Second plane

interesting.

I'll second most of that. Properly set up tail draggers of the Stick variety are a great intoduction to no nose wheel. Sticks are just the best all-around planes ever.

I built the Great Planes Decathlon and it was a good flier but dificult on the ground. Like he said, rather short coupled and fairly tall for the wheel track.

I'll actually agree with Paul on this one. The Das Sweet Stik, Das Little Stik, Big Stik, and all the other clones are GREAT planes. Possibly the best all-around sport plane ever designed. If you can't fly one of these, you shouldn't be flying R/C.

Dr1

Art:

I just recently graduated to my second plane. Went from a SIG LT40 to a Goldberg Tiger 2. All I can say is... WOW. World of difference. Using an OS Max .46 and a 11x7 (? not sure) prop. She's fast, furious, and fun to fly. Much more sensitive to imputs, gotta be really_really careful with the sticks. Also, when I outgrow the trike landing gear, it looks relatively simple to hang a tail wheel on it.

TomC

interesting.

| From the posts, I have been researching the Hanger 9 Ultra Stik with the | flap option and a 7 or more ch. tx. That looks like it would be a good first | tail dragger, but with the options available with a computer tx. the flaps, | it could be a lot of fun as I learn programming and configuring the | different ways to fly it.

The Ultra Stick is a great plane -- I've got the 0.40 sized one and have been flying it for years now.

If I were to buy it again, I might go for the 0.60 sized model. I believe that there were two models of the 0.60 Ultra Stick -- if they still sell both, I'd go for the new, lighter version.

I don't know about the 60 sized US but I've just finished assembling the

40 version and I was quite pleased to find it comes in at a shade over 2kg (4.5 lbs). I'd seen reports that it was quite heavy but that seems pretty good to me considering I put a bigger engine in (Irvine 53 and purple pipe) and also built up the 4-servo wing version. It seemed that other faults people had mentioned on the forums have been rectified as well so maybe H9 are updating things as they go ?

The only bad aspect to this kit IMO is that tailwheel assembly is cr*p. If I hadn't got most of the way through assembling it before I noticed just how bad it was I'd have bought a Sullivan sprung item as a replacement. It looks to me as if the rudder will take a bashing with the current standard set up but I'm stuck with it now so I'll see how it goes.

Haven't flown it yet but the CG looks good and it built straight and true with sensible incidences so hopefully if the weather's a bit less windy tomorrow...

| It seemed that other faults people had mentioned on the forums have | been rectified as well so maybe H9 are updating things as they go ?

I've had mine (US40) for about three years, and it gets more flying time than any of my other glow planes. The landing gear ripped out (and it wasn't even a particularly bad landing) -- this was one of the known weak spots on the plane -- but other than that I've not had any problems with it. Well, beyond the time I split the wing in two hitting the pole in a fun-fly limbo, but I can't blame that on H9 :)

| The only bad aspect to this kit IMO is that tailwheel assembly is | cr*p. If I hadn't got most of the way through assembling it before | I noticed just how bad it was I'd have bought a Sullivan sprung item | as a replacement. It looks to me as if the rudder will take a | bashing with the current standard set up but I'm stuck with it now | so I'll see how it goes.

Mine's lasted three years with the stock tailwheel setup ...

Did your model have 2 hardwood tri-stock braces for the main UC plate ? I read about this being a weak point but mine had these and it looks plenty strong to me. I routinely paint the entire forward fuse with thinned epoxy resin to fill any gaps in the glue joints etc so I'm hoping this won't be an issue

:-)

That's good to know.

Also, I forgot to ask : where did you end up having the CG on your US

40 ? Mine's back at the rear of the range in the manual at 4" and I just wondered if it's worth moving it or whether it's OK there ?

I thought the Astro-Hog was the best plane ever designed. If you could only have one plane, what choice would it be?

Alan Harriman

That's a tough one, Alan...

No doubt the Stiks of of one brand or another are the most popular RC Plane in history, but for my bux today you'll hafta go a long way to beat the Venture 60, by Bruce Tharpe (BTE)... Top quality wood, with accurate machine cutting that's way cleaner than lasercutting's burned edges..

Plus, the flight characteristics are outstanding... Roll coupling is almost non-existent, slows to a walk for landing...

The only hard part is finding a kit........

Bill

I've got one on the board right now, I second everything said about the wood quality and the cutting. BTE is definitely a class act! BTW, I understand Bruce is taking orders for Ventures now, for delivery in the next ;month or two.

Dan

If you

Millennium Falcon. Oh, you mean RC mk

| Also, I forgot to ask : where did you end up having the CG on your US | 40 ? Mine's back at the rear of the range in the manual at 4" and I | just wondered if it's worth moving it or whether it's OK there ?

I think I put it at about 30% back from the front of the wing.

Since the wing is rectangular, the standard 25%-30% back from the front of the wing is the usual place to put it.

I had to add some weight to the tail -- an ounce or so -- to make it work that way with a Tower Hobbies 46 engine.

For your first flights, nose heavy is a good thing. You can move the CoG back more to make the plane more responsive later, and do so gradually or you may find yourself with a plane that you can't even control.

As for the undercarriage, I don't remember how it was originally. After the landing gear ripped out, I added some braces and quite a bit of epoxy (well, not that much) and it seems quite sturdy now.

Well 30% of 13inches is 3.9 inches so I'll try it where I've got it now. Anyway the weather tomorrow and Wednesday look like being a bit less windy so hopefully it's maiden time at last. I'll let you know how it goes...

Well, the weather was good enough to get me up to the field both yesterday and today. It wasn't good enough to actually fly yesterday though so I turned round and went home.

The maiden today went OK - when I managed to get the engine started after a half an hour of plug-changing, spinning the prop, fiddling with the needle and priming. You'll see why later...

...Finally the engine burst into life with needle wider open than normal because of the tuned pipe. I let it warm up for a few minutes then opened the throttle and immediately had to richen the needle even more. A final full blast proved the settings to be correct and it was off to the strip.

Control check, rates to low, mixes off, and off she goes. Few clicks of up and right trim and then some circuits, loops and stall-turns. Turns around at the top of those very smartly. Tested the flaps and also the crow mix and found both have a pronounced nose-down pitch - too much down elevator mixed in. Vertical performance with an Irvine 53 on a tuned pipe is totally unlimited. You have to stop to avoid damaging the clouds but that's all. Mindful of all the fart-arseing about on the start-line I opted for an early landing. She gently floats in on the throttle in the slight breeze then taxi back. Great ! What a fine flying plane !

I reduced the elevator mix for crow and flaps and had another flight : more loops, stall turns and some quickish rolls. I tried the aileron-flap coupling mix but it seemed to give a very barelley roll, or was that just me pulling elevator on the sticks ? Oh did the engine seem to slow down at the top of that loop ? Yep, look the props stopped - run out of fuel ! A long way downwind but deadsticked to another good landing in the rough - got down very light and no damage at all. Whew !

Anyway, I was going to have another flight but there was no-one else at the field, it was pretty cold and I decided not to bother. I was also mindful of the fact I hadn't swapped the tank for the Sullivan 12 oz'er that arrived in the post yesterday and putting the deadstick down to that and the increased demand associated with a tuned pipe I decided to leave it till after the new tank's been fitted.

First thing I did when I got her indoors therefore is pull the tank and the foam packing, squish, squish, squish, which is sopping wet ! Hmm, split tank ? I think, but no : I have very foolishly fitted a

3-pipe tank and only connected 2 of them ! So that's where all that fuel went, and also why the needle had to be so far open. Doh ! Was I lucky to get away with that, or what ?

The upshot is : what a great model airplane ! (And what a dozy modeller :-) I think that initially rated down a bit it would make an excellent second plane but, for that purpose it would be better to have the cg near the front of the recommended range rather than at the back where I've got mine. It seemed fairly sensitive to elevator to me, but not unduly so.

Finally : I misreported the weights in an earlier post, the ready-to-fly weight is 2516 grammes ~ 5 1/2 lb not 4 1/2 as I said before. I've no idea what I did wrong before but but the wing and fuselage weights I noted were both wrong, sorry about that.

So to the OP : get a US 40 :-) But change the tailwheel before you start the build, despite Doug's reassurances in this department it's still not a very elegant setup and a Sullivan sprung unit would be well worth the extra IMHO.

Regards,

The Hog is a great design, but a little too tame for my taste. Only one plane, huh? Jeez, that's tough. I'd say my own sport design, the Piranha II. 48", 3.25#, .32 powered. It's a wild ride. Other than that, a Miss Martha next, then an original Sweet Stik with updated construction.

Dr1

My one and only would still be the Ballistick.