HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Oct 02, 2012, 10:43 AM
Registered User
howieb38's Avatar
United States, NJ, Kinnelon
Joined Aug 2005
45 Posts
New thred for SSS

How about a new thread called Super Sky Surfer modifications?

We could all post our mods with photos in order to make it easier to find them. Does that make sense??
howieb38 is offline Find More Posts by howieb38
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Oct 02, 2012, 12:42 PM
Registered User
San Diego, CA
Joined Dec 2006
1,280 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfwd View Post
I want it for just what its made for,floating around smooth as glass
It does that beautifully!

Quote:
I have no plans on using the motor was just curious about the 1000 watt if it was more or less powerful than stock.
A lot more powerful. 1000W is my own target for a new motor I've got coming.

The SSS was designed as a powered glider, and it flies like one. Very nicely, in fact. And I found out today it can do some stunts, even if the (clumsy) pilot didn't really intend it to. But it's not an Extra 300, or a pylon racer. People who want that kind of capability or speed, are flying the wrong plane.

But there are a few oddballs (like me) who like to do occasional steep climbs, loop from level flight without losing altitude, etc. - things that don't involve high speed or intricate maneuvering, but are fun anyway. A powerful motor, though it will never make a slow plane like the SSS fast, can compliment its capabilities in very useful ways.
Quote:
The SSS fly's just fine as is,all i have done is bigger esc and new control rods ..
Good stuff. I changed the tail pushrod connectors to make them stiffer and easier to connect, adjust, and secure. With the stock motor and prop, IMHO it doesn't really need a higher-capacity ESC, but there's no harm in using one either. It will probably run cooler if you do a lot of full-throttle stuff, which never hurts.

And as TheDon has pointed out, the stock ESC is described in the manual that came with the plane, as only having the capacity for four or five servos... but the SSS has six! A new ESC with more BEC current is a VERY good idea for this reason.
Little-Acorn is offline Find More Posts by Little-Acorn
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 12:53 PM
Registered User
San Diego, CA
Joined Dec 2006
1,280 Posts
Measured the CG of my SSS today, found it was exactly 4-1/8" behind the leading edge of the wing. That's 104.8mm. The manual says it should be 100 mm. And sure enough, the plane flies like it's tailheavy. It's hypersensitive in pitch, stalls frequently, and when I crank in enough down-elevator trim to make it fly level, it won't pull out of dives unless you give it definite up-elevator. Basically it ambles around the sky, bobbing its nose up and down, and doesn't seem to want to fly level for long. A good pilot could probably compensate for that, but I'm not one. The Wright brothers' plane was like that, though for slightly different reasons, and was a beast to control.

Having the CG less than 5mm back of where the manual says, doesn't strike me as a terrible offense, especially on a plane this big. I get the feeling that if I add enough weight to the nose, to move it up to the 100mm mark, that won't be enough. I'm guessing it will still fly like it's somewhat tailheavy. But I won't know till I try, I guess. Some other owners here have said they don't like the 100mm specified in the manual.

A slightly noseheavy plane is a LOT better than a slightly tailheavy one (like mine is now). Slightly-noseheavy flies very smoothly, and when you put in a little up-trim, it tends to pull out of dives and correct other errors... as long as it isn't TOO noseheavy.

Mine's definitely tailheavy, and flies like it. I had put some extra parts in the tail, which probably aren't helping the balance any. Adjustment time!
Little-Acorn is offline Find More Posts by Little-Acorn
Last edited by Little-Acorn; Oct 02, 2012 at 01:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 01:19 PM
Registered User
San Diego, CA
Joined Dec 2006
1,280 Posts
Found an APC 9x4.5E prop at my LHS and tried it this morning on the stock motor and ESC. Couldn't tell much difference from the stock 8x6 prop, maybe this new one has too little pitch. I'll plug the plane into the Wattmeter soon, measure the static RPM and thrust etc. Never hurts to have more info.

I like those APC "Electric" props. Thin blades, wider than the gas props, but still very stiff and strong.

The APC "Slo-Fly Electric" props aren't, though - those are for geared electric motors, designed to turn slower. They are even thinner, and more flexible - too flexible for un-geared direct-drive motors IMHO.

I also took a close look at the SSS's stock 8x6 prop, which has felt unbalanced to me (vibrates when running). Seems that both blades are the same weight... but they are NOT 180 degrees apart! I haven't seen this since I last flew a 25-cent rubber-powered Sleek Streek in the early 1960s.

You guys might want to try this. The stock prop has pointy tips ("scimitar" style), or at least mine does. Use a ruler to draw a straight line on a piece of paper. Take your prop off and lay it on the page, putting the pointy tips exactly on the line. The line should go through the exact middle of the center hole, right? Mine didn't - it was nearly 1/8" off!

This prop was made, BENT. Not a whole lot, but it doesn't take much. Very weird. It's trash can bait now. The plane came with two props, I'll check the other one soon.
Little-Acorn is offline Find More Posts by Little-Acorn
Last edited by Little-Acorn; Oct 02, 2012 at 01:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 01:46 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2010
3,573 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by howieb38 View Post
How about a new thread called Super Sky Surfer modifications?

We could all post our mods with photos in order to make it easier to find them. Does that make sense??
No. The meat of any model-specific thread is mods. No self-respecting flyer has seen a plane that he could not make "better", as is being shown in this one. The idea of creating a separate thread for mods was tried on the Radian forum and failed. The "mod" thread has languished while the primary thread remains full of mod info.
kaptondave is offline Find More Posts by kaptondave
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 02:17 PM
Registered User
United States, ID, Burley
Joined Mar 2012
3,355 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaptondave View Post
No. The meat of any model-specific thread is mods. No self-respecting flyer has seen a plane that he could not make "better", as is being shown in this one. The idea of creating a separate thread for mods was tried on the Radian forum and failed. The "mod" thread has languished while the primary thread remains full of mod info.
yea it wont work, the mods are all right here in the SSS area and that's fine,
fastfwd is offline Find More Posts by fastfwd
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 02:19 PM
Registered User
San Diego, CA
Joined Dec 2006
1,280 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doubletap View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
Did anyone else see this? Another member of the family, little baby Sky Surfer

http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store...dProduct=18473
Yes, I have that one also, it's the BridgeSky Vector 850, I don't know why they put "SkySurfer" decals on the wing, but it is manufactured by BridgeSky and it is officially named the Vector 850. BTW, it is a superb mini sub-1 meter EZ style sport plane, it is one my favorites. it's in stock at the USA warehouse btw:

http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store...arehouse_.html
When I drove to Banana Hobby near Los Angeles to buy my SSS, I dealt with John, who was very polite and helpful.

I asked him who designed the Super Sky Surfer, and he replied, "We are working with BridgeSky".

I wasn't familiar with them. They're in China, here's their website (English version):
http://www.bridgeskyrc.com/en/index.asp

No sign of any 2400mm powered gliders, though there are some smaller ones, and some cool jets.
Little-Acorn is offline Find More Posts by Little-Acorn
Last edited by Little-Acorn; Oct 02, 2012 at 02:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 03:12 PM
Registered User
San Diego, CA
Joined Dec 2006
1,280 Posts
Flew the SSS again this morning, one flight only. A good launch, and the nicest landing I've made with that plane yet.

But between the launch and landing, things got hairy. It kept bobbing its nose up and down, stalling frequently (as it has done nearly every flight), all signs of being tailheavy (later confirmed). A good pilot can compensate for those things, but I frequently messed up.

Worst part was when it was coming toward me. Twice I pulled the classic boob of mistaking right for left. That combined with an unexpected stall can get interesting. Rolled it all the way over on its back at one point, fortunately high enough that I could pull it through a half loop and get it upright again, just above the trees at the park. Later when landing, I did the same damned DUMB thing. Didn't roll it all the way over, and brought it out with ailerons this time. But wound up WAY off the landing pattern on final and lost sight of it behind a tree. A very anxious few seconds later I got it again, brought it around and landed.

Decided I had scared myself out of my socks enough for one day, put it in the car and came to work.

Damn. When the plane is tailheavy and someone who shall remain nameless sets the aileron trim wrong, the plane needs a GOOD pilot. Instead, all it had was me. Well, all's well that ends well. Now I know it can do stunts. Time to get serious about weight&balance. And maybe learn right from left.
Little-Acorn is offline Find More Posts by Little-Acorn
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 03:22 PM
Suspended Account
United States, CT, Hartford
Joined Jun 2009
5,336 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaptondave View Post
No. The meat of any model-specific thread is mods. No self-respecting flyer has seen a plane that he could not make "better", as is being shown in this one. The idea of creating a separate thread for mods was tried on the Radian forum and failed. The "mod" thread has languished while the primary thread remains full of mod info.
Man, it sure seems like you have some kind of axe to grind here with LA. Relax man.

His posts are plentiful, and helpful.
porcia83 is offline Find More Posts by porcia83
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Oct 02, 2012, 03:25 PM
Suspended Account
United States, CT, Hartford
Joined Jun 2009
5,336 Posts
I note Don mentioned earlier about the load on the ESC and the BEC issues and that the stock esc is good for 4 servos. If I use the stock set up and have the flaps set up, and only use them for a minute or so to land, does it really put that much more load on the esc? Is it to much just to have them installed and that affects the esc, or is it the actual usage of them that's the issue.

Full disclosure I'm in awe of most of the The Don writes, and at some point i might even understand it, but it gets to technical for me sometimes
porcia83 is offline Find More Posts by porcia83
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Oct 02, 2012, 04:28 PM
Argue for your limitations
ajbaker's Avatar
Lincoln, CA
Joined Oct 2006
8,424 Posts
Duplicate posting for now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Yep, so far. Except the tail pushrods were too skinny IMHO, so I clipped them short and spliced on some 5" threaded rods for nylon Kwik-links for rudder and elevator. And used nylon bolts to bolt the tail on and make it removable, for transportation purposes.

Mine came with the decals not applied, they were still on their separate sheet in the box. I didn't put them on, I sort of prefer it without them. Might paint it somehow, later.


That's what the manual says. Mine is currently at 105mm, which is barely an rch from where the manual calls for on a plane this big, yet it flies like it's distinctly tailheavy. I haven't adjusted it yet,
1. but I have a feeling that putting it at 100mm will still result in a tailheavy plane. I'll know more soon.

My plane is flyable, but bobs its nose and stalls pretty easily, and is hypersensitive in pitch. If I were you I would put the CG no further aft than 100mm. And bring a few bolts to the first flight, put them in the nose as needed.

My guess is, 90mm or so will be about right. But I haven't tried that yet.

2. Did you get an RTF or ARF version?

P.S. We've started an info-and-FAQs page in the Super Sky Surfer thread. See Post #829 and later posts, here:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...706026&page=56
1. I think you mean nose heavy. (when moving the CG from 105mm to 100mm). As you move the CG more forward, the plane becomes more nose heavy (I am pretty sure you know this because the rest of your references to CG is correct.)

2. I got and ARF. All but battery, receiver, xmitter.

I had the same thought about the control rods. But, I put in the stock ones in. Does the stock motor have enough power?
AJ
ajbaker is offline Find More Posts by ajbaker
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 05:00 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2010
3,573 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
Man, it sure seems like you have some kind of axe to grind here with LA. Relax man.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have an axe to grind on what subject? I simply stated that I did not think we needed a separate "mods" thread, based on what happened with the same idea on the Radian forum. That does not mean that I am against mods. As I said they are the meat of any model-specific forum.

Quote:
His posts are plentiful, and helpful.
Who is the "his" that are you referring to? I was responding to a post by Howie. I did not say his post was not helpful. He asked a question and I stated an opinion.

Try again stating your problem with me, whatever that might be.
kaptondave is offline Find More Posts by kaptondave
Last edited by kaptondave; Oct 02, 2012 at 05:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 05:05 PM
Registered User
San Diego, CA
Joined Dec 2006
1,280 Posts
(copied from SkySurfer thread, I'll continue this conversation here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajbaker View Post
1. I think you mean nose heavy.
Nope, tailheavy. With the CG at 105MM behind the LE, it's definitely that way, and you're right that moving it to 100mm will make it less tailheavy (more noseheavy if you will). But my point is, I don't think it will make ENOUGH difference, and the plane will still be slightly tailheavy, even with the CG at 100mm. Putting enough weight in the nose to move the CG to 90mm behind the LE, would make it about right, is my guess. But I haven't tried it yet.

Quote:
2. I got and ARF. All but battery, receiver, xmitter.
Ditto. Not sure why my decals came un-applied, other people in the SSS thread expressed surprise too. But I sort of like it better that way - to me the milky-white finish is gorgeous. I'm completely unbiased, of course.

Quote:
I had the same thought about the control rods. But, I put in the stock ones in.
It's really the one thing I recommend changing right off the bat. Many people in the SSS thread have replaced them with thicker music wire, though some had difficulty finding long enough wires at the LHS. I compromised, simply grafted Kwik-links onto the existing rods in their unsupported areas at the tail. But I'd imagine there are a number of these planes flying even now, with the originals, so maybe I'm a little paranoid.
Quote:
Does the stock motor have enough power?
Barely, if you ask me. But you've seen the motors I put on my regular SkySurfer and Easystar. I've got something similar (but bigger) on order now for the SSS.

Nearly all my flights of the SSS have been with stock motor and propeller, since I had nothing else to put in it. The plane hand-launches OK even in zero wind, though it takes a pretty good heave. And it climbs adequately at full throttle, though nothing spectacular. The stock motor/propeller are a good place to start, I guess. The plane was designed as a powered glider, and flies like one. No real problem.

Two notes:

1.) Mine came with noticeable left thrust in the motor mount. I left it as it was, and the plane flies and climbs straight. Several others in the SSS thread have said theirs also had that left thrust. It may have been designed that way. I like the way it flies with it, and have no intention of taking it out.

2.) One of the posters in the SSS thread pointed out that the stock ESC is rated at 40W. The manual that comes with the plane, names two 40W ESCs, I'm not sure which is in the plane (probably the cheaper, linear-BEC one). But the manual says both the 40W ESCs are rated for either 4 or 5 servos, and the SSS comes with six!
Putting in an external BEC, or a new ESC with a 4A or more BEC, might be a good idea, just in case. Maybe even a separate battery for receiver and servos, since the plane needs more weight in the nose anyway? I'm flying mine with the stock ESC and its built-in BEC, no problems yet. But I have a new 60A ESC on the bench, which I'll put in with the new motor (3642, 3200KV naturally ).

I've wondered how the manual-writers arrived at their "rated for 4 servos" evaluation. Maybe they mean 4 "standard" size servos, which I believe are around 55 grams each? The SSS servos are smaller, 17g each, and probably have less current draw. Maybe six of those still come in under the limit, whatever that is?
Little-Acorn is offline Find More Posts by Little-Acorn
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 05:29 PM
Argue for your limitations
ajbaker's Avatar
Lincoln, CA
Joined Oct 2006
8,424 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Nope, tailheavy. With the CG at 105MM behind the LE, it's definitely that way, and you're right that moving it to 100mm will make it less tailheavy (more noseheavy if you will).
1. But my point is, I don't think it will make ENOUGH difference, and the plane will still be slightly tailheavy, even with the CG at 100mm. Putting enough weight in the nose to move the CG to 90mm behind the LE, would make it about right, is my guess. But I haven't tried it yet.


Ditto. Not sure why my decals came un-applied, other people in the SSS thread expressed surprise too. But I sort of like it better that way - to me the milky-white finish is gorgeous. I'm completely unbiased, of course.


2. It's really the one thing I recommend changing right off the bat. Many people in the SSS thread have replaced them with thicker music wire, though some had difficulty finding long enough wires at the LHS. I compromised, simply grafted Kwik-links onto the existing rods in their unsupported areas at the tail. But I'd imagine there are a number of these planes flying even now, with the originals, so maybe I'm a little paranoid. Barely, if you ask me. But you've seen the motors I put on my regular SkySurfer and Easystar. I've got something similar (but bigger) on order now for the SSS.

Nearly all my flights of the SSS have been with stock motor and propeller, since I had nothing else to put in it. The plane hand-launches OK even in zero wind, though it takes a pretty good heave. And it climbs adequately at full throttle, though nothing spectacular. The stock motor/propeller are a good place to start, I guess. The plane was designed as a powered glider, and flies like one. No real problem.

Two notes:

3. Mine came with noticeable left thrust in the motor mount. I left it as it was, and the plane flies and climbs straight. Several others in the SSS thread have said theirs also had that left thrust. It may have been designed that way. I like the way it flies with it, and have no intention of taking it out.

2.) One of the posters in the SSS thread pointed out that the stock ESC is rated at 40W. The manual that comes with the plane, names two 40W ESCs, I'm not sure which is in the plane (probably the cheaper, linear-BEC one). But the manual says both the 40W ESCs are rated for either 4 or 5 servos, and the SSS comes with six!
Putting in an external BEC, or a new ESC with a 4A or more BEC, might be a good idea, just in case. Maybe even a separate battery for receiver and servos, since the plane needs more weight in the nose anyway? I'm flying mine with the stock ESC and its built-in BEC, no problems yet. But I have a new 60A ESC on the bench, which

4. I'll put in with the new motor (3642, 3200KV naturally ).
1. Ah. Got it. I understand your wording now.
2. I am going to take your advice. The control rods in the plane are .032. That is just plain nuts. I only use that size on my micro flyers. I am going to put in .047. I buy all my music wire in 3' lengths. So, length won't be a problem
3. Mine has very noticeable right thrust (See Picture). The motor is twisted CCW resulting in a right thrust. That seems OK to me because of the left torque roll induced by the motor.
4. Why are you using such a high Kv motor? I always use the smallest Kv motor that I can reasonably use on an airplane just because the lower the Kv, the more efficient the movement of air over the prop. After I fly it (once or twice), I will use a 3536-1450 motor (See Picture) with a 9x6 prop. Besides being more efficient, it will be quieter.
ajbaker is offline Find More Posts by ajbaker
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 02, 2012, 05:35 PM
The figure "9" Specialist
aeronca's Avatar
A Barrier Island in New Jersey, USA
Joined Oct 2003
3,501 Posts
Checking in. I just learned about this bird!

Aeronca
aeronca is offline Find More Posts by aeronca
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Banana Hobby BlitzRCWorks Sky Surfer JoshB Electric Plane Talk 12 Feb 15, 2012 12:01 AM
Found Looking for BlitzRCWorks Sky Surfer Airframe Only or Wing Set cutty01 Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 0 Aug 16, 2010 04:16 PM
Discussion BlitzRCWorks Sky Surfer Aerobatic Flench Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 4 Feb 13, 2010 04:17 PM
Discussion sky surfer powered parachute $29.95 w/ Free shipping interplanet Hot Online Deals 26 Dec 30, 2008 11:58 PM