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

[Jefferybray]

Mizer67,
I have found the same problem with flight time on my A-10 with 5000 mah batteries, they are drained within 3 minutes as well. Im thinking im on the throttle too much and going to fast. The F-14 lasted the same amount of time on 4,000 mah, makes me wonder if C rating has something to do with it.

Jeff

[themudduck]

Hey guys, its been mentioned before, but RoaringTop 6250's weigh just about the same as the Admiral 5000's and provide about 20% more gas in the tank, so you can get 4 minutes from them on the A10 (and a bit more if you're easy on the throttle). They perform very well. I use them on all of my jets now (along with others here)

[crxmanpat]

Same here, RoaringTop 5800s or 6250s. I fly both in the A-10 (but mostly 5800s) and get an easy 4 mins with 25% left at landing. I currently have 6 Freewing jets (thinned the herd recently) all flying with one or the other. All of my twins (A-10, F-14 and Mig-29) get 4 minutes. The T-33 also gets 4 minutes on a 6250. All the other singles get 3 minutes of "spirited" flying.

[Jefferybray]

That is something I'm going to have to get for my twin jets. Always makes me nervous if I'm almost out of battery.

[RC30Flyer]

So, what's the consensus on the 80mm A-10 CG? 85, 86, 90mm??? I've seen them all🤷♂️ Also are you guys measuring CG and marking it before the wing is installed or taking into account the radius of the airfoil when measuring? Thanks!

[gravity tester]

I have been 3D printing these and looks like a good accessory to display your A-10.

Pretty cool, Jeff. Sent you a PM.

[Hugh Wiedman]

So, what's the consensus on the 80mm A-10 CG? 85, 86, 90mm??? I've seen them all🤷♂️ Also are you guys measuring CG and marking it before the wing is installed or taking into account the radius of the airfoil when measuring? Thanks!

I'm flying mine with 2 RT 6250's with the CG around 88-92 mm. For me, it flies great there and landings are nice and smooth, but that's just my opinion. I will say the the 78 mm book CG is way too far forward and makes landing a little more difficult, IMO. I also found that the fully loaded ordinance package does not change the CG at all, but to date have never flown it without all the ordinance, looks too cool to leave it off.

[themudduck]

I'm flying mine with 2 RT 6250's with the CG around 88-92 mm. For me, it flies great there and landings are nice and smooth, but that's just my opinion. I will say the the 78 mm book CG is way too far forward and makes landing a little more difficult, IMO. I also found that the fully loaded ordinance package does not change the CG at all, but to date have never flown it without all the ordinance, looks too cool to leave it off.

Same for me, I use the same batteries. I second that. its much easier to land with the CG around 90.

[RC30Flyer]

So, I know alot of guys "eyeball" CG spots... but seems when i eyeball it from the top of the wing with it installed, i get about to the 80mm mark pictured here. However, if I measure with wing removed, my 85mm mark is the center mark pictured. Picture shows 80-85-90 respectively. Gimme your thoughts guys... I'm also having to stack my Admiral Carbons to get this CG, is anyone doing this?

[xviper]

So, I know alot of guys "eyeball" CG spots... but seems when i eyeball it from the top of the wing with it installed, i get about to the 80mm mark pictured here. However, if I measure with wing removed, my 85mm mark is the center mark pictured. Picture shows 80-85-90 respectively. Gimme your thoughts guys... I'm also having to stack my Admiral Carbons to get this CG, is anyone doing this?

About the measuring of the CG point. It shouldn't have to be such a guessing game nor should you have to "eyeball" it. If you choose XXmm from the leading edge of the wing at the root, it's XXmm no matter how you measure it. Use a box butted up against the leading edge of the wing and measure from the vertical face of the box and straight back (at 90 degrees). Don't let the curve to of the top of the wing distract you. Once you see where XXmm is, drop vertically down to the wing surface and make a mark. If that's too close to the fuse, then use a right angle triangle (from a geometry set) to move the mark further out on the wing (perpendicular to the fuse). Plant your mark there and that's where you put your fingers to hold it for balancing. Repeat for the other wing.
Regarding the batteries: You also shouldn't have to stack them. Why aren't you shoving one battery down on the rear battery tray (after you've released the blue box and moved it way to the rear of that compartment) as far as it'll go. The second battery can then go in front of the first one and can be moved around a bit to make it balance right.

[Hugh Wiedman]

Agree with xviper . I removed the circuit board and stuck it to the port fuselage wall, also to help in receiver placement, then moved the batteries back to get to 90 mm. Added some extra straps for them as well. No need to stack them. Of course the front battery location affects the CG much more than the aft battery.

[RC30Flyer]

About the measuring of the CG point. It shouldn't have to be such a guessing game nor should you have to "eyeball" it. If you choose XXmm from the leading edge of the wing at the root, it's XXmm no matter how you measure it. Use a box butted up against the leading edge of the wing and measure from the vertical face of the box and straight back (at 90 degrees). Don't let the curve to of the top of the wing distract you. Once you see where XXmm is, drop vertically down to the wing surface and make a mark. If that's too close to the fuse, then use a right angle triangle (from a geometry set) to move the mark further out on the wing (perpendicular to the fuse). Plant your mark there and that's where you put your fingers to hold it for balancing. Repeat for the other wing.
Regarding the batteries: You also shouldn't have to stack them. Why aren't you shoving one battery down on the rear battery tray (after you've released the blue box and moved it way to the rear of that compartment) as far as it'll go. The second battery can then go in front of the first one and can be moved around a bit to make it balance right.

Thank you xviper, I will rebalance with the CG mark as I measured to the 85mm mark. Your explanation makes more sense, and I was way overthinking this. 🙄 I'm stacking my batteries because they are the Admiral Carbon 5100mah 70C, and the size and weight doesn't really fit in the front location without carving a bunch of foam from the canopy. Also I wanted a free and clear area for my receivers, away from the large batteries, to try and keep from getting shadowing effect from them. Plus I'm a little OCD with my setup😉 I can hit all the CG marks, and they fit beautifully.

[xviper]

If stacking them does the trick for you, then go with it. My set up is virtually identical with Hugh's. However, I don't use those really big batteries even though I have some. I use Gens Ace 5000's. My ChinaHobbyLine 5000's are about the size of your Carbons and like you, I didn't want to carve the foam out of the canopy.

[Hugh Wiedman]

Thank you xviper, I will rebalance with the CG mark as I measured to the 85mm mark. Your explanation makes more sense, and I was way overthinking this. 🙄 I'm stacking my batteries because they are the Admiral Carbon 5100mah 70C, and the size and weight doesn't really fit in the front location without carving a bunch of foam from the canopy. Also I wanted a free and clear area for my receivers, away from the large batteries, to try and keep from getting shadowing effect from them. Plus I'm a little OCD with my setup😉 I can hit all the CG marks, and they fit beautifully.

RC30Flyer agree with xviper, but as I think I said before, I would DEFINITELY not use those heavy (866 g) Admiral Carbon batteries in the A-10. They are a lot of extra weight for absolutely no benefit and getting the CG to where you need it with those bricks is not easy. The batteries xviper uses are much lighter with virtually the same mAh and the RT 6250's I use are only 790 g, so the 2 are a total of 152 g lighter than what you are using, yet give 25% more capacity. THAT'S an extra 1/3 of a pound!!!! I don't even want to think of what that would scale up to. Actually I just did, that's like adding an extra 800 pounds of dead weight in a real A-10, man that's one fat a... pilot, no more McDonalds for you. The twin 80 mm outrunners in the A-10 do not need a higher C battery (like most of the inrunners do) to reach maximum thrust, a 35C will perform the same in the A-10 as that Admiral 5100 70C, so there is absolutely no benefit, only a ton of extra weight. To quote just about everyone in this forum, extra weight is not your friend, especially when it does nothing for you. I know I've said this before, but I think you are making a huge mistake using those batteries in this particular jet, save them for something that they will give some benefit in (although I'm not sure what that would be as even a RT 5500 70C only weighs 800 g).

[Elbee]

I have been 3D printing these and looks like a good accessory to display your A-10. I am also working on the boarding ladder and antennas for the A-10 as well, I didnt finish it before I flew mine, so I just glue the door on.

Let me know if anybody is interstated.
Thanks,
Jeff

JB, Thank you. That is just awesome looking. It would seem that at the very least the forward part with the gun barrels would be a great replacement part for those of us who have ridden the Bronc a bit and damaged our barrels. Not that I have ever done that.... Best, LB

[Wobisch]

lucky me

[Dirty Dee]

She will fly again

[Wobisch]

Dirty Dee, All the spectators love the cockpit details, done with your 3D Parts. THX again

[Dirty Dee]

I'm glad to hear that!

[RC30Flyer]

RC30Flyer agree with xviper, but as I think I said before, I would DEFINITELY not use those heavy (866 g) Admiral Carbon batteries in the A-10. They are a lot of extra weight for absolutely no benefit and getting the CG to where you need it with those bricks is not easy. The batteries xviper uses are much lighter with virtually the same mAh and the RT 6250's I use are only 790 g, so the 2 are a total of 152 g lighter than what you are using, yet give 25% more capacity. THAT'S an extra 1/3 of a pound!!!! I don't even want to think of what that would scale up to. Actually I just did, that's like adding an extra 800 pounds of dead weight in a real A-10, man that's one fat a... pilot, no more McDonalds for you. The twin 80 mm outrunners in the A-10 do not need a higher C battery (like most of the inrunners do) to reach maximum thrust, a 35C will perform the same in the A-10 as that Admiral 5100 70C, so there is absolutely no benefit, only a ton of extra weight. To quote just about everyone in this forum, extra weight is not your friend, especially when it does nothing for you. I know I've said this before, but I think you are making a huge mistake using those batteries in this particular jet, save them for something that they will give some benefit in (although I'm not sure what that would be as even a RT 5500 70C only weighs 800 g).

These are the batteries I have to work with... I have 6 of them, and cannot afford more batteries at this time. Unless you feel like donating 4 of these lighter batteries😉. I get what your'e saying about dead weight, but what about the guys running sound systems in theirs? That's dead weight right there, eh? That sound system, with 2 35C 5000mah packs has got to be more heavy than what im running. All I keep reading about is that the A-10 doesn't care about the added weight. Who is correct here? 🤷♂️