Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old May 07, 2005, 06:20 AM
I fly for Beer
Jagzilla's Avatar
Chilliwack, B.C. Canada
Joined Sep 2004
2,730 Posts
Zero's Wing Incidence and COG Change??????

Hi,
I just received my Zero kit, and I'll start the build soon. I've been reading plenty about wing incidence problems with this bird, but just wanted to see if I could get some feedback from other Zero owners. I have heard about putting a spacer between the wing and the front area of the wing mount saddle in the fuselage, to change the angle of the wing. I just wanted to know if most of you zero owners have been actually doing this, or are most of you just building the kit as stock? I would prefer to just mount the wing in the saddle properly as the kit comes, but I will start to modify it if I really have to. I do plan on running a far more powerfull than stock brushless motor in it, and I'll be making sure the cog is correct. Which brings me to another question, where did you guys place your cog? I have read that where the owners manual says is wrong in most peoples opinion, and that it is more in the area of where the wing spar is. Again, what do you other Zero pilots think on this? I really want a good flying Zero, so I just wanted to ask if you guys out there are happy with yours the way it fly's with the stock setup, or if you did do wing incidence changes, etc. Thanks for your time,
J
Jagzilla is offline Find More Posts by Jagzilla
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old May 07, 2005, 08:37 AM
Confused? Who, me?
Roger Lombard's Avatar
United Kingdom, England, North York
Joined Jan 2005
4,789 Posts
There's a big thread on this topic already - look back to last post on 2nd May, but my personal experience is that I had to change the incidence angle. On a stock motor set-up (so all other things being equal I guess it would be even worse with a more powerful b/l) the plane would just do unlimited power loops. I reset the front wing mount on the fuse down to the very bottom of its slot and the mount on the wing itself as high as I could get it. This got me most of the 1/8" or so that you need to win but I then sanded away some of the fuse so that the trailing edge of the wing was lifted by maybe 1/16". I set the CG at the nominal 60mm but in practice I fly with batteries varying from about 50 gms to 70 gms so I must be moving it about a bit but it doesn't really show up in any change in flight stability. I have a little bit of down elevator trim set in but I'm really pleased with the way it flies. It is very aerobatic and will climb indefinitely at 45 degrees - OK not brushless performance but plenty of fun for me. I read others have managed to avoid resetting the wing and got level flight by adding ballast or whatever but some admit to still getting some variation in longitudinal stability on and off the power. Mine's just fine - none of that, and anyway I hate adding ballast. It was easy to do and I filled the small gap between the wing and fuse with lightweight filler and it isn't noticeable that anything's been changed. Hope this helps

Roger
Roger Lombard is offline Find More Posts by Roger Lombard
Reply With Quote
Old May 07, 2005, 04:46 PM
I fly for Beer
Jagzilla's Avatar
Chilliwack, B.C. Canada
Joined Sep 2004
2,730 Posts
It helps a lot Roger, thanks. I think I'll go with the added incidence.
J
Jagzilla is offline Find More Posts by Jagzilla
Reply With Quote
Old May 08, 2005, 05:22 AM
Registered User
geoff_s14's Avatar
UK
Joined Sep 2002
371 Posts
Hi there,

I built my Zero at christmas time, but have only just started to fly her over the past couple of weeks. I set it up with the stock wing incidence, and it flies absolutely fine. The only adjustment I needed to make was to trim in some down elevator, since on the first launch the plane had a tendency to climb rather steeply under power. This has been cured by setting the elevator so that the [i]bottom[\i] of the elevator surface is in line with the bottom of the rest of the tail. I hope this makes sense - because the elevator tapers towards the tip in cross section it means that its upper surface points down a little bit with relation to the rest of the upper tail feather surface. Set up like this the plane no longer climbs as the power gos on.

I have the COG set at 55mm. My plane is very light, so this mean't having to be a bit resourceful when it came to sighting the servos, radio gear and battery in order to acheive this figure without the need to add ballast.

I was very pleased with how easy the Zero was to fly - this is the first warbird I have been able to fly - earlier failed attempts at maidening the Corsair caused me to be a bit anxious about my chances of success with this plane, which is why it took me 5 months from building to actually get up enough nerve to trying it out. I needn't have worried though, it handles like a dream.
geoff_s14 is offline Find More Posts by geoff_s14
Reply With Quote
Old May 08, 2005, 06:17 AM
Confused? Who, me?
Roger Lombard's Avatar
United Kingdom, England, North York
Joined Jan 2005
4,789 Posts
Geoff,

Another Zero fan! Great. Bad news for you though. It was my absolute favourite........and then I built a P51......... . Whichever you look at it the Zero isn't going to win a beauty contest - the P51 has the looks and the performance. So steer clear of strange P51's unless you want to be tempted....

What worries me about just using down elevator to counter the power climb is that under "power off" you're now getting down elevator you don't need - in other words unless you deliberately pull back slightly on the stick you're going to get a steeper glide angle.

Mine doesn't change attitude between power on and power off and it has a very flat glide. Flying weight with 2 cell LiPo (but no landing gear - I fly over grass) is 330 gms - 11.3 oz. Which I have to admit is 2 or 3 ounces lighter than the P51 which needed a heavier battery AND some ballast .

However, if you're happy, I'm happy!
Roger Lombard is offline Find More Posts by Roger Lombard
Reply With Quote
Old May 08, 2005, 08:49 AM
Registered User
geoff_s14's Avatar
UK
Joined Sep 2002
371 Posts
double post
geoff_s14 is offline Find More Posts by geoff_s14
Last edited by geoff_s14; May 08, 2005 at 09:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old May 08, 2005, 08:51 AM
Registered User
geoff_s14's Avatar
UK
Joined Sep 2002
371 Posts
Roger,

My Zero flies at 335g with a Etec 1200 2 cell lipo. I was a bit concerned about using down elevator to counteract the climb too, but it still seems to fly level on partial throttles, so for now I'm trying not to worry about it. I was just surprised to be able to get it flying at all. After a few disappointing attempts to maiden my Corsair (I smashed it up pretty bad) I decided it was probably suffering from being a bit underpowered for its weight so I decided to build the something with a better power to weight ratio to practice on, and save my Corsair for later on. My ultimate goal is definately the Mustang though.

Geoff
geoff_s14 is offline Find More Posts by geoff_s14
Reply With Quote
Old May 08, 2005, 10:43 AM
Confused? Who, me?
Roger Lombard's Avatar
United Kingdom, England, North York
Joined Jan 2005
4,789 Posts
Tell me about it Geoff! I never did get my first Mustang to fly (it was also my first warbird/low wing plane). But then again I actually learned on the Corsair! One man's meat etc.

Then went through a series of rekits on a Spitfire (which I still have flying but she's a bit creaky in the joints, like her pilot), built an ME109 and was so pleased with its appearance that it took me a while to pluck up courage to fly her but now we're good friends, went through the Zero and then just recently built the latest P51.

Looking back I think I was doing three things wrong - too much, much too much, control throw, (I didn't have a clever tx then), not being sufficiently picky about the CG and thirdly, because I fly over grass and have to hand launch, not putting enough shove into the launch - pretty much everything I'd flown successfully up to that point had "flown out of your hand" and a warbird won't do that (well certainly not on a stock set up, which all mine are.

My 330 gms is with a GWS 1300 2 cell which is OK unless there's a breeze but I normally fly with a Hecell 1450 or a Kokam 1500. The Corsair is happy with the same, the Me109 wants the weight of the 1500 and will fly with a 2100 (they're all 2 cells). The Spit and the Mustang both want the 2100 but the joy of that is its capacity - I had two - as I thought- longish flights on the one battery but when I checked it had only dropped from 8.3 to 7.8 volts

The Mustang, for all its extra weight, is definitely faster - much slipperier shape (and I filled all the panel lines) but with the same motor/prop it probably can't sustain the continuous 45 degree climb out that the Zero can manage. Not got enough time on it yet to really check it out. I wish this wind would drop!!!
Roger Lombard is offline Find More Posts by Roger Lombard
Reply With Quote
Old May 08, 2005, 04:44 PM
Outcast outlaw
As far away from RCGroups and the AMA as possible!
Joined Aug 2004
6,601 Posts
You don't need to change the wing incidence. Just add a little DOWN THRUST to the motor mount. When you power up, the Zero flies just fine. When you power off, the Zero glides just fine. I've been in the air 2.5 hours on my new Zero with no crashes.

Check out all my information (including COG) in the thread here.

EDIT --> ...and to the person who said the Zero wouldn't win any beauty contests... I think she's a BEAUTY.

EDIT #2 --> The CG on my Zero is currently at 42 mm and flies GREAT.
Red 61 is offline Find More Posts by Red 61
Last edited by Red 61; May 08, 2005 at 04:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old May 09, 2005, 02:34 AM
Confused? Who, me?
Roger Lombard's Avatar
United Kingdom, England, North York
Joined Jan 2005
4,789 Posts
EDIT --> ...and to the person who said the Zero wouldn't win any beauty contests... I think she's a BEAUTY.

Hmmmm! - whatever turns you on! Great performer, I'm with you, but beauty, I don't think so - but as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Here's me been thinking you were an OK guy Red 61 but I'm starting to wonder.....
Roger Lombard is offline Find More Posts by Roger Lombard
Reply With Quote
Old May 09, 2005, 09:41 PM
Outcast outlaw
As far away from RCGroups and the AMA as possible!
Joined Aug 2004
6,601 Posts
LOL -- well, maybe it has something to do with her being my first warbird I've managed to keep in the air more than 10 minutes!
Red 61 is offline Find More Posts by Red 61
Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2005, 10:29 AM
Hooper, full throttle!
Tommy D's Avatar
USA, NY, East Islip
Joined Feb 2004
11,047 Posts
Hey Guys

My slope kit arrived last night. Didn’t have much time to give it a good look over but I do have a question.

When using both elevator and rudder are you expected to mount the servo’s side by side in the little cutout directly below the canopy?

Looks like I got a LOT of sanding to do on this one!

I pray when/if we ever see the P-40 the mould marks are more in line with other manufactures.

Thanks!

Tommy
Tommy D is offline Find More Posts by Tommy D
Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2005, 05:20 PM
Registered User
geoff_s14's Avatar
UK
Joined Sep 2002
371 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommytorino
Hey Guys

My slope kit arrived last night. Didn’t have much time to give it a good look over but I do have a question.

When using both elevator and rudder are you expected to mount the servo’s side by side in the little cutout directly below the canopy?

Looks like I got a LOT of sanding to do on this one!

I pray when/if we ever see the P-40 the mould marks are more in line with other manufactures.

Thanks!

Tommy
I think, depending on what battery you intend on using that you may have problems balancing the Zero with 2 servos mounted in that slot as instructed in the manual. To get mine to balance without adding balast I had to make new cutouts for a single servo (I only have elevator and aileron) and RX right up against the firewall. I also have the battery mounted over the front of the motor. These pics are terrible quality but give an idea of what I mean.
geoff_s14 is offline Find More Posts by geoff_s14
Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2005, 10:31 PM
Outcast outlaw
As far away from RCGroups and the AMA as possible!
Joined Aug 2004
6,601 Posts
Geoff -- what is that you have in front of the battery to keep it from moving forward? I need one of those!
Red 61 is offline Find More Posts by Red 61
Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2005, 10:47 PM
Hooper, full throttle!
Tommy D's Avatar
USA, NY, East Islip
Joined Feb 2004
11,047 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_s14
To get mine to balance without adding balast I had to make new cutouts for a single servo
Thanks for the advice. I think Ill move the rudder/elevator servos forward.

Hollowed out the battery area and came to the conclusion the Spitfire has a LOT more room for a battery! I'm going to try to run a combo I had on a old 16oz home built. Fegaio brushless making 16oz thrust 48MPH pitch speed @ only 10A draw. So cross your fingers on my little Tanic 1050 3S doing the balance job. The only other thing I have going for me is the gearbox and heavy spinner up front.

AUW <before sanding the spackle off> is 11ozs <with motor/batter/esc>. Lets hope I can keep it under 14ozs.

Yep, sure looks like a zero even at this point.

Tommy
Tommy D is offline Find More Posts by Tommy D
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chuck's Wing Thing question Clive Henry Jones Parkflyers 27 Aug 01, 2013 09:50 AM
Discussion Zero Wing Incidence....has it been corrected? CatchmyCorsair GWS (Grand Wing Servo) 14 Apr 11, 2006 11:08 AM
Discussion Zero Wing Incidence question turbodriven GWS (Grand Wing Servo) 4 Jan 23, 2006 10:53 PM
Question Zero wing incidence? Skeet GWS (Grand Wing Servo) 6 Oct 16, 2005 06:50 AM
Sheeting the Simple 400´s wing Erik Johansson High Performance 3 May 07, 2001 09:54 AM