Well the second quickie hit the ground today as well unfortunatly. If anyone is interested I posted the details of the planes demise in the build thread here:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...0&postcount=17

I strongly recommend people only fly the richmodels quickie in a scale manner.

Lost, I flew mine the other day and I strongly agree,mine has very little elevator authority set-up on the ParkZone 5ch radio,ripped a wheel pant off on landing,she's a fast bird but looks great airborne,i do want the .40 now. I have rolled mine quite a few times but no loops

looking at my gws a-10 and having many ideas lately,this came to mind.Will be flying in a few weeks with two Hyperflow 56mm edf's and gws inrunners.

Hi Ace. The A10 looks better as a canard than ever before. The canards look like they are less than 20% of the main wing. Are they full flying/all-moving surfaces?

Hello John, Good to hear that your canard design is right. I hope you will continue to be good at sharing your work with us. You seem to have a slow but sure method and I admire that. BTW it is 3 AM monday here. What is it there? Charles

Hi Charles. When you posted it was 5PM on Monday. It seems we are 14 hours ahead of you. I am getting more enthusiam now and I'd like to maintain the pace, but unfortunately I will be busy with other things until mid November.

I am finally through with this bird.

Today I managed to start the Voyager into slight crosswind (without any rudders, as it doesn't have it). After half a circle coming back parallel to the runway suddenly the nose came up in a violent manoeuvre nearly 90 degrees without any input from me. One or two seconds later the motor stopped without any command to do so. No more response from the airplane.
Like a leaf it fell down

I think, there was an interference, which caused elevator full up. This violent manoeuvre might have turned loose the plywood where the battery is fastened. And this disconnected one battery wire.
I found the battery in the plane, but one wire disconnected. The battery was still fastened to the plywood!! The plywood looked like it had no glue on it, where it was connected to the fuselage. There were only 6 small points, where it should have beed glued to the frame.
The whole electronic including the motor worked fine when I reconnected the battery!!

This fits to the other things, I don't like on this plane. The whole structure has several weak points.
- The landing gear is connected to the fuselage through 1 mm Balsa only. No connection to the main frame parts with plywood. That had already ripped off my landing gear, when the plane left the runway on an earlier flight. I repaired that with some glas and epoxy.
- The nose gear is fixed. I rebuildt it as steerable nosegear.
- The Center of Gravity was wrong from the manufacturer (see this thread and others), so it couldn't fly with that CoG.
- The fuselage is too weak with that big opening for the wings.
- There was NO fastener for the wings to hold them at the fuselage. I buildt some hooks into the wings and used the good old rubber band. Additionally I buildt 2 strong magnets into the wings and small metalplates into the fuselage. That worked for me.
- There was NO cooling for the motor. The poor thing was stuck deep in the fuselage with no opening for air to cool. I buildt in several openings with aluminumtube for forced motorcooling by airstream. That worked well.
- It has no rudders. Start with crosswind is a problem.
- The 480 motor, which comes with the plane, is totally underpowered. I used a Speed 500 BB Race, which worked fine without excess Amps. A brushless would do a good job too.

It looks like thedesigner looked too much on weight saving and less on practical design.

I cannot recommend this plane, unless you do a lot of additional work to make it usable. And with all the time for this work you better buildt your own plane, without all the deficits.

I do not rebuildt this plane. The fuselage (the rest of it) is already scrapped. The wings are still ok. So maybe, if I have a lot of time, I will buildt my own fuselage somewhere in the future.

Uli

Sorry to hear of the crash Geronimo, and you are right about the sorry design and construction of the ARF's that we buy. A few weeks ago one of our club members brought an ARF military model to our field which was made by the best known company. I commented that I could never make a model to equal the unbelievable appearance of it especially at the low price he paid. The maiden flight was good until the landing which ended with a tip stall into the ground from about five feet. The front end of the fuselage snapped off right behind the heavy engine. Bulkheads were hanging loose just as in your crash with just touches of glue at corners. The rest of the plane was not damaged and it was obvious that the fuselage behind the engine was designed and constructed far too weak. It was repaired and retired to the shelf for another day until the pilot could develope his skills with an LT-40. We could write many stories like these two about ARF's and that is why I prefer to design my own or build a good kit. The areas that need special attention are the landing gears and the firewall and motor mounts of wet type power systems. With electric motors and no vibration, firewalls are no trouble and with canards, the landing gears are saved by the easy grease job landings. Mustang ACE, your A10 is good looking and I look forward to flying with you and other canard lovers at Hodges E Fly this weekend. I will bring the D Squared and Georgia Goose. Hope we have good weather. Charles

canard addict,,
I was just reading your post on building the ez 36" and I seem to remember how you wrote on how GOOD THE KIT WAS?
Now,, I don't know what to think?
And I was just to place a order for it.

Dan, Thanks for your trust in me. I try to speak how I feel and to tell the truth. My LEZ 380 was beautifully built and a few ounces heavier than most. Being a light weight electric type, the air frame was adequate for good pilots and a smooth field. My reflexes and eyesight were not adequate and our field was too rough. Inspector Gadget probably had the best power system and his model was lighter than mine. He has my model and has done well with both. The model has to fly fast to be stable because of it's small size and high wing loading by my way of thinking. If it touches down on a rough field, slows down and loses stability, it can roll or tumble with just a small change in nose wheel direction. I prefer the 55 inch electric Voyager with light wing loading even with all the problems that Geronimo explained. Mine was built by a sloppy person and I added CA glue and touched up the covering. I believe that Mustang ACE has the 380 with a smooth field and a quick mind to handle it. Another canard lover from Alabama lost his 380 to a rough field. Gary Wright flew mine at Tullahoma several times and greased it in to a paved runway. He seemed to really love flying it. My Voyager is a joy to me and the viewers and I hope to have it for many years. It is great for how it looks in the air and does loops and inverted flight but the rolls are sluggish with my set up. I see nothing wrong with the 380 and hope this discussion has answered your questions.Please let us know what you decide. Charles

canard addict.
I have read many of your post , and after awhile I come to hold your opinion as something I can count on. ( and still do! )
Thanks.
DanT
PS: I fly helicopters also, so I know about glitch , and not having room to move gear around.
Many people love Burg RX and they do work very good. I own two of them and they do work great!

Thank you very much DanT. To me, integrity ranks high on the list and if just one person detects it, all has been worth while. The ARF that was severed behind the engine must have weighed 10 pounds and was powered by an engine which would have eventually taken out the firewall in my opinion. The light weight models available today with wing loadings below 10 oz. per sq. ft. are hard to tear up with normal flying and reliable control systems. The high tech light weight ARF's like the Funtana series fit into this catagory. Charles

Hi Charles, yes I do have the 36" ws LEZ and the skill to fly it but not always a nice smooth field and the nosewheel is squirrely on grass,i love flying it though,took it out a few days ago and had a great flight but knocked the canard loose on a rough landing,easy fix. Took the Voyager out at night about a hour ago,was neat flying by the moonlight and stadium lights at the park but decided to land early so I didn't loose the plane in the dark.Had fun though after a long day at work.

What a beautiful presentation of the achievements of Magic 612 by Dereck Woodward in the Q&EFI magazine. My issue arrived today and I was delighted to see all the canard coverage in the "Over Here" column on page 77. Also, there are nearly three pages on the Japanese Shinden. I tried to take photos but you will need to see this super quality publication to appreciate it. Charles

Charles - thank you for posting the pictures of the magazine; my daughters have just been squealing in delight for the last few minutes!!!

And my great thanks to Dereck Woodward, for not only writing the article about the Despretz Flash, but for posting the first pictures of it here which inspired me to build it. A second thanks to you Charles, for posting the additional information about it. I couldn't have built the plane without the two of you providing what you did.

Again, my sincerest thanks and appreciation guys. This thread has been quite the inspiration for me.