Official Freewing 70mm F-35 V3 (2019 Version) Thread

[Hugh Wiedman]

Hi Guys
sorry to report that my F35 has gone to the foam basket in the sky... I simply loved the way this little jet flew and had about 170+ flights on it.
On the third flight of the day, I am not certain why but I lost radio contact with jet shortly after takeoff. Then I seemed to get it back and tried to make my downwind leg .. put the gear down and turned base leg at that point I lost it again. This time it turned and went straight into the ground about 300 feet from the runway :(

battery was good 90% left
connected to the RX okay
esc was putting 6.6v out to the RX

the only thing I am not sure of is the jet was bound to my spektrum TX with 11ms frame rate. These FW planes have digital servos so it shouldn’t matter. But recently I was told that the cheap digital servos probably can’t handle that frame rate. I would like to hear from all you regarding this question.
I flew my glider and my L39 without issues and they are both on 11ms frame rate too
Rich

RichJ53 just a thought, but from looking at what's left of the fuselage and the rx antennae sticking out it looks like you were using the AR636. Not that it matters what rx you're using, but it also looks like the antennae was run along side where you put the battery. If the main antennae and the shorter 90 degree antennae for the AR636 is too close to the battery, it could cause a brown out. I learned this the hard way on 2 Stinger 90's that I had the main antennae run along side the battery. On the first, the brown out occurred only after the 70+ flights. On the 2nd with the same orientation, it occurred on the 30+ flight. It was only after posting a picture of my set-up on my F-18 that several "concerned Squawkers" (and later a Spektrum technician that I sent a picture to) noticed my main antennae was too close to the battery and they suggested I correct that and also install a satellite. Additionally, a friend who has an F-14 Tomcat that he flew over 100 times with no problem, just last week got a brown out after landing (how lucky is that). Turned out his antennae was run underneath the battery tray and this was the only thing we could determine that would have caused that, even after so many flights without a problem. If you read the manual with most receivers (which I never do of course), it will talk about antennae placement and the distance it needs (especially the active portion) to be away from the battery.

This may not have been your problem, but I'm just saying it could have caused the problem. Hope you solve the mystery.

[RichJ53]

just pull the triger on this thing... b here about june 10 in aus excited nervous !!!! it was a toss up f16 camo or f35 .......will b studying all previous info on this thread just hope i can see the thing,,,,,, oriantation !!!! some say it gets small quick:thermometer_face:

I was reading your post and then started smiling... this jet starts out small not alone when it gets out there! ........It can really move out .... such a fun jet to fly. You made a good choice I will be buying another one soon. I just crashing mine for unknown reasons with over 170 flights

Rich

[RichJ53]

RichJ53 just a thought, but from looking at what's left of the fuselage and the rx antennae sticking out it looks like you were using the AR636. Not that it matters what rx you're using, but it also looks like the antennae was run along side where you put the battery. If the main antennae and the shorter 90 degree antennae for the AR636 is too close to the battery, it could cause a brown out. I learned this the hard way on 2 Stinger 90's that I had the main antennae run along side the battery. On the first, the brown out occurred only after the 70+ flights. On the 2nd with the same orientation, it occurred on the 30+ flight. It was only after posting a picture of my set-up on my F-18 that several "concerned Squawkers" (and later a Spektrum technician that I sent a picture to) noticed my main antennae was too close to the battery and they suggested I correct that and also install a satellite. Additionally, a friend who has an F-14 Tomcat that he flew over 100 times with no problem, just last week got a brown out after landing (how lucky is that). Turned out his antennae was run underneath the battery tray and this was the only thing we could determine that would have caused that, even after so many flights without a problem. If you read the manual with most receivers (which I never do of course), it will talk about antennae placement and the distance it needs (especially the active portion) to be away from the battery.

This may not have been your problem, but I'm just saying it could have caused the problem. Hope you solve the mystery.

Hi Hugh

Thank you for taking the time and sharing your experiences! Really great information to consider for the future :)

I was using the AR610 RX at the time of the crash and the long antenna was facing forward away from the battery. .. When this first started I was using the Admiral 600SP with gyro and it worked great until one day it shot across the runway out into the rocks without any control from me I was happy the motor stopped or I would have had the chance to troubleshoot the issue. I found a couple of photos of my first RX installation. I will most like be buying another one of these jets soon.... it was so much fun and easy to throw in the car for the day of flying.

Rich

[dradams2]

I couldn't figure out how to delete this post so I erased it. I was looking for help with computing a CG on my F-35 and got what I needed on the MotionRC Facebook page.

[Hugh Wiedman]

Hi Hugh

Thank you for taking the time and sharing your experiences! Really great information to consider for the future :)

I was using the AR610 RX at the time of the crash and the long antenna was facing forward away from the battery. .. When this first started I was using the Admiral 600SP with gyro and it worked great until one day it shot across the runway out into the rocks without any control from me I was happy the motor stopped or I would have had the chance to troubleshoot the issue. I found a couple of photos of my first RX installation. I will most like be buying another one of these jets soon.... it was so much fun and easy to throw in the car for the day of flying.

Rich

RichJ53 you definitely got your antennae significantly away from the battery so scratch that last thought of mine on the "brown out" mystery". It was worth a shot anyway. Suggestion # 2, your F 35 somehow got possessed by the corona virus :japanese_ogre: I'm sure my planes/jets discuss rebelling against me all night long while I'm out of ear shot, so I guess :poop: happens. :stuck_out_tongue_cl

[Hugh Wiedman]

dradams2 why all the brain surgery on CG? :exploding_head: I've used that exact online CG calculator on many of my planes/jets, but more as a "just checking" to see what the manufacturer used. The margin is dependent on the type of plane and on the pilot's own personal preference, to some degree. All manufacturers give you a "recommended" CG starting point, so go with that and then experiment either way to suit your flying style. Some guys like to fly nose heavy, others the opposite. A nose heavy bird will fly in heavy winds more stable and will fly inverted with minimal down elevator, while slightly tail heavy just the opposite (of course you can fly a severely nose heavy plane and a severely tail heavy plane you might as well just order a replacement immediately). I fly my 3D planes more tail heavy than recommended because certain manuevers are easier, and some of the jets get into high alpha better slightly behind the stated CG, but I always start at the "recommended" CG and go from there until I get it in the location that suits my flying preferences.

Now if you're designing an aircraft or flying something that you have no idea what the "recommended" CG is, then use the online calculator. But I would suggest you start with a higher margin first, say 20% and work you're way back because of what I said earlier on the risks of flying nose heavy vs tail heavy.

[Hugh Wiedman]

dradams2 BTW, Extreme Flight suggests a method to get the plane at the "centered" CG point that works quite well (and from there you can experiment in either direction for your style). This method is commonly referred to as the "45 degree line test". Fly the aircraft from left to right (or the opposite, whichever you are more comfortable with) at 3/4 to full throttle. Pull the aircraft to a 45 degree up line and establish this line and immediately roll the aircraft inverted. Establish this 45 degree line and let go of the elevator stick. Ideally the aircraft will continue to track on that 45 degree line for several hundred feet before slowly starting to level off.

To establish an absolute neutral CG, place the battery so that when you fly the aircraft level and inverted and it should require no down elevator to maintain altitude (after you have trimmed it to fly level upright). Happy CG hunting!

[f4u ausie]

:dizzy_face:wooweee it can get technical ....crashed nea destroyed my 6s dynam262 thismorn .. electronics lived!!! lucky got something new coming..... bout 8 sleeps to go f35 here i come

[f4u ausie]

Should of had vidieo image widget

[dradams2]

dradams2 why all the brain surgery on CG? :exploding_head: I've used that exact online CG calculator on many of my planes/jets, but more as a "just checking" to see what the manufacturer used. The margin is dependent on the type of plane and on the pilot's own personal preference, to some degree. All manufacturers give you a "recommended" CG starting point, so go with that and then experiment either way to suit your flying style. Some guys like to fly nose heavy, others the opposite. A nose heavy bird will fly in heavy winds more stable and will fly inverted with minimal down elevator, while slightly tail heavy just the opposite (of course you can fly a severely nose heavy plane and a severely tail heavy plane you might as well just order a replacement immediately). I fly my 3D planes more tail heavy than recommended because certain manuevers are easier, and some of the jets get into high alpha better slightly behind the stated CG, but I always start at the "recommended" CG and go from there until I get it in the location that suits my flying preferences.

Now if you're designing an aircraft or flying something that you have no idea what the "recommended" CG is, then use the online calculator. But I would suggest you start with a higher margin first, say 20% and work you're way back because of what I said earlier on the risks of flying nose heavy vs tail heavy.

Thanks for the info. I have made such a large change to the wing area and the location of the leading and trailing edges I just want to make sure I don't set up the plane tail heavy for its maiden since I now don't know what the exact CG is at this point. I just don't want to lose it on the first flight if you know what I mean. 😕 I am going to set it up on the point James defined (on the front edge of the plastic wing mount) instead of 4mm forward of it. That should still be nose heavy from the new calculated CG and then I will work from there. My style of flying for this bird will be very tame until I get used to it. This is the first EDF I have owned but just bought the 64mm F-22 last week to get some flight experience on EDFs. The F-22 flies very similar to some of the high speed park jets I have and fly so I feel pretty good about taking the F-35 out soon. It is ready to go. Spektrum DX9, Admiral RX1000 10 Channel receiver, Eagle A3 Pro gyro, and Turnigy Heavy Duty 6S 4000mAh 60-120C battery,

[Hugh Wiedman]

Good stuff dradams2 , sounds like you have a well thought out plan. Good luck with the maiden, I'm sure you'll do great. I've noticed with these EDF's, if they are tail heavy, they still fly OK (unlike some prop warbirds) but are a little "pitchy" and the gyro would help that somewhat. The real challenge with a tail heavy jet is landing. It will have a tendency to pitch up at a certain slower speed on landing (just prior to wing stall speed) which will make it rise up in altitude with the nose up WITHOUT any elevator input. This will then result in a wing stall and it will either drop suddenly or roll left and hit the ground. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how I know that (my F-16 flies well at 115 mm CG, but I made multiple tests moving it back and when I got it to 135 mm, it took off and flew great, but was an unruly beast on landing-lesson learned). So starting out nose heavy is a decent plan, you'll know how nose heavy it is when you invert it and see just how much down elevator you need to fly level. Happy Landings! :pop

[f4u ausie]

my f35 is here ...woohoo...nervous blaa blaa.... the one common thread seems to be Tone down the ailerons 50 or 60 % hi rates follow book cg ??? i only have 4000 or 6000 4 will do pics soon ....our first afl game after covid tmorrow nite yeeehhhaaaa cya:handshake:

[xviper]

follow book cg ???

Only if the book has the addendum showing the new CG. There's a picture of it in several places here.

[tab28682]

I have my F-35C ready to maiden now so I am going to start taking it to the field (Bomber Field) with me and when the wind is right and my courage is right 😁 I will give it a try. I had never flown an EDF before so I picked up a Freewing 64mm F-22 to get some experience. I maidened it a couple of days ago with no issues. It flies a lot like some of my faster RCPowers park jets that I have built from scratch. It sure didn't want to slow down to land though. I did manage to get it down in one piece. I just need more experience with it I am sure.

No one replied to my request for help on the CG possibilities for the changes I made to the F-35 so I am planning on using the recommended corrected CG from the forum and go from there.

I was lucky enough to meet dradams2 at the big Warbird fly in at Bomber Field last weekend.

He brought over his F-35C conversion to get a group picture with my stock with modified paint and markings F-35A AF-01. His C looked even better in person than it does in the pictures.

As soon as I saw the model, I knew who he had to be. Hopefully, he will post the picture sometime soon.

[dradams2]

I was lucky enough to meet dradams2 at the big Warbird fly in at Bomber Field last weekend.

He brought over his F-35C conversion to get a group picture with my stock with modified paint and markings F-35A AF-01. His C looked even better in person than it does in the pictures.

As soon as I saw the model, I knew who he had to be. Hopefully, he will post the picture sometime soon.

I'm a little slow with this but here are the pictures. I also got to meet deltadart106 (I think that is right) at the fly in. I got the decals from Callie today so I will post that as well.

[dradams2]

I got the decals from Callie today and here they are. This is the VFA-147 "Argonauts" livery. I plan on filming the maiden this Tuesday when winds are forecast to be optimal if not sooner. I'm as anxious as everyone to get out there and give this jet a try.

[Crick3t]

I got the decals from Callie today and here they are. This is the VFA-147 "Argonauts" livery. I plan on filming the maiden this Tuesday when winds are forecast to be optimal if not sooner. I'm as anxious as everyone to get out there and give this jet a try.

Looks awesome!!!!!!!!!!! Nice work!

Please give us a full report after maiden.

[f4u ausie]

Looks good dradman!! Mine ready. Still nervous. Just the landing

[Vextren]

f4u ausie Honestly, if you have it CG'D properly or slightly nose heavy, and tone the rates down a bit, especially on the ailerons, it's a fantastic jet and can get long flight times. Only issue I have had is that my front retract had an issue with the mechanism, so i gummed it up so it's always down so i could fly it while my replacement ships. It was a one off issue, but i can tell you from my flight i have had on it a few days ago I can tell you without a doubt it's a great flier when set up properly. I flew my normal 2.5 minutes on a 5000 and still had 50% battery while full throttle for the majority. Only things I will say, if you are used to mid rates on ailerons on say the f15, this has a larger control surface so it doesn't need as much ailerons unless you like to do fast rolls. It is a good lander especially on grass, just give it the throttle bump and flair and it's a beaut. The thing I warn people about with this bird is that it's a stealth fighter, so if you get it a ways out it will be hard to see it. So I generally bank up the wings occasionally when it's a ways out so I can gather my heading. It is a bird that is nice and light with plenty of power, you should have no problem enjoying it. I like it myself.

(Edit: Too add, if you are worried about the landing, if you fly on grass or runway just come in with a bit of power and flair it, hit the mains first then let the nose down. If you hit the nose first it will bounce. I use mid rates so I can just give it full elevator and it sits nicely once you glide it in.)

[dradams2]

I did the maiden of my F-35C today. I posted the video on the MotionRC channel of Facebook. It didn't go like I planned but I definitely enjoyed the designing and building of the conversion. It was also a thrilling minute+ to watch it fly. I made a beginners error that cost me the plane and I will definitely learn from that. I already have a new fuselage and canopy on order. I checked all the electronics when I got home and everything is working fine. It seems when it crashed beside the road it was going pretty level and clipped a stiff weed stalk the took off the left side of the plane. The right side is intact and everything still works though I will be replacing them as well to make some adjustments to my first build. I am looking forward to doing the conversion again as I learned so much from the first time and I feel like I can improve on it. Thanks to everyone for your encouragement during this build! "Build, Fly, Crash, Repeat"! I am patient.