PDA

View Full Version : great planes tiger moth conversion


baddad
06-07-2006, 10:53 PM
Flew my Great Planes Tiger Moth gas to electric conversion today. It flew like a dream, ten minutes of mixed throttle landing on quarter throttle. Good roles and loops. If you like bipes Iíd recommend this plane to anyone. Iím so pleased with it I just had to tell everyone.

Ron
06-08-2006, 08:33 PM
Glad to hear it's a success...! I have not heard one bad report on this particular model, and am actually considering it myself. What are you using for power? motor, prop batteries etc??
I have in the past years done mostly scratch building, but some of the newer ARF models just look so good, and with the technology today weight isn't really an issue any more.

baddad
06-08-2006, 09:40 PM
Hi Ron
I used flight power 5s 1p 3700 batteries, with a separate flight battery .60 amp esc axi 41, 30, 16, an 18x10 prop and a lot of lead. The model came in at 6 lbs, I had to add 4 lbs of lead to get the c of g right. I cut a hole in the bottom of the fire wall and the bottom of the cowling for the battery, mounted the motor on four 4mm rods with locking nuts to get the right clearance for the prop. The only draw back is ,it takes about twenty minutes to put the wings on at the flying field so I leave mine built and take it on a trailer .You could use 6 s batteries as weight isnít a problem ,but Iím getting 8 to 10 minuets per battery.

Rugar
06-08-2006, 09:52 PM
I had to add 4 lbs of lead to get the c of g right.

:eek:
I think you meant to say 4oz? :confused:

baddad
06-09-2006, 12:34 PM
:eek:
I think you meant to say 4oz? :confused:
I meant 4 lbs, the model weighted 6 pounds finished, so to get the right c of g I added 4 lbs including the batteries. the batteries weighted apox half a pound so I guess it was 3.5 lbs of lead. The flying weight is about 10.5 pounds.

Twmaster
06-11-2006, 03:03 AM
I meant 4 lbs, the model weighted 6 pounds finished, so to get the right c of g I added 4 lbs including the batteries. the batteries weighted apox half a pound so I guess it was 3.5 lbs of lead. The flying weight is about 10.5 pounds.

Um. Wow. :eek:

Dereck
06-17-2006, 03:39 PM
I hate to be tedious, but any "design" that needs nearly 40% of its AUW as nose ballast is basically - and I can't think of any other way to put this - utter crap.

The structure must be collosally tail-heavy just to start with. Assuming the overall shape is close to a Tiger Moth - which suffers in Asian-produced "scale" versions by dint of being one of the world's most well-known and recognisable aircraft - there's little reason for it to be structurally designed so badly, as the Tiger Moth need not come out so badly tail-heavy. I know of two very different sizes of Tiger Moth plan, by the same designer and both very scale-like in appearance, that need little, if any, nose weight - if built as intended.

If the "designer" of the GP Tiger Moth couldn't even get the CG right, what else is deficient in this design?

We seem to have come to expect very low standards very quickly.

Regards

Dereck

Ron
06-18-2006, 05:38 PM
D......There are not too many modelers that get really into the nitty gritty of model design...yes some of the ARF models are garbage/rubbish.....BUT for the most part, If a model looks like what it's supposed to be, and can be made to fly reasonably well ( in the owner's opinion) without too much problem, then it's a decent model....( for him ) ...there will always be those of us who are inherently fussy about the models we build/fly.
model flying capability and scale looks are a very subjective topic, and what is no good for you may be just perfect for the fellow who bought it.
Personally, I like you, enjoy a good scratch build, but lately. time has been an issue, so I bought an ARF ( gawd don't tell anybody) pattern model...
Once setup, it flies great, and is competitive in any class I am capable of flying......in fact, I liked it so much, that I just obtained it's big brother to convert to electric. Arf models aren't all bad...they make it possible for those who may not have the time/inclination/skill sets to scratch build to fly and enjoy the hobby. Lately, I have even been seen flying fuel powered models.....( other peoples not mine) They fly fine, but are not my personal preference....
We had a Scale meet at our field Yesterday, and we allowed ARF models for the first time....We had more than twice as many entrants as last year. We introduced a bunch of modelers to scale competition, and all enjoyed the day...some even went away thinking to " build a kit" for the first time. one of the disciplines that I am familiar with uses mostly ARF models in it, and they are the preferred type of model. I think that the
ARF type is here to stay, and as times go by the purchasers will become more discerning in their choices....we've all made choices that others wouldn't have made, but we learned from it........As far as expectations goes...no one is more fussy than an experienced pattern competitor about his models and how they are put together and fly....how come an ARF is the model of choice there?? ....Just some observations that I have made since I mellowed out a few years ago, and realised that we all enjoy our hobby no matter which type/discipline of model we fly, and whether we compete or sport fly......fuel or electric....

Dereck
06-18-2006, 10:01 PM
On modellers 'getting into design' - Great Planes can hardly be classed as 'modellers' - if they don't have the assets in place to do the job properly - who does?

I will admit that sometimes I forget that the aim of BARFs is to get people to buy them. In my odd little time in aeromodelling, I've noticed that few of us ever build more than one of a particular model - there are exceptions, but they tend to be rare. So a BARFmaker doesn't really have to worry about repeat sales - someone buys a model and, love it or hate it, it will probably be the only one they buy of that type.

So, it doesn't really matter all that much if these things have basic flaws - and I suspect that being so far out of balance is a major design flaw, though perhaps I have somewhat exacting standards here :rolleyes:

Mostly, I see it as a hobby that once attracted the determined, those who wanted to acquire skills, to actually achieve something -now those attitudes have been largely re-populated by a class beloved of the marketing and advertising divisions - those who can be sold to.

Right now, I'm working on what is likely to be my only new model of the year - and it's not only a kit, but it's for a mag review so I can't toss the structure out the window and do it 'my way'. So, looks like I'm just another of the hobby's odd dinosaurs and maybe it's time to sell the RC stuff and move into indoor flying. There's little money there, so the Asian BARFmills are unlikely to ever move to selling ready-made Peanuts, Bostonians and suchlike to "consumers".

I don't really give a hoot what folk spend on, but last I looked, Political Correctness and the lack of internet censorship allows my viewpoint as much as the 'accepted' line

regards

Dereck


D......There are not too many modelers that get really into the nitty gritty of model design...yes some of the ARF models are garbage/rubbish.....BUT for the most part, If a model looks like what it's supposed to be, and can be made to fly reasonably well ( in the owner's opinion) without too much problem, then it's a decent model....( for him ) ...there will always be those of us who are inherently fussy about the models we build/fly.
model flying capability and scale looks are a very subjective topic, and what is no good for you may be just perfect for the fellow who bought it.
Personally, I like you, enjoy a good scratch build, but lately. time has been an issue, so I bought an ARF ( gawd don't tell anybody) pattern model...
Once setup, it flies great, and is competitive in any class I am capable of flying......in fact, I liked it so much, that I just obtained it's big brother to convert to electric. Arf models aren't all bad...they make it possible for those who may not have the time/inclination/skill sets to scratch build to fly and enjoy the hobby. Lately, I have even been seen flying fuel powered models.....( other peoples not mine) They fly fine, but are not my personal preference....
We had a Scale meet at our field Yesterday, and we allowed ARF models for the first time....We had more than twice as many entrants as last year. We introduced a bunch of modelers to scale competition, and all enjoyed the day...some even went away thinking to " build a kit" for the first time. one of the disciplines that I am familiar with uses mostly ARF models in it, and they are the preferred type of model. I think that the
ARF type is here to stay, and as times go by the purchasers will become more discerning in their choices....we've all made choices that others wouldn't have made, but we learned from it........As far as expectations goes...no one is more fussy than an experienced pattern competitor about his models and how they are put together and fly....how come an ARF is the model of choice there?? ....Just some observations that I have made since I mellowed out a few years ago, and realised that we all enjoy our hobby no matter which type/discipline of model we fly, and whether we compete or sport fly......fuel or electric....

Ron
06-19-2006, 03:40 PM
there's lota of ARF indoor models....mostly the 3D type...I never could figure out where that term came from, as all flying is a 3 dimensional sort of thing.

Dereck
06-19-2006, 09:06 PM
there's lota of ARF indoor models....mostly the 3D type...I never could figure out where that term came from, as all flying is a 3 dimensional sort of thing.

Marketing - who else? I've seen few '3D' models that were any better than "plug-ugly", and the aesthetics of a flat foamies - well, what can be said? Without marketing, who'd buy them?

Best I can figure, the only way to operate a model aircraft in anything other than 3D is to taxy it around on a runway and never take off!

I suppose you could have '4D' - actually, we already have (the Royal "We" that is :rolleyes: )

Would that be where you make a control input Tuesday and the model does the maneuvre last Sunday ...

D

redgiki
06-19-2006, 11:02 PM
Actually, the history of the term "3D" seems to be a bit more interesting. Imagine that the wings of an airplane form an imaginary plane, extending to infinity. In ordinary flight, you will always be moving along that imaginary 2D plane. The plane may rotate or do loops, but the direction the airplane follows is dictated by that imaginary 2D plane extending from the wings.

3D flight refers specifically to airplanes which routinely fly in a direction not dictated by the plane of the wings. Harriers are a classic example of this: the direction of flight is often at 30-45 degrees to the plane of the wings. Ditto for hovering.

Helicopter pilots used the term to refer to their extreme piloting for quite some time before the "prophanging" crowd adopted the term as its own.

So yes, "marketing" eventually got involved, but prophangers adopted the term long before the marketdroids got ahold of it.

Dereck
06-19-2006, 11:20 PM
I hear the satisfied moo-ing of a constipated male bovine that's just experienced massive and sudden relief... :rolleyes:

D