Originally Posted by Bravo47

Some people in this thread are using wing skids which may protect better than tape for a pavement landing.

Link- https://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...idProduct=8703

Tape will probably wear off after the first asphalt landing. I wore out half of the skids I added with one runway landing. Big skids are probably best

If you use long servo extension cables in place of the Y lead supplied you can do this and turn the box it came in into a transport box. Just trim a bit off the foam insert at the tail end and the assembled fuselage will go back in the tray it was delivered in. Cut slots in the outer box and add a cardboard protection ring for the tail , a velcro closure and you have a sturdy travel box with handle already fitted!

Unscrew the wings, pull the aileron wires through a bit and drop the fuselage and wings back in the spaces in the box where they came from. Done in seconds and nothing disconnected.

John

Originally Posted by SkyBug

An easy way to handle the Zephyr for transport or storage:
I unscrew the wing bolts, pull out the aileron cables an inch or two. Then I can have the fuselage along the wing, making it easy to load the Zephyr into the car (or put on a shelf in the hangar until next flying day).

Cheers,
Anders
HUDDINGE Sweden

Originally Posted by B34N

Tail servo idea is awesome. It's going to help me heaps with my front end weight issue too.
I'm doing it now. just need a way to connect two control rods to one servo horn :s

B34N

edit: Any chance you can post a pic or two of your tail setup?

Look up post 515...

Originally Posted by Aender69

Look up post 515...

Thanks I am jsut finishing my mod now, I'll post pics when I've finished

B34N

edit: Pics uploaded

Originally Posted by B34N

Thanks I am jsut finishing my mod now, I'll post pics when I've finished

B34N

edit: Pics uploaded

That's all well and good, however the weight and mass of the coupler may not be very beneficial...

Originally Posted by bamaguy

That's all well and good, however the weight and mass of the coupler may not be very beneficial...

Yeah, I thought about that, although it seems pretty light. I might grind it down a bit though Originally I wanted to solder the two bits that go to the elevators to the single that hits the servo, but the wire didn't want to play ball with soldering
I can also go the carbon fiber joining method still...
I'll just have to stare at it occasionally over the next few hours before I figure out exactly how I want to do it
B34N

I don't see what the reason is for eliminating rudder function. Saving a few grams is nothing for this plane (if in fact you are saving anything at all). This thing just fits the average 3300 mah battery snugly and balances out perfectly. Removing any weight from the rear and you'll need to add weight to the front to keep the balance. Seems like false economy to me.
If your radio can't do "V-tail", consider getting a better radio. This is probably not the only time you'll encounter it. And then there's landing in a cross wind. You can do it with no rudder, but it's much better with it. "Bank and yank" is OK and has been around for a long time but slow, shallow turns look pretty sloppy. It's like there's an anchor tied to the tail.

Originally Posted by xviper

I don't see what the reason is for eliminating rudder function. Saving a few grams is nothing for this plane (if in fact you are saving anything at all). This thing just fits the average 3300 mah battery snugly and balances out perfectly. Removing any weight from the rear and you'll need to add weight to the front to keep the balance. Seems like false economy to me.
If your radio can't do "V-tail", consider getting a better radio. This is probably not the only time you'll encounter it. And then there's landing in a cross wind. You can do it with no rudder, but it's much better with it. "Bank and yank" is OK and has been around for a long time but slow, shallow turns look pretty sloppy. It's like there's an anchor tied to the tail.

Removing weight from the rear means you can also remove weight from the front, not add it.
Also, using leverage principles, the weight of the servo about 50-55cm from the CG translate into over 2x that weight removed from the front.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I've been looking at it.

B34N

Hmmmmm. I think I would have to gnaw off my left thumb in order to fly a plane without positive yaw control.

Originally Posted by B34N

Removing weight from the rear means you can also remove weight from the front, not add it.
Also, using leverage principles, the weight of the servo about 50-55cm from the CG translate into over 2x that weight removed from the front.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I've been looking at it.

B34N

You're right. Don't know what I was thinking. I think what I was trying to say was that with the stock configuration and the recommended battery size, you remove weight from the rear and you "could" put in a lighter, smaller battery. Flight times have always been important to EDF planes. If you could lighten up the battery significantly, you would also reduce fight times. If the weight of a single servo didn't make any significant difference to reduction in battery weight, then why bother? To save weight in favor of ditching rudder control seems odd. Going to "bank and yank" is a backwards progression.

Rudder turns with this plane are horrid, not sure why your keen to keep the rudder other then snaps or cleaning up verticals.
I looked extensively in to how to positively mix elevator into rudder as the plane drops it's nose aggressively when rudder is used to obtain some clean rudder turns, with the way the tail works it was an uphill battle.

Originally Posted by Wretcho

Rudder turns with this plane are horrid, not sure why your keen to keep the rudder other then snaps or cleaning up verticals.
I looked extensively in to how to positively mix elevator into rudder as the plane drops it's nose aggressively when rudder is used to obtain some clean rudder turns, with the way the tail works it was an uphill battle.

It ain't just for turns.....

Originally Posted by xviper

And then there's landing in a cross wind. You can do it with no rudder, but it's much better with it. "Bank and yank" is OK and has been around for a long time but slow, shallow turns look pretty sloppy. It's like there's an anchor tied to the tail.

I've used rudder on shallow turns and it smooths it out. Perhaps you're just using too much or you need more expo on the rudder. Why go to the trouble of taking something out that serves a purpose just because you don't use it? But hey, it's your time. It's your plane. Do what you want.

Originally Posted by xviper

It ain't just for turns.....

Did you even read what you quoted? lol

Originally Posted by Wretcho

Did you even read what you quoted? lol

Yes, I did. Did you read what I quoted? I was stressing the cross wind landing and re-emphasizing the use in turns. "It ain't just for turns", BUT, it still can be used for turns and it's not so bad if the operator isn't so ham fisted at it.
In the final analysis, I could give a ratsass if anyone uses rudder or not on this plane.

Originally Posted by xviper

Yes, I did. Did you read what I quoted? I was stressing the cross wind landing and re-emphasizing the use in turns. "It ain't just for turns", BUT, it still can be used for turns and it's not so bad if the operator isn't so ham fisted at it.
In the final analysis, I could give a ratsass if anyone uses rudder or not on this plane.

+1
-Gary