Official Freewing MiG-29 Fulcrum Twin 80mm Thread

[Evan D]

Then laying in some carbon fiber shafts may be in order.

[JetFun]

Nope, not the battery size nor the size of the hole. It is the flex of the fuselage. Canopy fits tightly.

[Evan D]

Also your batteries may be too tall and hitting the underside of the canopy not letting the canopy sit down onto the magnets...

[xviper]

My canopy keeps opening on landings due to the flex in the fuselage. No matter how soft the landings are. Any solution on stiffening the front part of the fuselage?

It's not the front part that is a concern - unless you've had a crash and damaged the plane there. It's the back part where it's latched. If the latch is not holding, then you need to investigate why it's not holding. Check to make sure the latch pin is going all the way into the hole of the canopy. You may need to reinforce the hole if it's gotten too big. Glue a small, thin piece of plastic over the hole (or just above the hole) and punch a new hole over the old hole. The simplest way is to install a small strip of clear Gorilla tape on the fuse next to the pin release and another on the rear of the canopy, then use another piece of tape over the seam to hold it from popping loose. The first layer is to prevent the paint from being pulled off every time you remove the holding tape.

[JetFun]

My canopy keeps opening on landings due to the flex in the fuselage. No matter how soft the landings are. Any solution on stiffening the front part of the fuselage?

[Hugh Wiedman]

kallend you are spot on as usual. Those 12 blades have outstanding acceleration and climb, but ultimately not much more in top speed. Perfect for Me!

My latest video on the Mig and first with the 12 blades. I'm really impressed with how quickly it gets off our grass runway now. And that's a huge deal for me since our runway has pretty much gone to hell in the last year. Before it was mowed twice a week to 1/2" and was smooth as silk. One year later (and several changes in lawn maintenance people) and it's mowed once a week, to maybe 1" and is mostly weeds and potholes. The upgraded fans couldn't have come at a better time. And I really like the sound of the 12 blade.

[kallend]

Great report. Bottom line, do you think the upgrade to the FMS fans was worth it? I certainly did, but then I'm flying off of grass so the extra "get up and go" as you call it was certainly worth it and the increased response in high alpha was very nice. I rarely fly at full throttle so have no idea if it increased the overall speed, but not something I really care about. Just seems to be a bit more "peppy" if you know what I mean. And I personally really liked the sound of the 12 blade. The stock 9 blades are still a good fan and ended up in my A-10, which exhibited a huge increase in performance over the stock outrunners, so it was definitely a win-win for me.

Danny is supposed to be coming out with his line of SMC HV sometime in October, so we'll see then. In the meantime, looks like you got a winner in those Coddar HV's.

Increased thrust is generally more noticeable in acceleration and climb than in top speed.

[xviper]

Hugh, absolutely, those Pro fans are worth the money and effort. I do some really dumb things when I fly and I want all the grunt I can get to get out of trouble. Doubling up with those HV bats is a bonus. I will also fly this plane off grass. Till now, I've had to go 8s to get my jets off the grass field I also fly at, but those are 90mm. I'm afraid to go 8s on 80mm, especially twin 80's. With these upgrades, I won't have to.

[Hugh Wiedman]

Flew the Mig this morning with the new FMS Pro fans. These fans have a significant increase in take off grunt and in cases where you suddenly increase the throttle for some "get up and go", such as getting out of high alpha. Compared to the stock fans, which required a longer blast of throttle (with vector nozzles), the new fans could get out of high alpha in seconds. This was with my previous CHL 5000's.
Next flight was with the Coddar 6000's HV batteries. I would have to say that these batteries gave the most significant boost in grunt, an even bigger jump in performance than the Pro fans. This plane gets off the ground even shorter than with the Pro fans and CHL bats, which was already shorter than the stock fans and CHL bats.
Comparing CHL 5000's and Coddar 6000's, the flight times were as follows. I set my timer for 3:30min and land just as the timer goes off. The CHL 5000's measured 20% remaining, fairly warm to the touch. The Coddar measured 40% remaining, "warmish". I flew similar styles for both flights - rolls, one full throttle loop and a couple of full throttle passes, one high alpha pass. I still can't explain this but I'm very happy (and surprised) by the results. I think I will replace my batteries as needed with Coddar HV for my EDFs. For my prop planes, I'll continue to use the regular LiPos. Next up ................ Trying the Coddar 6000's in the Eflite SU30 - another big, heavy plane that could use a bit more punch and a little longer flight time.
If SMC is sourcing their next line of HV batteries from the same manufacturer as Coddar, I think they'll continue to have winners.

Great report. Bottom line, do you think the upgrade to the FMS fans was worth it? I certainly did, but then I'm flying off of grass so the extra "get up and go" as you call it was certainly worth it and the increased response in high alpha was very nice. I rarely fly at full throttle so have no idea if it increased the overall speed, but not something I really care about. Just seems to be a bit more "peppy" if you know what I mean. And I personally really liked the sound of the 12 blade. The stock 9 blades are still a good fan and ended up in my A-10, which exhibited a huge increase in performance over the stock outrunners, so it was definitely a win-win for me.

Danny is supposed to be coming out with his line of SMC HV sometime in October, so we'll see then. In the meantime, looks like you got a winner in those Coddar HV's.

[xviper]

Flew the Mig this morning with the new FMS Pro fans. These fans have a significant increase in take off grunt and in cases where you suddenly increase the throttle for some "get up and go", such as getting out of high alpha. Compared to the stock fans, which required a longer blast of throttle (with vector nozzles), the new fans could get out of high alpha in seconds. This was with my previous CHL 5000's.
Next flight was with the Coddar 6000's HV batteries. I would have to say that these batteries gave the most significant boost in grunt, an even bigger jump in performance than the Pro fans. This plane gets off the ground even shorter than with the Pro fans and CHL bats, which was already shorter than the stock fans and CHL bats.
Comparing CHL 5000's and Coddar 6000's, the flight times were as follows. I set my timer for 3:30min and land just as the timer goes off. The CHL 5000's measured 20% remaining, fairly warm to the touch. The Coddar measured 40% remaining, "warmish". I flew similar styles for both flights - rolls, one full throttle loop and a couple of full throttle passes, one high alpha pass. I still can't explain this but I'm very happy (and surprised) by the results. I think I will replace my batteries as needed with Coddar HV for my EDFs. For my prop planes, I'll continue to use the regular LiPos. Next up ................ Trying the Coddar 6000's in the Eflite SU30 - another big, heavy plane that could use a bit more punch and a little longer flight time.
If SMC is sourcing their next line of HV batteries from the same manufacturer as Coddar, I think they'll continue to have winners.

[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.