Thanks Joe, I agree that ballasting the Tragi is needed, but I doubt I ever play 5J. I think I can put a couple of slugs in if I do a couple moves of the gear.

Marc

Joe: I recently bought an e fuse for my 3.9 Maxa setup....servos in the rear. E fuse does not come with ballast tube.....got any suggestions or thoughts....

You can buy a ballast tube from Kennedy Composites in the USA or Hyperflight in the UK. Its the same tube for the Supra as the Maxa. You should be able to install it even if the model is already built although its a lot easier if you do it before gluing pod to boom.

Even if you don't install the tube the ballast could be directly connected to a small tongue via a screw from the bottom of the fuselage.

Having said that can we please keep this thread on the general topic of what it takes to have a competitive F5J model.

For instance I don't see why an open bay model like the Pulsar shouldn't be competitive with ballast added. In the Sydney area most of the F5J comps held to date have been won by open bay models....

Hi David
I’ve been following this thread in the interest of also seeing where other people are going in the most part i agree with what has been said that the direction that we are heading is to moulded aircraft but i do agree that there is a place for open bayed gliders.
As you know for the past year i have been using a AVA 4flap and a Supra Ultra light Hybrid both able to be ballasted.
The AVA has a Neu 1112 1.5 D 6.7:1 on 2S turning a 17x13 this combination will climb to 200 meters in 28 sec. Ballasted. The AVA is very good all-round glider but it does excel in dead air up to about 15 Km ph after that it is a little challenging in landing zone. On the other hand the Supra has a Neu 1110 1Y 2S 5.2:1 turning a 17x13 which is also able to carry ballast and is an excellent all weather glider but it excels in light to strong lift both gliders have their strong points and both can travel around the sky to find lift and return from a long downwind run but within their optimal operational scope.
I don’t profess to be an expert but i do know that every time I fly ether model i learn something new about them as an example the last time i flew the AVA i was testing some miner tweaks in dead air i found that i could make my time from only 150 meters by using the cut-off set 150 meters and only using small amounts of rudder to turn i made 2 laps of our field and return with sufficient height to land as i said still learning.
Regards Paul Osmond

Paul,

thanks for that. What are the wing loadings you are running at? And do you find yourself using ballast much? Dave Prately was always able to land a flapped AVA well but I found a need for for roll control on landing when there is any real wind. That's why I switched to a Pulsar.

cheers
Dave

Originally Posted by davidleitch

Paul,

thanks for that. What are the wing loadings you are running at? And do you find yourself using ballast much? Dave Prately was always able to land a flapped AVA well but I found a need for for roll control on landing when there is any real wind. That's why I switched to a Pulsar.

cheers
Dave

How would you compare the two, Dave? Both quality wise and performance. Thanks.

Preston

Preston,
Strictly my perspective:

AVA: Comes from the same stable that's given us the Graphite, Organic, Supra, Maxa. In terms of technology these guys are genuine innovators. I think the first to popularise using a molded D box with an open bay model etc. These models embraced electic gliders from the start and consequently I'll always be a supporter. The AVA itself is a formal design development from the bubble dancer. In short its a well designed well thought out model. Still its also a lightweight rudder elevator model with a spoiler, at least in its original version. As such you don't camber the wing, and you don't have roll control etc.

Pulsar: The Pulsar started as a 2 metre model or even smaller and went through several iterations before ending up as the family it is today. I fly the 3.2 metre version (although not much any more). It does a job. Its well built, portable and there is plenty of room for the electrics. However its inboard ailerons are sluggish and by definition a bit inefficient and my copy has a slightly warped trailing edge. I don't think there is enough dihedral in the design but I'm not an expert. The single flap can't be used to assist roll control but does let you camber the trailing edge.

Still it can be landed accurately and when used in Australia's LEG (motor run subtracted from flight time) was an effective competitor. There is no formal provision for ballast but it could be added fairly easily. It won't handle as well as a top molded glider but other than at the highest levels of competition I doubt if it would be a significant disadvantage and it is much cheaper. If you keep it in a bag it wont even suffer much hangar rash.

Originally Posted by davidleitch

Preston,
Strictly my perspective:

AVA: Comes from the same stable that's given us the Graphite, Organic, Supra, Maxa. In terms of technology these guys are genuine innovators. I think the first to popularise using a molded D box with an open bay model etc. These models embraced electic gliders from the start and consequently I'll always be a supporter. The AVA itself is a formal design development from the bubble dancer. In short its a well designed well thought out model. Still its also a lightweight rudder elevator model with a spoiler, at least in its original version. As such you don't camber the wing, and you don't have roll control etc.

Pulsar: The Pulsar started as a 2 metre model or even smaller and went through several iterations before ending up as the family it is today. I fly the 3.2 metre version (although not much any more). It does a job. Its well built, portable and there is plenty of room for the electrics. However its inboard ailerons are sluggish and by definition a bit inefficient and my copy has a slightly warped trailing edge. I don't think there is enough dihedral in the design but I'm not an expert. The single flap can't be used to assist roll control but does let you camber the trailing edge.

Still it can be landed accurately and when used in Australia's LEG (motor run subtracted from flight time) was an effective competitor. There is no formal provision for ballast but it could be added fairly easily. It won't handle as well as a top molded glider but other than at the highest levels of competition I doubt if it would be a significant disadvantage and it is much cheaper. If you keep it in a bag it wont even suffer much hangar rash.

Thanks, David.

David
Just to clarify the AVA that i am flying has ailerons and flaps and has very good roll control and camber adjustment i should have said that in the landing zone it slows down very quickly when flaps are deployed making a little harder for me to judge the landing i need a lot more practise in different conditions. I haven’t calculated the wing loading all i know is that when i add ballast for windier conditions it flies much better.
Paul

Joe has obviously spent a great deall of thought preparing for his entry in to F5J.
Little can be added to his well thought out points. Models will have less of an impact in final placing than will practice, execution, and strategy. In my experience light models are of less value than you would expect at world champs levels. With that in mind I am planning 3 Aspires. 2 with standard Ales type power setups, Axi 20 medium power units at around 67 ounces. The third will be a higher powered Neu 4S equipped Aspire for covering ground. All models will have ballast capbility. I have already predicted that as ALES develops and the launch height comes down the lightly loaded sport type models will give way to more serious F3J based designs. Fabricators will love F5J it is easy to make lighter models as the stresses are less and you can leave more structure out....LJ

Originally Posted by Joe W

BTW, you would be amused with my solution to the fwd cg with the servos and motor up front! The happy part about my solution is that I still have the stock ballast tube available.

Hey Joe,
I'm ready to be amused.
Hutton

Originally Posted by VHO

Hey Joe,
I'm ready to be amused.
Hutton

The question is no longer theoretical (or just for my amusement).

I am at the point of deciding to a) put servos in the front (of a standard length Maxa fuselage) or b) put servos in tail.

The motor combination I have are Mega 16/15/2 or HET 2w-20 with 5.2:1 Kontronics Gear box (weight ~140g) - Vladimir suggests forward mounted servos if motor / GB is ~120g, and long fuselage is used. I have a repaired (don't ask) boom standard Maxa fuse..

Is the amusing method JW uses to adjust balance simply to add weight to the back end of the ballast tube, which is considerably longer than ballast? If so that is a useful get out of jail card.

Any help gratefully received.

Hutton

PS David, sorry if this doesn't meet the intended thread objectives. My take is that having been beaten by my own bad piloting and a 4M Pulsar, Maxa, Supra and (almost by) a Radian, last weekend, moulded models (aka those with F3J parentage) will eventually dominate F5J just as they do F3J and Open Thermal.

Originally Posted by VHO

The question is no longer theoretical (or just for my amusement).

I am at the point of deciding to a) put servos in the front (of a standard length Maxa fuselage) or b) put servos in tail.

The motor combination I have are Mega 16/15/2 or HET 2w-20 with 5.2:1 Kontronics Gear box (weight ~140g) - Vladimir suggests forward mounted servos if motor / GB is ~120g, and long fuselage is used. I have a repaired (don't ask) boom standard Maxa fuse..

Is the amusing method JW uses to adjust balance simply to add weight to the back end of the ballast tube, which is considerably longer than ballast? If so that is a useful get out of jail card.

Any help gratefully received.

Hutton

PS David, sorry if this doesn't meet the intended thread objectives. My take is that having been beaten by my own bad piloting and a 4M Pulsar, Maxa, Supra and (almost by) a Radian, last weekend, moulded models (aka those with F3J parentage) will eventually dominate F5J just as they do F3J and Open Thermal.

Well, I have been flying my second Maxa with a Neu 1107 with a P29 gearbox and an 850 4S Battery Pack in the front and two MKS 6100's in the rudder. This rig balances with no further tail weight or nose weight. I decided to change out the ATX '61Z's in the nose of my original Maxa for MKS 6100's and replace the 3S 1300 battery with a 3S 850. This plane has a Neu 1105 with a Maxon gearbox -- 115 gms. I hoped to be able to get rid of the 15 gram steel joiner pin in the tail and have a plane that was lighter in the ends. It didn't really help much. I suspect that it would balance with the long tail, but otherwise, no dice.

I suspect that if you set up a plane with a regular tailboom and your motor that you won't gain much by mounting the servos in the nose. You will have to put some weight in the tail -- might as well make that weight to be servos (BTW using the MKS 6100 for the stab and the tiny MKS 65 for the rudder is a perfect fit.) The other thing you get in this setup is a lot more freedom to locate your power system where it is easily accessible and fitting ballast is greatly simplified.

Happy Landings,

Don

Hi Don,

Thanks for your helpful reply.

If I go with servo's in the tail, then I will need to make an alternative bellcrank similar to the the electric maxa. However, as you say, it balances, and provides more options, so should be worth the effort.

I enjoy your posts, always good value, and common sense.

Hutton

Hutton,
I forgot to respond on this one.
My solution was to put the battery on top of the fuselage behind the wing. I glued a couple of carbon plates on either side of the fuz to box in the battery. Not very elegant, but workable. The one concern is the elevated rf noise with the battery wiring + ESC running past rx & servos.