You must Sign-in or Register to post messages in the Hobby Squawk community
Registration is FREE and only takes a few moments

Register now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Official Freewing MiG-29 Fulcrum Twin 80mm Thread

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tom
    replied
    The Mig-29 Red Star is on the way to Motion RC. They are already on the water. We have the version which includes Thrust Vectoring on the way. The customer service team is great at supporting customers with existing products but they they have no knowledge of what new products are on the way to Motion RC. I work with Freewing directly on all the ordering and I generally keep what I've ordered to myself (loose lips sink ships, etc). 🤣 I'd like to do a pre-order to figure out the level of interest. It is an expensive plane since this is the version which has thrust vectoring included. Given the livery of the plane, I figured thrust vectoring is a must on this livery. As soon as Alpha can get me some pictures, we will start a pre-order. If the first batch runs out, I'll order more. clear as mud?

    Leave a comment:


  • Aerobatic Addict
    replied
    I would love to see the Red Star twin 80mm Mig29 offered in the USA so I contacted Motion RC since its available at RC-Castle. Here is the response I got back.

    ​​​​​​"Joseph---we currently have no plans to offer the Red Star variant--as it was developed for the Asian market by Freewing. However, if enough customers show interest on HobbySquawk, it may be considered.

    Best-

    Mike@Motion RC Support"


    I'm not sure which forum we have to make our voices heard if were interested in the red star variant but I definitely would buy one!! Who else is interested.

    Leave a comment:


  • kallend
    replied
    Originally posted by Wild Man View Post
    thanks for the info. Understood. Just use a bigger servo as far as all the math I am sure the people who designed this jet had all this done.
    I'm not. Otherwise why would they have had to put out service bulletins and provide new servos after the early releases started crashing?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wild Man
    replied
    thanks for the info. Understood. Just use a bigger servo as far as all the math I am sure the people who designed this jet had all this done. I have seen some using servo's on the tail of this bird I personally would not use in a small trainer. One thing back there I got rid of before starting was the metal clevis on the short aluminum horn and there are many other changes I will make before I am done. My Old SU 30 is getting tired, but with all the upkeep and maintenance is still flying and looks the same as It did the first time I flew it. The MIG 29 will be a nice addition to my hangar

    Leave a comment:


  • kallend
    replied
    Originally posted by Wild Man View Post

    Kallend So you tell me?How does .008 kg. going to raise the load substantially on the new heavier servo's for the horizontal stabilizers? Stock stabilizer .058 kg. Sealed sanded and painted stab. .066 kg. That is only an added weight of the finished stab just a tad over 1/4 oz. by .003 kg.
    Location of the pivot point is sub-sub-optimal. Talking aero loads, not weight.

    See, for example, posts 2712 and 2842 in this thread

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan D
    replied
    Exactly. He's not talking your paint, he's talking the pivot point. And use grams instead of minute kg.... 0.003kg is 3g.

    Leave a comment:


  • HangarQueen
    replied
    Originally posted by Wild Man View Post

    Kallend So you tell me?How does .008 kg. going to raise the load substantially on the new heavier servo's for the horizontal stabilizers? Stock stabilizer .058 kg. Sealed sanded and painted stab. .066 kg. That is only an added weight of the finished stab just a tad over 1/4 oz. by .003 kg.
    I think (I'm sure) he's referring to the position of the axis of rotation, so far forward, i.e. there's a LOT of surface behind the rotation point, requiring very high torque from the servo to move this surface.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wild Man
    replied
    Originally posted by kallend View Post

    Couldn't want a better image than that to see why the elevator servo loads are high on this model.
    Kallend So you tell me?How does .008 kg. going to raise the load substantially on the new heavier servo's for the horizontal stabilizers? Stock stabilizer .058 kg. Sealed sanded and painted stab. .066 kg. That is only an added weight of the finished stab just a tad over 1/4 oz. by .003 kg.

    Leave a comment:


  • ElCid
    replied
    Originally posted by xviper View Post

    These are the greatest "one-two punch" replies I've ever seen here.
    Well it's coming from Santa but the TVs I ordered myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • kallend
    replied
    Originally posted by Wild Man View Post
    I knew if I started, I would be up all night. I started with the tail, ( Horizontal stabilizer's ) So far, so good. I was up all night.

    Click image for larger version Name:	4B03AD20-4FB0-4969-BE60-20EFC641EB5E.jpg Views:	0 Size:	88.1 KB ID:	361605



    Couldn't want a better image than that to see why the elevator servo loads are high on this model.

    Leave a comment:


  • GliderGuy
    replied
    We’re being forthcoming!

    Leave a comment:


  • xviper
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan D View Post
    Yes but if you get the TVs you won't.
    Originally posted by GliderGuy View Post
    And if you don’t get the TV, it may not last you long.
    -GG
    These are the greatest "one-two punch" replies I've ever seen here.

    Leave a comment:


  • GliderGuy
    replied
    And if you don’t get the TV, it may not last you long.

    -GG

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan D
    replied
    Yes but if you get the TVs you won't.

    Leave a comment:


  • ElCid
    replied
    Rumor has it Santa is bringing me one to add to the hanger. It appears that between MotionRC and most of the mods seen on this forum, it's become a very nice airplane. My question is can you just cruse around with it like i do with my F22?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wild Man
    replied
    I knew if I started, I would be up all night. I started with the tail, ( Horizontal stabilizer's ) So far, so good. I was up all night.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	D2C1B007-752F-48E9-BF8D-0ADA54607F9C.jpg Views:	0 Size:	102.6 KB ID:	361603Click image for larger version  Name:	1A45CA37-9735-4533-B484-36FFBA7B983C.jpg Views:	0 Size:	104.5 KB ID:	361604Click image for larger version  Name:	4B03AD20-4FB0-4969-BE60-20EFC641EB5E.jpg Views:	0 Size:	88.1 KB ID:	361605




    Leave a comment:


  • Wild Man
    replied
    Well I finally decided to go ahead and get one. After getting it out of the Box and Inspection done. All I have to say is What did I wait so long ?? Plan on painting this one RED' WHITE & BLUE. I have already started sanding the horizontal stabs

    Leave a comment:


  • fredmdbud
    replied
    But would he be willing to do the powered-descent-with-flaps scenario?​

    Leave a comment:


  • fredmdbud
    replied
    Originally posted by Airguardian View Post

    Outstanding work!
    Now the stabs deflect in a proper scale fashion!
    Almost - there's some anhedral to the stabilators, too.

    There's a "stump" portion towards the front to provide clearance due to this angle.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • heisteff
    replied
    Hi
    here are some pics of the stabs (maximum deflection/way to high for in flight of course). yes the servo is not positioned optimal, but the problem is the space in the tailsection, the two balllinks help a lot to keep the "pushforce" straight (see pics). For the maingeardoors i have not had a idea to make it work without "wheelscratching" them, but who knows.

    Stefan

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0339.jpg
Views:	729
Size:	113.5 KB
ID:	360843Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0342.jpg
Views:	689
Size:	101.5 KB
ID:	360844Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0345.jpg
Views:	693
Size:	136.7 KB
ID:	360845Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0341.jpg
Views:	688
Size:	126.7 KB
ID:	360846Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0344.jpg
Views:	690
Size:	129.1 KB
ID:	360847Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0340.jpg
Views:	722
Size:	133.5 KB
ID:	360848Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0343.jpg
Views:	720
Size:	123.6 KB
ID:	360849

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X