around there !

The Mk1 (by that I mean the rudderless 1.2m) is an astoundingly good plane. I say this from a perspective of being very privileged to own and fly a huge fleet of almost exclusively expensive, moulded gliders (I know, the wife says I'm a spoilt brat ) yet I love that Speedo! It's flying abilities in particularly difficult (gusty / flukey) conditions is astounding, and it's so tough that I use it as my "foamie" equivalent: in other words for testing out conditions, or trying new / suspect slopes, etc. It flies well in very light, thermal conditions, right through to very strong winds. It's a hard act to follow...

I notice the wings of the new Speedo are easy to flex in the hands !

Originally Posted by Woodstock 1

I notice the wings of the new Speedo are easy to flex in the hands !

Check them out in flight. They act as if they're from a long-wing EPP ship! Not sure where the weakest point is as the curving is fairly evenly distributed.but until I develop a little more confidence in their integrity I'm going to limit high G stuff to in close so I don't have to go after the wreckage halfway down a brushy, rattler populated slope face.

Originally Posted by dylancoffin

I think the 1.2's RG15 is a better airfoil than the SD6062.

No S6062 is a great and proven foil. Your plane is probably too light for it to get 'on-step' and perform well. Try ballasting to 15-20oz/sqft wingloading.

Originally Posted by Hamburglar

No S6062 is a great and proven foil. Your plane is probably too light for it to get 'on-step' and perform well. Try ballasting to 15-20oz/sqft wingloading.

A bit of a Catch 22 here then. Structurally the plane doesn't seem up to ballasting...

Originally Posted by Woodstock 1

A bit of a Catch 22 here then. Structurally the plane doesn't seem up to ballasting...

It's a real pity. I wonder if they are planning on resurrecting the JART LX tooling (assuming they are the same crowd) and making a moulded wings for it.