|
||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
definately looks like a cool plane...hopefully it flys as good as it looks ...glad you got them to stay in the production process..nice job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dudes and Dudettes
Kits are ready to ship now. Price is $85 + $10 shipping and handling. It may be a week or so before they "officially" appear on the website. My web guy is incredibly busy right now with his real job and it isn't happening quick. I've got the addendum to the instruction manuel from Darwin. The only thing missing is the correct shipping boxs but if yer not picky I can certainly fake something there. The "official ones should be here any day. Thursday we got 8 inches of snow here and monday 10 more but in between I once again thermalled the PEC. That amazes with the wing loading. Go figger:-) Denny www.polecataero.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Dar & Den,
Glad to see you guys are back in the saddle. I suggest you articulate some of the differences between the PEC & your prime competitor the EZstar. I put in some good words for you in an EZ* thread. As someone who graduated from the Epoxy/Teddy circle jerk, I consider the PEC the grandaddy and "Cadillac" of it's class. My PEC is still my #1 stress reducer. Best wishes! |
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
The primary difference between the two is that the EZstar is a molded Elapor foam ARF while the Push-E Cat (any flavor) is a true EPP model. Elapor is a combination of polystyrene and polyethalene foams that is far more damage resistant and glue tolerant than normal styrofoams. It is, however, not as resilent as a classically constructed EPP and strapping tape model. The EZstar shares the same basic layout as the PEC, but it's wing is flatter. Bernard Cawley's review of the model mentions that it has decent longitudinal stability but that its lateral stability is not as good. The PEC V4 has a much larger effective dihedral angle, so I would expect the PEC to have better flight characteristics overall. Observing the motor mount, I would suspect that the PEC is much more flexible when it comes to accepting "non-standard" power systems. So, let's see: The EZstar is easier to build than the PEC V4. No argument there. The PEC V4 is more durable and (I suspect) flies better. You can use a wider variety of power systems on the PEC more easily than on the EZstar. In the end, the best thing to do would be to have a kind of "Fly off" between the two. For the last event of such a fly-off, I suggest slamming both planes into 75 foot oak trees at full throttle, nose down, and then leaving them there overnight. In the morning, go pick up the PEC from where it got blown down over night, put a fresh pack in, check the rubber bands, and fly. When you're done flying, get a garbage bag, sweep up the bits of the EZstar, and go back to the shop to glue it back together. Regards, Darwin |
|
|
|
|
Darwin, thanks for explaining how your PEC V4 compares and contrasts with the EasyStar. I think a "fly off" sounds like a great idea.
Have you any experience with the Push Panther from Steelhead Products? Here's the site. I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. http://members.aol.com/alcyonepilot/Ppanther.htm P.S. For those of you that are wondering...No, I don't have any relationship (financial or otherwise) with Steelhead. I just heard about the Push Panther from Treetop on the EasyStar thread and thought it might be good to hear what the originator of the PEC thinks about a new pusher. Thanks in advance for your thoughts... |
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
Reading their background data, their concept looks like a kit. It seems that they use extruded polystyrene board, which already puts them ahead of the molded foamie crowd in my opinion. Planes built from extruded polystyrene sit squarely between cut EPP planes and moldies for durability. There are definite advantages in used extruded PS board. Primarily, it's stronger and stiffer per unit volume than EPP or polystyrene or Elapor. Because of that, you don't need as much secondary structure (spars and tape) to stiffen things up in torsion. On the down side, it's still "crunchy". I.E. every less than perfect landing, every curious finger poke will leave its mark. Also, you tend to see more compression cracking after a while, and gluing them back makes for additional weight and less durability as you march forward. Additionally, EPS is not "glue-tolerant" and it is also less heat resistant than EPP. I think in the fly off, you'd find that the molded foamies would be at the bottom of the durability event, followed by the EPS ships like this proposed product from Steelhead, while the EPP ships would toddle along quite happily. The flying side is harder to call. Moldies can fly well, but because of tooling costs, marginal ones often go into full production even if they don't. The EPS ships, if they take advantage of their strength advantages, can fly very well, almost as well as a good balsa or composite ship at times. EPP planes fight weight. Good designs fly well and half-baked ones don't. It's as simple as that. The width of the design tightrope just isn't as wide as for other materials. Oh, a quick word on layouts, etc. The pusher planform is far from patented by anyone. I'm not surprised to see someone moving forward with an EPS version of the PEC. Frankly, I'm surprised it took them so long considering how simple the basic layout is. In any case, knockoffs sprout up in the path of success. That's normal in business competition. The good news is that is provides lots of choices for the modeler. That's the way capitalism works. I suspect that the inherent value of the PEC will win out over time, though. Regards, Darwin |
|
|
|
|
Well, I got my kit today and I am very impressed. Looks like a very complete, quality kit with a very detailed and complete set of instructions.
It is made out of the tough EPP stuff that glues together great and repairs easy and fast if needed. I have a smaller plane made out of this stuff and it is a tough plane. Looks like a fun kit to fly and a good trainer for my grandkid ( No, I am not Old ) Lakedude, the website is on this thread, but they are not on the website yet. Send Denny an email. |
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I know this is going to sound like a stupid question, but here goes: can you easily explain the difference between EPS, EPP, Elapor, and normal styrofoam? Or, could you point me in the direction of a resource that would do that?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
Quote:
EPS is actually a bad acronym since two different types of styro can be described by it. So, I guess I'll start there. Expanded polystyrene is the classic "peanut foam" that has been in use forever. In different densities, it can be found in products like the Teddy and the Wingo. This is basically the same stuff that you see in foam coffee cups. Expanded PS is made by shoveling a scoop of "beads" into a mold and then hitting the mold with steam. The plastic expands and conforms to the mold. After it cools, the parts are ejected and the process repeats. Expanded PS works well with epoxy and aliphatic resins for gluing. Beware any glue that contains acetone (CyA) or Toulene (Goop). These will eat any polystyrene foam. Historically, wing cores cut of white bead foam and sheeted with balsa were the foundation of foam tech and go back to the 60s at the very least. The downside of using Expanded PS as a structural material is that it is fairly fragile and retains all dings. Extruded polystyrene is best identified as the solid "board" type foam you can find in home improvement centers. It is made using a continuous extrusion process and has no beads. It does, however, have a grain that flows with the direction of the extrusion if you look carefully. Extruded PS is often used for glider wing cores and in "cut" foamies. It is tougher and stronger than Expanded PS, but building planes from this material requires more effort (Kit building). The same gluing concerns exist for Extruded PS as for Expanded PS. EPP stands for expanded polypropylene. It is made essentially the same way as Expanded polystyrene, except that the material is more resilent ("springy"). It has excellent compression recovery, but is quite weak in tension (due to the bead structure). That is why EPP foamies are taped or covered whenever possible. EPP also has an unfortunate tendency to expand unpredictably when decanted from a mold. Because it's so difficult to account for this expansion, you generally won't find a molded EPP model. (Due to the expense of setting up the tooling.) Elapor is a "blended" foam that combines polystyrene beads with polyethelene beads. Originally developed for automobile bumpers, this foam has found its way into the model market as a compromise between the fragility of the traditional Expanded-PS material and the unmoldability of the less controllable EPP material. Elapor is more glue tolerant than Expanded PS, but it will still melt if you leave an uncured puddle of CyA sitting on it. That's why you have to use accelerator when assembling Elapor kits. However, it shares the same lack of tensile strength common with both Expanded PS and EPP because of its bead structure. Elapor models are usually easily identified by the a slightly "swollen" appearance, since they also expand when decanted from the mold, just not to the degree that EPP will. Hope that helps. Regards, Darwin |
|
|
||
|
Quote:
Suggestion: resize the image files on your computer to around 640x480 JPEG before uploading |
|
|
||
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | |||||
Category | Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Push-E Cat V4 | Darwin | Foamies (Kits) | 22 | Jul 11, 2012 04:03 PM | |
Wanted | Push E Cat V4 | Flying Low | Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) | 2 | Jun 13, 2007 06:53 AM |
Push-E-Cat, Oracover or Tape? | Lotanose | Electric Plane Talk | 3 | Jul 01, 2001 12:55 AM | |
Push-E Cat's first flight, and mine. :-) | Steve-S | Electric Plane Talk | 7 | Jun 06, 2001 01:54 PM | |
Push-E Cat, Garrison Aerodrome | wla4 | Electric Plane Talk | 20 | May 01, 2001 11:02 PM |