Official Freewing Twin 80mm/90mm A-10 Thunderbolt II Thread

[Ivan Marmara]

Great follow-up responses xviper and themudduck regarding the CG and the ability of being able to keep the nose up on landing, thereby avoiding the bucking bronco, with a further aft CG. Ivan Marmara , I believe you need to get it balanced somewhere in the 88-93mm range for ease of landing (I've marked my batteries at 92mm but almost always get them back just a bit further) and the 2 Roaring Top 6250's I'm using weight 798 gr each. The Admiral 6000's weigh in at 836 gr (and I also have some "newer" ones weighing 874 gr each) so you will have a bit of extra work getting the CG back, but definitely do it. themudduck, honestly never knew that the CG really only affected the landing attitude but after your explanation, makes perfect sense. I have been flying mine at 92mm or > since the maiden so I have always been impressed with the ease of landing considering what many people have posted and you've just confirmed my suspicion as to the reason why.

SanExup I'm using the stock trailing link mains and the "upgraded" trailing link nose strut since I fly off of grass. The only bad tendency the trailing link nose strut has is that it can occasionally depress too much (in heavy grass or bumps) causing the nose wheel to get stuck and bind on the door, acting like a brake. Happened a couple of times on taxi and at first I though WTF? I found that if I keep full up elevator while taxiing it eliminates that from happening as the EDF "exhaust" goes directly over the horizontal surfaces and can easily push the tail down keeping the nose gear from bottoming out.

Thanks for your shared info. Much appreciated.!

Regards

Ivan

[Ivan Marmara]

Hi there, I thought I'd comment and mention to you that one interesting thing about this model is that it flies really well, regardless of whether its nose heavy or neutral or a bit tail heavy. Its remarkable that way and you should have complete confidence that you're not going to have a problem with the way it flies depending on the balance point. You're going to love the way it flies!

Of course there are consequences to how you balance it - with this plane it mainly affects how it lands. In the nose-heavy configuration (CG per the manual) you will have poor elevator response at low speed and it will be hard to pull the nose up (assuming that your landing is slower than your flying speed) As others said, it will absolutely result in you banging down on the nose gear first, which will make the model bounce and buck (bucking bronco ride) or even break the nose gear right off. With the CG moved back its much easier to hold the nose up on landing. And it will still fly very nicely and behave itself. You can play around with the different landing gears but the CG is more important as far as what it does during landings.

Noted will consider all your recommendations.

THANKS.!

[Dirty Dee]

And.... two years ago there were SIX of us who flew our A10s at the Columbus Ohio E-JETS and Warbirds event at the Deer Creek State Park. Last year was cancelled.

Who is coming this year? Sept 9-12. This year I would like to see 8 or 10 or more A10s flying all at the same time! Or in squadrons! Yeeehaa!

I was hoping to attend this year, but looks like it wouldn't happen. Hoping I can make it next year since I likely will be missing EDF Jet Jam 2022

[Hugh Wiedman]

Hugh Wiedman Thanks Hugh! It seems like trailing link mains is the way to go for rough terrain, and thus the nose gear to have the same suspension type.

Works for me, just watch out for the issue of bottoming out that nose gear. It can get stuck in that position and the wheel locks up. Fortunately never happened yet on take off as I'm careful to hold substantial up elevator while taxiing and at the beginning of the take-off run, then relax it more at 50% rotation speed so by the time I'm up to 80%, virtually no up elevator. Haven't heard of many with this problem so maybe the clearance on mine is just too tight, probably should correct it but then I'm just too damn lazy.

[SanExup]

Hugh Wiedman Thanks Hugh! It seems like trailing link mains is the way to go for rough terrain, and thus the nose gear to have the same suspension type.

[Hugh Wiedman]

Great follow-up responses xviper and themudduck regarding the CG and the ability of being able to keep the nose up on landing, thereby avoiding the bucking bronco, with a further aft CG. Ivan Marmara , I believe you need to get it balanced somewhere in the 88-93mm range for ease of landing (I've marked my batteries at 92mm but almost always get them back just a bit further) and the 2 Roaring Top 6250's I'm using weight 798 gr each. The Admiral 6000's weigh in at 836 gr (and I also have some "newer" ones weighing 874 gr each) so you will have a bit of extra work getting the CG back, but definitely do it. themudduck, honestly never knew that the CG really only affected the landing attitude but after your explanation, makes perfect sense. I have been flying mine at 92mm or > since the maiden so I have always been impressed with the ease of landing considering what many people have posted and you've just confirmed my suspicion as to the reason why.

SanExup I'm using the stock trailing link mains and the "upgraded" trailing link nose strut since I fly off of grass. The only bad tendency the trailing link nose strut has is that it can occasionally depress too much (in heavy grass or bumps) causing the nose wheel to get stuck and bind on the door, acting like a brake. Happened a couple of times on taxi and at first I though WTF? I found that if I keep full up elevator while taxiing it eliminates that from happening as the EDF "exhaust" goes directly over the horizontal surfaces and can easily push the tail down keeping the nose gear from bottoming out.

[themudduck]

And.... two years ago there were SIX of us who flew our A10s at the Columbus Ohio E-JETS and Warbirds event at the Deer Creek State Park. Last year was cancelled.

Who is coming this year? Sept 9-12. This year I would like to see 8 or 10 or more A10s flying all at the same time! Or in squadrons! Yeeehaa!

[themudduck]

Xviper

Thanks for your informative reply and it also makes sense.
It's just what I thought would be best but wasn't so sure what the consequences would be in flight. Just don't want to get any surprises in the maiden flight.

Regards,

Ivan.

Hi there, I thought I'd comment and mention to you that one interesting thing about this model is that it flies really well, regardless of whether its nose heavy or neutral or a bit tail heavy. Its remarkable that way and you should have complete confidence that you're not going to have a problem with the way it flies depending on the balance point. You're going to love the way it flies!

Of course there are consequences to how you balance it - with this plane it mainly affects how it lands. In the nose-heavy configuration (CG per the manual) you will have poor elevator response at low speed and it will be hard to pull the nose up (assuming that your landing is slower than your flying speed) As others said, it will absolutely result in you banging down on the nose gear first, which will make the model bounce and buck (bucking bronco ride) or even break the nose gear right off. With the CG moved back its much easier to hold the nose up on landing. And it will still fly very nicely and behave itself. You can play around with the different landing gears but the CG is more important as far as what it does during landings.

[Ivan Marmara]

Take a look at Hugh's photos a couple posts above and see where he's got his batteries. With mine, I've re-arranged the location of that collector board and moved the rear battery as far back as possible (like Hugh) and the front battery is about where his is. I'm using light 5000's, so if you're using the heavier 6000 Admirals, I can't see it being easy to balance without weights in the tail. You might be wise to see if you can move stuff around in the rear of the compartment so your first battery can go back as close to the rear bulkhead as possible. I doubt the book recommended UP elevator will compensate for that kind of nose heaviness, but give it a try and also add the weight. Flying it that nose heavy could accentuate the "bucking bronco" effect and break nose gears repeatedly.

Xviper

Thanks for your informative reply and it also makes sense.
It's just what I thought would be best but wasn't so sure what the consequences would be in flight. Just don't want to get any surprises in the maiden flight.

Regards,

Ivan.

[Ivan Marmara]

Xviper

Thanks for your informative reply and it also makes sense.
It's just what I thought would be best but wasn't so sure what the consequences would be in flight. Just don't want to get any surprises in the maiden flight.

Regards,

Ivan.

[xviper]

I have recently purchased the Freewing A10 80mm and currently have 2 x Admiral 6000mAh batteries installed in tandem in the nose compartment under the canopy. From a particular video posted by Motion Rc, The A10 has been flown in the same configuration and it was stated that they maintained the same CG (78mm from leading edge as the manual recommends).
My question is: was any weight added to the tail in order to compensate for the nose heavy situation as from what I calculated it needs approximately 130 grams on the tail to balance the aircraft at the recommended CG point. Or putting an adjustment of UP elevator (as recommended in the manual) is enough to compensate the nose heavy situation.

Thanks

Ivan.

Take a look at Hugh's photos a couple posts above and see where he's got his batteries. With mine, I've re-arranged the location of that collector board and moved the rear battery as far back as possible (like Hugh) and the front battery is about where his is. I'm using light 5000's, so if you're using the heavier 6000 Admirals, I can't see it being easy to balance without weights in the tail. You might be wise to see if you can move stuff around in the rear of the compartment so your first battery can go back as close to the rear bulkhead as possible. I doubt the book recommended UP elevator will compensate for that kind of nose heaviness, but give it a try and also add the weight. Flying it that nose heavy could accentuate the "bucking bronco" effect and break nose gears repeatedly.

[Ivan Marmara]

I have recently purchased the Freewing A10 80mm and currently have 2 x Admiral 6000mAh batteries installed in tandem in the nose compartment under the canopy. From a particular video posted by Motion Rc, The A10 has been flown in the same configuration and it was stated that they maintained the same CG (78mm from leading edge as the manual recommends).
My question is: was any weight added to the tail in order to compensate for the nose heavy situation as from what I calculated it needs approximately 130 grams on the tail to balance the aircraft at the recommended CG point. Or putting an adjustment of UP elevator (as recommended in the manual) is enough to compensate the nose heavy situation.

Thanks

Ivan.

[SanExup]

Hugh, do you have all trailing link retracts on yours?

[Coconut]

Thanks for the info.

[Hugh Wiedman]

This A10 is not sold with in-runners?

No, the stock 80mm outrunners are more than sufficient. Grass take offs in less than 100' and all the verticle you need. More than enough speed to knife edge. Over 5 minutes flight time on 2 6250 mah batteries. Of course if you want, you can always upgrade it yourself to 90mm inrunners if you "feel the need for speed", but frankly 80mm inrunners would not improve it's stock performance significantly anyway to warrant the cost. And this is coming from someone who has upgraded every 90mm edf I have with the 12 blade inrunner and every 80mm with inrunners, except the A10.

[Coconut]

This A10 is not sold with in-runners?

[Balsa Bob]

Thank you very much for the response Hugh !

Bob

[Hugh Wiedman]

Hi All, Hope to maiden mine this week. 2 quick questions:

Is the preferred CG location at about 86mm (which is 8mm aft of the CG in the manual ?

Are the Elevator and Aileron control throws in the manual accurate ? Visually, it just seems like there is way too much throw/movement on them.

Thanks. Bob

I'm flying mine at a balance point of more like 92mm, but that's just me as we know that balance is a fairly personal preference, but the manual recommended point of 78 mm is clearly way too nose heavy. Using 2 Roaring Top 6250's with more than 5 minutes of flight time and coming in with 30% remaining, so it can take the weight. I also did the 3D cockpit and JHH 1/10 scale pilot upgrade which added over 100 gr of weight to the nose so it required removing the circuit board from the back of the floor in the rear battery tray and moving it further aft on the port fuselage wall, no big deal (see battery location photos).

Regarding throws, I'm using deflections on the flaps as per the manual (32mm take-off, 50mm landing), Ailerons (L/M/H rates at 30mm/36mm/42mm), Elevator (30mm/34mm/36mm) and Rudder (24mm/27mm/29mm) which are in mid rates at the high end of the manual and on high rates even more, especially the rudder which helps in knife edge flight.

This flies so well it's scary and have never flown it without ALL of the ordinance. Only thing that can get you in trouble is landing allowing the nose gear to touch first, which will initiate an uncontrollable bucking bronco. Just make sure you slow it down enough to get the nose up on landing (a further rear CG from book will help that as well) and touch on the mains first.

[Balsa Bob]

Hi All, Hope to maiden mine this week. 2 quick questions:

Is the preferred CG location at about 86mm (which is 8mm aft of the CG in the manual ?

Are the Elevator and Aileron control throws in the manual accurate ? Visually, it just seems like there is way too much throw/movement on them.

Thanks. Bob

[Manu-B]

Hi all, many thanks for the answers. I got in touch with motion RC here Europe and they confirmed freewing is not sharing the paint code at this stage. The advise was to find an hardware store that can scan a part an produce color accordingly. I’ll give a try to Revell 076 Matt to start with. Cheers. Manu