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

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.!

[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

[themudduck]

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.

I' haven't posted about this yet but indeed, I've had the same problem - the tire rubs on the door when the suspension is depressed and I have ruined two tires so far. It grinds them right down, and quickly!
First time I noticed it I was like, "what the hell is wrong with the nose wheel, half the tire is missing!" LOL I am tempted to just put the stock NG back on. The only reason I'm using the trailing link is that I think it looks better.

[rlcamden]

I' haven't posted about this yet but indeed, I've had the same problem - the tire rubs on the door when the suspension is depressed and I have ruined two tires so far. It grinds them right down, and quickly!
First time I noticed it I was like, "what the hell is wrong with the nose wheel, half the tire is missing!" LOL I am tempted to just put the stock NG back on. The only reason I'm using the trailing link is that I think it looks better.

I cut a small section from a BIC plastic ink pen tube to limit the travel to where the wheel just cleared the door under full compression. Worked good, but I eventual went back with the stock Oleo strut.

[Bazza]

has anyone else received their A-10 and found all the control surfaces loose on one end, I will not fly this plane as it is so bad it is bound to have the control surfaces go into a mad flutter and cause the loss of the plane, I cannot see any way of repairing it as there is zero room to even trickle some glue down into the hinge holes in the wings and horizontal stabs every one is sloppy but strangely only at one end of each control, but the rudders are fine. The port side aileron is the worst, I have submitted a video to Motion RC as the seller has basically ignored my requests for assistance. I just tried uploading the video here but it said I cannot upload a file ending with mp4

[Abwagner121]

I have had that exact problem with not only the original plane but also with the replacement wings as well. I've reglued the hinges by putting foam safe CA into a syringe to get the glue into the areas that need to be glued. Has worked great.

[salali]

Unfortunate Carnage!

After 3 great and fun flights, I had a nasty crash while trying to take off. I had a good roll out and gained speed as normal. After I lifted off, the plane quickly bounced back to the ground. In hindsight, I should have aborted but I pulled up. I felt like I had positive lift and was gaining altitude. This was likely due to the 3mm up trim in the elevator at neutral to keep the nose up. Suddenly, the plane crashed down violently after I pulled up for more altitude.

After reviewing the video, the likely cause was due to the right elevator staying in neutral. After the crash, I tested all control surfaces and both elevators are working normally. I'm curious if anyone else has experienced this?

The wing box section, fuse, and front retract and nose area broke. All three retract servos along w/ gear pins snapped as well. The wing and rear tail area survived.

Good news, I can glue everything back together. I plan on using foam tac (Beacon) to glue everything back together rather than CA.

Any advice or recommendation on repairing will be appreciated.

[Bazza]

I have had that exact problem with not only the original plane but also with the replacement wings as well. I've reglued the hinges by putting foam safe CA into a syringe to get the glue into the areas that need to be glued. Has worked great.

Aghh thank you very much, I was quite worried about what to do as the Chinese seller has refused to talk to me

[Warthog]

What is the heaviest weight one of these can fly?

[Elbee]

What is the heaviest weight one of these can fly?

WH, Don't know the absolute limit, though I recall RCjetdude's A-10 was just above 14 lbs with all his mods. Best, LB

[GliderGuy]

What is the heaviest weight one of these can fly?

Hi WH...It depends upon many factors such as:

• How long is your runway? Heavy will take a longer runway.
• How smooth is your runway (broken gear from stress on rough surfaces)?
• The type of runway surface (dirt, hard pavement, grass)
• Are you planning on doing any aerobatics. Heavy weight will decrease the ability to do aerobatics due to the increased airframe stress...something may break.
• What flight times are you shooting for (heavy weight = higher throttle setting = shorter flights)
• Can you add the weight and not stray too far from the suggested CG?
• How good are you at landing EVERY time? A hard landing at a heavy weight = broken gear
• Are you willing to accept the difference in handling the added weight might cause? Greater mass will equate to a slower response to control input due to the inertia of the system.

Interesting note:
Some full scale sailplanes have a tremendously wide weight range. Going from a take-off weight of 600 pounds to over 1300 pounds (or more) with added water ballast (to improve the glide ratio at a given high speed). But, the pilots must accept a lot of the above AND they dump the water before landing to avoid breaking the landing gear. See photo below...dumping water prior to landing. Yes, the added weight does have an impact on the climb rate in thermals, but the added boost to the glide ratio at a given high speed overcomes this slight decrease in climb rate when the thermals are strong.

Example: L/D (glide ratio) at 100 mph at 600 pounds might be 35/1. L/D at 100 mph at 1300 pounds might be 50/1...a huge difference with wing loading going from 6.5 lbs/square foot no water to over 10 pounds/square foot with water ballast.

Learn more about how weight impacts glide performance (one such article...there are many!)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-d...61603872063488


-GG