Official Freewing 90mm F-16 V2 EDF Jet Thread

[Airguardian]

Can always start with less and slowly add to it and see how good it feels to you! :)
If you check my vids closely, you can get a visual reference on take offs and landings by pausing as the plane flies by in front of the camera.

[Airguardian]

Windy flights!

[400driver]

Can always start with less and slowly add to it and see how good it feels to you! :)
If you check my vids closely, you can get a visual reference on take offs and landings by pausing as the plane flies by in front of the camera.

I have been doing that ! You are my guru!!

[Airguardian]

*Blushes visibly*


How was that saying... slow is smooth, smooth is fast!
Better safe than sorry! :D

[Shaun Evans]

interested in sellng that one{longEz) in the back ground?

Haha, No Sir!

[Dividebysandwich]

Hi, first post here!
I'm on my second flight on the 90mm v2 and I have to say I'm having issues. First flight was almost impossible to get off the deck - elevator neutral and CG were set to what the manual recommended. So I read up and changed elevator neutral and also nudged back the CG by 10mm. Bad idea, had to fight for survival on the second flight. I did install a gyro before the second flight but had the sensitivity dialed low to avoid oscillations at the first try. Turning on that gyro saved my bacon, but only barely.
So now I'm wondering. Folks here report flying 10mm behind factory CG without a gyro - how?

For the next flight I've dialed up the gyro sensitivity a bit and will go back to stock CG, though I'll definitely keep the new elevator neutral position.

[Evan D]

No gyro in mine and balance is an inch behind the marks.

[xviper]

First flight was almost impossible to get off the deck - elevator neutral and CG were set to what the manual recommended. So I read up and changed elevator neutral and also nudged back the CG by 10mm. Bad idea, had to fight for survival on the second flight. I did install a gyro before the second flight but had the sensitivity dialed low to avoid oscillations at the first try. Turning on that gyro saved my bacon, but only barely.
So now I'm wondering. Folks here report flying 10mm behind factory CG without a gyro - how?

For the next flight I've dialed up the gyro sensitivity a bit and will go back to stock CG, though I'll definitely keep the new elevator neutral position.

Re: Gyro ............. Consider putting the gyro on a master gain knob or slider so you can adjust on the fly and not have to change it on the ground for the next flight.
When you say "neutral" ELE, do you mean as per this photo:
This is the starting neutral ELE.
Not being able to get off the ground might indicate you didn't have enough elevator (or set in the wrong place to start with) and/or you were flying off grass that was a bit too thick. As for "fighting for survival" on the second flight after you moved the CG back 10mm ........... a rearward CG is not for everyone. Those who swear by it, fly in certain ways and have gotten used to handling the plane that way. You might want to resolve the flight characteristics before starting to move the CG back. You might have too high of travel or too low of EXPO or both.

[Elbee]

Dividebysandwich

Welcome to Hobby Squawk, glad to have you onboard, Sir.

Best, LB

[Airguardian]

Hi, first post here!
I'm on my second flight on the 90mm v2 and I have to say I'm having issues. First flight was almost impossible to get off the deck - elevator neutral and CG were set to what the manual recommended. So I read up and changed elevator neutral and also nudged back the CG by 10mm. Bad idea, had to fight for survival on the second flight. I did install a gyro before the second flight but had the sensitivity dialed low to avoid oscillations at the first try. Turning on that gyro saved my bacon, but only barely.
So now I'm wondering. Folks here report flying 10mm behind factory CG without a gyro - how?

For the next flight I've dialed up the gyro sensitivity a bit and will go back to stock CG, though I'll definitely keep the new elevator neutral position.

Are you even using expo? Lack of expo can usually be the reason for too sensitive pitch control, even on a nose heavy model.
Most of my models run about 70-85% expo on pitch and roll, even after installing a gyro on them.

Don't go back to stock CG. Too nose heavy. I'm flying like 40mm behind stock (with a gyro, though, ofc).

[Dividebysandwich]

When you say "neutral" ELE, do you mean as per this photo:

Yes. That was what I used on the first flight, and reading through posts moving that to 24mm from the top edge is definitely better.

Not being able to get off the ground might indicate you didn't have enough elevator and/or you were flying off grass that was a bit too thick.

Travel and Expo was set as per manual. We have a plastic runway (it's from a big paper machine) so grass was not a factor.

As for "fighting for survival" on the second flight after you moved the CG back 10mm ........... a rearward CG is not for everyone. Those who swear by it, fly in certain ways and have gotten used to handling the plane that way. You might want to resolve the flight characteristics before starting to move the CG back. You might have too high of travel or too low of EXPO or both.

Yeah I'll go back to the stock CG but keep the altered elevator neutral position. As I said both travel and expo are set up as per manual.

Are you even using expo? Lack of expo can usually be the reason for too sensitive pitch control, even on a nose heavy model.
Most of my models run about 70-85% expo on pitch and roll, even after installing a gyro on them.

70%? Jeeze... I usually reduce throw before using that much. I was at 30% on the first flight and went up to 40% on the second one.

Don't go back to stock CG. Too nose heavy. I'm flying like 40mm behind stock (with a gyro, though, ofc).

Well I'd rather have a CG that's too forward than too far back ;)

[Airguardian]

70%? Jeeze... I usually reduce throw before using that much. I was at 30% on the first flight and went up to 40% on the second one.

Reducing throws curtails aerobatic capability and safety margins. If you need the throw and don't have it, that can easily cause a disaster that would have otherwise been avoided.

Well I'd rather have a CG that's too forward than too far back ;)

I respect the sentiment, but I do not endorse it. Many people just don't realize how damaging nose heaviness is to flight performance, to the point that it makes flying more dangerous. The stability derived from excessive nose heaviness comes at a heavy price. I've seen more airplanes lost due to excessively nose heavy setups (typically due to nasty stalls on final causing models to lawn dart to their ultimate doom) than from slightly tail heavy ones. ;)

[xviper]

70%? Jeeze... I usually reduce throw before using that much. I was at 30% on the first flight and went up to 40% on the second one.

Well I'd rather have a CG that's too forward than too far back ;)

About rates and expo. For me, high throws (or rate) demands MORE expo. Lower rate, lower expo. I think of it this way - if I have a large amount of throw, I want more expo to dumb down the first part of the stick travel.

I concur about the CG. If you look at the videos of some of the guys who are using large rearward CG, they are flying a lot of sharp maneuvers and "high alpha". Unless you watch their videos, they don't tell you that's how they fly. I'm near the "book" CG and perhaps a small bit rearward. That's the way I like to fly. I don't do stunts a whole lot and I don't do a lot of slow high alpha stuff. In fact, my planes have difficulty doing hi alpha because I don't set my CG very far back. I'm good with that. High alpha gets old really quick for me. I'd prefer nice, smooth scale sort of flying, with the occasional "stunts", which takes a lot of effort to do even 1/2 decent. I'm OK with that too. I have other planes (jets and prop) that were designed out of the box for doing stunts and 3D stuff. Go take a look at the "2 Brothers" videos. He is one of those "influencers" who flaunt a severe rearward CG. But look at his flying style. He does a lot of stunts and high alpha stuff, even upside down high alpha. He even programs his gyro so he can do these things more easily. He's almost always professing to flyers that book CG is way too far forward, but unless you see him fly or ask him why, he will not tell you why. And in this sense, provides a disservice to the average flyer who just wants to fly their planes and be proficient and make them look good. Not everyone starting new in jets wants to do "aerobatics". And IMO, a stock or forward CG is NOT dangerous. It may inhibit some performance capabilities but NOT dangerous. There are a lot of things in the way you set up the plane that can make it "dangerous". Sticking close to the book CG is NOT one of them. The old adage (although less applicable today due to flying aids and flying styles) is still valid in many cases. "You can fly a plane with a forward CG OK. With a too far back CG, you fly it ONCE."

Now, you should ask yourself -- what sort of flying are you aiming for? Judge what some people tell you, as well as what I'm telling you.

[Airguardian]

Well, first and foremost, high alpha is SCALE for fighter jets. Even extreme high alpha for some. Many thrust vectored full scale jets can do sustained 70-80° AoA passes, so suggesting that that somehow isn't scale flying is a bit preposterous.

As for book CGs not being dangerous... again, let's agree to disagree, but I almost crashed my F-18 on the maiden flight because stock CG was so terribly nose heavy the model almost drove itself into the ground as soon as I released pitch stick pressure after take-off, and I know for a fact I'm not the only one. That is BAD. Like real bad. And dangerous indeed too. Not to mention these jets will corkscrew to death much easier on turns with those CGs. I had a similar experience with the Gripen and Vulcan. Thankfully I have spared myself the trouble by running much more aft CGs from the get go on other models.

The saying that tail heavy planes fly only once, although false, is a good warning tale to make pilots wary of setting up unstable aircraft, but when people take that as an excuse to set up EXCESSIVELY nose heavy jets, that's the actual disservice to the hobby.

If the manufacturer's CG recommendations were more sensible, I wouldn't have a problem with this. A bit of positive static margin (nose heaviness) is desired for conventional stable flight. But the problem is that more often than not, they are NOT reasonable. When I can move CG 40mm before hitting the neutral point on a 1.5m length model, that's not just a 'wee bit' nose heavy recommendation. That's outright criminal.

And I'll say it again: over the years, I've seen way more crashes due to extreme nose heaviness (especially amongst limited skill pilots) than tail heavy accidents.

PS: Your depiction of Jon from 2BrosRC is mean, totally out of place and misleading. He does often explain a lot more than what you are implying. He certainly explains a lot more than virtually any other youtube RC pilot by comparison.

[Airguardian]

Oh, and another thing...

I personally think that recommending such nose heavy setups actually curtails pilot development, regardless of whether you want to fly smoothly, or radically aerobatic.

Extreme nose heavy planes are NOT well behaved and constantly fight pilot inputs. This doesn't make pilots learn faster, but rather becomes a drag to their development.

That's not to say that a gyro-run tail heavy setup is ideal for newbie pilots, it's obviously not, but there's a lot of leeway in between. Neutrally balanced or just slightly nose heavy planes are much more beginner friendly than excessively nose heavy models.

Even full scale airplanes offer forward CG limitations just as much as they give rearwards CG ranges. That's not just because, you know... ;)