Official Freewing MiG-29 Fulcrum Twin 80mm Thread

[Evan D]

I don't have any use for 4S 5000 size. My go to 5000 class batteries are the Power Hobby 5200 50C and 5000 100C. Power hobby doesn't make a 2S and the older Hobby Star 5200 2S I have a bunch of are old so I use the Coddar 5200 2s for 8S.

I like the Coddar I have and RC Castle is great to deal with.

[xviper]

I've done that myself with HRBs ...................... one 6s and one 2s. Lately I"ve gone with two 4s bats when buying new bats.

[Evan D]

Awesome, thanks! Looks like they have only a few of the packs Coddar makes. There's a matching 2S to make 8S that Raymond doesn't carry and I have 6s 1800 packs I use for my quads and regular 5200 2s 60C (I have eight of them) that he's not carrying, yet.

[xviper]

I get the Coddar from RC Castle. You choose USA or Canada and shipping is free. However, I don't think it's actually free. The price would indicate that shipping is built in. It just makes one "feel" a bit better when we see "free shipping".
I'm still in a quandary as to how they pack that many mah into something so light. The flight times seem to indicate the mah is there.

[Evan D]

Wow, those are about the same size as my 5200. I see them on Ali but is there another place to get them?

[xviper]

I've just finished installing the FMS 12-bl 2100kv Pro fans in my Mig29. Will test them out with the 5000mah 65C ChinaHobbyline tomorrow. These are the usual batteries I've been using in the Mig so I'll be able to tell if the fans offer an improvement. For my second flight, I will try the Coddar HV, 6000mah 80C that weigh 665g each to see if I can detect more improvement. I've used the Coddar 6000's in my single 90mm jets and they have made it possible for those planes to get off from grass when they had a hard time before with regular LiPos. So far, in single fan EDFs, the Coddar HV have given a noticeable improvement in take off punch, although top speed doesn't appear to be increased much (that I can notice). Flight times also have improved by a minute or two.

[Hugh Wiedman]

I had been flying the Mig with heavy Socokin 6000 packs (850 g). My impression was that the plane was a heavy beast that labored off the runway and needed a good amount of power in all maneuvers. Climbing performance was just barely acceptable. At the end of a 4 min flight the batteries were quite warm and at 15% charge.

Today I did some experiments with different batteries. I tried both SMC 5000s (760 g) and HRB 4000s (590 g). They both gave much better performance that the heavy 6000s I was using.

With the SMC 5000 packs the plane was about 200 g lighter than before. However, the 5000 packs provided much better overall performance than either the 6000s or the 4000s. I think this is mainly due to the SMCs maintaining a higher voltage during the flight. With both the 6000 and 4000 packs the in flight voltage readings fell to 3.7 within the first 30 seconds of flight. The SMCs didn't fall to the 3.7 threshold until after 2 min of flight. On takeoff the plane rotated and climbed out with authority and flew with great power for both speed and climb. The flight lasted until the 4 min timer expired so that by the time I was on the runway I was over the 4:30 mark. Again, the batteries were at or above 15% after the flight. I was so impressed I came home and ordered 4 more SMC 5000 packs.

Rudy and I both mainly use the SMC 5300 packs which weigh only 684 g. Unfortunately, these are no longer available after he was forced to change his manufacturer. The 5000 at 760 gr is a bit heavy for that mah. We both on occasion use the 6200 at 814 gr, but it does fly better on the 5300's. Take off on grass is about the same for both, but then each of us are using the 12 blade FMS 2100 Kv fans. Outstanding sound with those (video to follow when I get around to putting it together). I'm really looking forward to seeing what he comes up with the new manufacturer, reportedly some fairly light weight packs with HV.

[Evan D]

I started with those 6000’s too but went to 645g 5200’s. I agree 100%.

[radfordc]

I had been flying the Mig with heavy Socokin 6000 packs (850 g). My impression was that the plane was a heavy beast that labored off the runway and needed a good amount of power in all maneuvers. Climbing performance was just barely acceptable. At the end of a 4 min flight the batteries were quite warm and at 15% charge.

Today I did some experiments with different batteries. I tried both SMC 5000s (760 g) and HRB 4000s (590 g). They both gave much better performance that the heavy 6000s I was using.

With the HRB 4000 packs the plane was 500 g lighter than before and it definitely showed. Takeoffs were better from our grass strip and vertical maneuvers were much better. The only downside was that I needed to be more careful with adding power as my voltage telemetry showed the cells dropping below 3.6v each time I added more than 75% throttle. I cut my flight short by about 30 seconds so that the 4 min timer expired just after touching down on the runway. The batteries were at 15% charge after the flight....same as the 6000s.

With the SMC 5000 packs the plane was about 200 g lighter than before. However, the 5000 packs provided much better overall performance than either the 6000s or the 4000s. I think this is mainly due to the SMCs maintaining a higher voltage during the flight. With both the 6000 and 4000 packs the in flight voltage readings fell to 3.7 within the first 30 seconds of flight. The SMCs didn't fall to the 3.7 threshold until after 2 min of flight. On takeoff the plane rotated and climbed out with authority and flew with great power for both speed and climb. The flight lasted until the 4 min timer expired so that by the time I was on the runway I was over the 4:30 mark. Again, the batteries were at or above 15% after the flight. I was so impressed I came home and ordered 4 more SMC 5000 packs.

[Ironside]

Took the turbine out yesterday on a pretty gusty day. I think this is the perfect power plant for this jet. Can get 7min easy. Love it.

[Airguardian]

Off the Freewing Website TV nozzles included?

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!!

I mean, maybe not now cuz I'm broke, but I gonna get that MiG-29, yes or yes.

[radfordc]

Jared Isaacman's personal Mig 29. Amazing how much fun you can have if you have a billion dollars to throw around.

[Hugh Wiedman]

Off the Freewing Website TV nozzles included?

[Airguardian]

If the grass is not too tall, and once you have installed the upgraded EDFs, the Su-35 can be made to handle it. More so if you upgrade the main struts, which are the weaker link that fails first when operating from grass. You may also need to regularly replace EDF rotors as they will get FOD.

I still think that's the jet to go to, despite all. The required mods are not so hard or expensive. ;)

[Evan D]

I agree with the Su-35 > F-22 > JAS-39 > MiG-29 and just ignore the F-18. None are like an Avanti. Each of these are all different once TV is added, I have TV's on my F-22 and it is the plane I tend to be down on the deck doing maneuvers with.

I no longer have my SU, the construction is different and fragile, seemed like I was always fixing cracks. The older F/A-18E and Euro fighter are also in this great flying category if you can find one. I have another , my third, F/A-18E. This one a V1 with upgraded V2 gear and stabs plus the more modern power system from a F/A-18C.

But really I think modifying the approach technique over the trees is what should be looked at. I thought I saw JetFun say no flaps at some point, I would thing full flaps or better yet crow and rudder air brakes along with active TV would be the best in the situation. This for the big Mig.

None of these jets flies anything like an Avanti. Different category entirely.
Also, as far as post-stall maneuvers' safe recovery altitude is concerned, this is how I'd classify these jets from best to worst (Best needing less altitude):

Su-35 > F-22 > JAS-39 > MiG-29 > F-18
(All Freewing)

The position for the Gripen and Raptor can be argued... depending on the type of maneuver. Gripen definitely deals better with sustained high alpha and has TV to help, but won't pull out of a stall or dive as gracefully and fast as the Raptor or the Su-35 with or without TV assistance, which in essence translates to needing more altitude for maneuver execution, despite the fact that you can do very extreme sustained high alpha 1m from the ground.

PS: Did I already tell you to get a Freewing Su-35?

[JetFun]

Thanks for all that input!

My runway is not the best and I had read the SU-35 retracts don't like grass too much. Otherwise I really like it.

[xviper]

I am eyeing the F-22 or Jas39. Simply because I am very happy with the Avanti. Perhaps the Jas 39 is too similar to the Avanti.

Similar in what way? I had the Avanti S in the past. I now have the Mig29 with VT, F-22 8s and the Gripen with VT. Personally, I don't think the Avanti is anything like the Gripen in the way it flies. My Avanti flew more like my Stinger 90 does now. The Gripen flies more like my old Eurofighter but more solid feeling and ground handles better.

[kallend]

SU 35 is indeed the way to go.

[Airguardian]

Can you give your assessment as to the design principles incorporated into the Arrows Mig as compared to the Freewing Mig that would make the Arrows resistant to alpha lock? As far as I can see, the Arrows is almost the same size as the SA but much heavier, no VT, flies on 6s.

I can. Better neutral thrustline (for a non vectored jet), higher T/W ratio, lighter wing loading.

My thoughts on alpha lock... There is something in the airframe that causes this. You will never stop it from happening. I know others will say you won't have it if you have TVs, I say it will still happen, but TVs will help you get out of it.

You can't call it a LOCK if you can easily break out of it just adding power and pitch down.
The airframe design is 'overly stable' at large angles of attack and wants to remain there unless 'encouraged otherwise' but you don't really get LOCKED into high alpha if you have VT nozzles installed.

So It seems to me the best is a setup in all phases without TV in all phases because it makes landing (and gliding without thrust) so much trickier. And add full TV / elevator via switch.

I have a better one for you. Use expo wisely, and maybe even add a gyro. A well set up gyro will make approaches much more controllable. You may even be able to relax CG aft and get better aerobatic and flight performance from the aircraft ;)

I am eyeing the F-22 or Jas39. [...] Think TV is absolutely necessary if you like to do slow aerobatics. It's like someone pulls the handbrake during flight and you just have to deal with it.

I have the three, plus the Su-35. F-22 and Gripen won't do half the stuff you expect from them. Not at low altitudes at least.
The Gripen is great but suffers from being a heavy design like the MiG, with a terrible ducting that kills thrust at low speeds, so you'll find it hard to get it to hover (though it is possible), and also probably expensive. THEN, you need to understand that because of the design of the Gripen, it will not react 'sharply' to your control inputs, so most of the time you will overcontrol and crash it if you attempt complex low altitude post stall stuff. It flies amazing, but it's not the best jet for that. From all you've been saying... just get that Su-35. It's the best scale jet for 3D stuff hands down. The rest can't even begin to compete. Your best 2nd chance would be to convert an F-22 to a single nozzle with pitch and yaw and setting up a really good gyro on it.

Here's some F-22 and Gripen reference footage, as far as extreme maneuvering is concerned:

And here for the more extreme thrust vectoring/ high alpha stuff:

None of these jets flies anything like an Avanti. Different category entirely.
Also, as far as post-stall maneuvers' safe recovery altitude is concerned, this is how I'd classify these jets from best to worst (Best needing less altitude):

Su-35 > F-22 > JAS-39 > MiG-29 > F-18
(All Freewing)

The position for the Gripen and Raptor can be argued... depending on the type of maneuver. Gripen definitely deals better with sustained high alpha and has TV to help, but won't pull out of a stall or dive as gracefully and fast as the Raptor or the Su-35 with or without TV assistance, which in essence translates to needing more altitude for maneuver execution, despite the fact that you can do very extreme sustained high alpha 1m from the ground.

PS: Did I already tell you to get a Freewing Su-35?

[Airguardian]

Do you honestly think ANYONE will ever get a pair of fans in the big Mig that can do that?

hklagges demonstrated it early on in the RCG thread. He made a huge bikini op, reducing weight, installed 12S systems, extended cheaters and posted an indoors video of his MiG hovering. He never provided a flight video though, but not that that matters anyway, it IS doable, if you have the time, patience and money... and even then it's likely going to be only good for short flights if you go crazy with hovering. But that's to be expected anyway. ;)

Find video evidence of 12S-modded FW MiG-29 hovering here:

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...0#post46341591

Yes enough power would have been the game changer.

Ehr... actually... a lighter plane would have been preferable to a higher power model. The reasons have been commented already. More power = more current demand = larger batts = more weight which in turn require more power to achieve T/W over 1. Reducing plane weight is a faster route to hovering.

Needs more thrust at low speed than aeroplane weight. The full speed thrust is not really relevant in alpha lock. Maybe the EDF needs a redesign for more thrust at lower speed and sacrifice some top speed. And more thrust would simply push the MIG forward to a safer altitude.

If you are really committed to increasing your low speed EDF performance, I'd suggest you to cut the ducts open and add 3D printed cheater holes as a grill.
A well designed cheater will substantially increase your thrust output at low speeds.

Just wondering if I am better off getting the F-22 and keep the MIG-29 as long as it lasts. Hope the F-22 does not do this similarly.

You are in for a disappointment if you intend to perform crazy post-stall aerobatics with the Raptor near the ground because, one, it lacks TV nozzles, and even if you add them, you still won't have yaw vectoring which is crucial for safe, controlled hovering / high alpha and post stall in general. And then two, the plane can't do proper sustained upright high alpha beyond 30º. It does amazing inverted high alpha but it sucks in normal high alpha. Just pull the trigger on the Su-35 already and be happy.

Just wondering now if I should adjust the Thrust Vector to minimal permanent deflection with smaller elevator deflection and go to full TV and elevator deflection via switch to do fun stuff.

Bad thinking, if you ask me.
You want all the control you can get from the nozzles, not to handicap yourself.
That's what expo is for. Leave throws at 100% or close to, and play with expo until you get a more 'fine' control.