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

[Shogun]

Goodluck Jim! Watch your speed on landings, and hopefully you will avoid the bronco

Thanks--Im accustomed to landing with full flaps so I have those dialed in (although not 90 degrees, lol). Partial flaps for take-off.

Jim

[crxmanpat]

Cool. looks very slick in all silver :Smug:

And I have to say, the scale fidelity of the Maverick is top notch. The scale launch rails really set this thing off!

[xviper]

BINGO--that's how we balanced the Freewing F-86. The battery needed to go back further than the manual indicated--most of us dropped the esc lower and slid the battery back. It was balanced when you pushed the tail just so the skid below the nozzle barely touched the ground and just needed the slightest touch to go back on its nose. Obviously the airframe is quite different from the F-86 but I mentioned it because at least one other poster says he is doing it (but no one else, lol)

Tail Sit Test from Hondajet (post 5530)

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...9#post36909946

Jim

OK, I see it now. It's still an odd way to do it. That method is so dependant upon the model and exactly where the main gear is attached and where the tire contact point is. Whether you have the stock gear on the A-10 or if you have them turned backwards as some have done or if you've installed Oleo's, that method may not apply.

[themudduck]

Thanks--Im accustomed to landing with full flaps so I have those dialed in (although not 90 degrees, lol). Partial flaps for take-off.

Jim

I trimmed the back of the nacelles to get a little extra flap extension - I find that full flaps really helps a lot to slow the Hog down. It doesn't affect the trim - so if you like using full flaps I would definitely recommend it. Just remember that you don't dead-stick this plane on final, you do have to ride it in with just a little power like just about all EDFs.

[Shogun]

OK, I see it now. It's still an odd way to do it. That method is so dependent upon the model and exactly where the main gear is attached and where the tire contact point is. Whether you have the stock gear on the A-10 or if you have them turned backwards as some have done or if you've installed Oleo's, that method may not apply.

Agreed--There are so many variations of cg reported on this thread it may be that its not all that important on this particular plane as long as you say within that 76-86mm range. Landing speed and not coming down with the nose gear first seem to be the overwhelming factor contributing to success or failure on landing (as is with all the rc planes Ive flown). In the case of the f-86 it was pretty much universally agreed from the start that the cg in the manual was way off and the tail tip method was the way to go on THAT one model.

JIm

[RCAV8R]

Agreed--There are so many variations of cg reported on this thread it may be that its not all that important on this particular plane as long as you say within that 76-86mm range. Landing speed and not coming down with the nose gear first seem to be the overwhelming factor contributing to success or failure on landing (as is with all the rc planes Ive flown). In the case of the f-86 it was pretty much universally agreed from the start that the cg in the manual was way off and the tail tip method was the way to go on THAT one model.

JIm

Hey Jim,

I don't think you can go very wrong, but I refer you to post 8485. I have become a believer in moving more forward than aft. I flew with Admiral 5000's so I can't relate to your batteries, but I was having a lot of trouble until I moved the batteries forward. Also I have the upgraded mains with stock NG, and I fly on asphalt. Others have not experienced this, so just an FYI. Rob

[DCORSAIR]

Hey Jim,

I don't think you can go very wrong, but I refer you to post 8485. I have become a believer in moving more forward than aft. I flew with Admiral 5000's so I can't relate to your batteries, but I was having a lot of trouble until I moved the batteries forward. Also I have the upgraded mains with stock NG, and I fly on asphalt. Others have not experienced this, so just an FYI. Rob

I agree with Rob, keep the CG forward some, I wouldn't go past 80mm-83mm, this way you won't get that floaty feeling on approach and plop it down, forward CG will give you a nice decent rate followed by a nice flare on the mains, believe me I have done power on approaches and no power approaches and tried all CG ranges possible, it lands better with a forward CG, I'm still running the stock mains and nose gear.:Cool:

[Dirty Dee]

Ive been flying my A-10 with a CG of 80mm the past 6 flights, and I agree that it feels more solid on landing approach as well as the touchdowns. As most people have mentioned, keeping a bit of throttle on landing is key, and holding that nose up.

Here is a video from one of my flights today. Listening to the fans gives an idea of what throttle I brought it in. was pretty windy so I kept with 1/2 flaps.

It was ~92 degrees with very high humidity. You can see I'm the only one out in the sun while everyone was in the shade LOL

[Shogun]

Hi folks

I successfully maidened my A-10 at the club field this morning. Main gear is still the TL, and nose gear is upgraded to TL as well.

My first flight was with Admiral (new style) 4500 mah batteries and no ordinance. Front battery placed so its tail end was even with the "battery shelf" (where it drops toward the 2nd battery position), and the second battery was about 5mm from being butt up against the 1st battery "shelf". I set the timer for 2 mins 30 sec to be safe. Take off was smooth and nose tracking was good (rates were 60% aileron, 90% elevator, 85% rudder). I waited to rotate until she looked light on her nose and she went up nicely (half flaps). I keep throttle mostly at 50% with a few bumps to 75%. The landing was as good as I could hope for. Full flaps with very little throttle and some up elevator I let her coast down until just before the mains touched I gave just a little "goose" on the throttle and let up the elevator--she set down nice and soft. The timer at touchdown was 2:30. Checking the batteries they were all at 3.82 per cell, so I know at least I had enough to go around again if needed.

The second flight was with Roaring Top 5000mah (45c) and full ordinance. The second battery was placed up against the first battery's "shelf" so the two were end to end with no gap. Take off was a repeat of the first flight. I could feel some difference in the sticks but not sure if it was the heavier batteries or the ordinance or both (next flight will be 5000's with no ordinance). Timer was set for 3:30. My landing was ok but not as good as the first. I came in a little higher on approach and set down a bit further down the runway. One slight nose hop but still a very soft landing. The batteries came down all at 3.91v per cell--so extra flight time is there. On both flights she could slow to a crawl with flaps so I could tell an equally slow landing was possible. I estimated cg with finger tips and Im guessing it was between 80 and 85 mm.

Im very happy. I walked away with the same number of pieces that I started with :)

Jim

[RCjetdude]

Welcome to the A-10 Jockey club Jim! :)

[janmb]

Ive been flying my A-10 with a CG of 80mm the past 6 flights, and I agree that it feels more solid on landing approach as well as the touchdowns. As most people have mentioned, keeping a bit of throttle on landing is key, and holding that nose up.

I prefer my models to be fairly neutral - in other words ,it should be willing to maintain attitude on final *without* holding a lot of elevator. The model should *want* this attitude, not having to be coerced.

In the opposite case, where a more or less nose heavy setup forces a significant amount of elevator on landing, this becomes highly speed dependent, and encourages elevator controlled descent - which is overall a bad thing. It also increases the frequency of botched landings.

In the end of the day, people should do what works. But it is also a good idea to remember that what feels natural and comfortable at first, may in fact not be the best technique. Everyone who has gone into a new sport or similar has probably had that experience. Correct technique pretty much never feels natural to newcomers.

[Jimrc73]

Hi all

Im going to maiden my A-10 tomorrow at our club field (paved). I feel good about everything so far except cg. Ive heard everything from 76mm to 90mm. I’ll be flying with Roaring Top 6s 5000mah’s and Admiral 6s 4500mah’s (new style) for now. Is there a concensus on cg or should I be ok anywhere between 80-86mm? I heard one guy on here or the other group who balances his A-10 on its tail so it sits there just barely when tipping it back with batteries installed, (like a lot of us did on the 80mm FW F-86), but thats seems wrong to me for this plane.

thanks

(nervous) Jim

Hi Jim:

I balanced mine at 82mm and she flew nearly perfect (1 click of trim up elevator on maiden). Good luck!

Regards,
Jim

[DCORSAIR]

I prefer my models to be fairly neutral - in other words ,it should be willing to maintain attitude on final *without* holding a lot of elevator. The model should *want* this attitude, not having to be coerced.

In the opposite case, where a more or less nose heavy setup forces a significant amount of elevator on landing, this becomes highly speed dependent, and encourages elevator controlled descent - which is overall a bad thing. It also increases the frequency of botched landings.

In the end of the day, people should do what works. But it is also a good idea to remember that what feels natural and comfortable at first, may in fact not be the best technique. Everyone who has gone into a new sport or similar has probably had that experience. Correct technique pretty much never feels natural to newcomers.

I don't care what the rules about flying a so called neutral plane, mine are nose heavy and that is the way I like em......:)

I fly my FW A-10 at the forward CG range so when you pull power, the old hog will drop the nose and head for the runway, just did it this morning, last flight of the morning and pulled power all the way off, coasted right in for a nice greaser, no throttle what so ever, if I didn't have it nose heavy it would just float in and stall, I do fly it in with power most of the time but man it will do those coaster landings with ease. Not trying to argue your point, just saying what I like versus the neutral way......:Cool:

[brrzee]

Need input/help pleeeease..Bought 2 Turnigy 5000mah 60 c batteries...cant get them to fit in battery bays to properly balance plane. Anyone have these batteries and if so how did u set them up

Thanks

[fhhuber]

Need input/help pleeeease..Bought 2 Turnigy 5000mah 60 c batteries...cant get them to fit in battery bays to properly balance plane. Anyone have these batteries and if so how did u set them up

Thanks

Unfortunately someone can have packs that say they are the same thing on the label, but have different dimensions. There is no standardization of LiPo dimensions, even from one production run to the next from one manufacturer.

LiPo technology is ever-changing and the cell size changes as they seek more capacity and current capability from lighter cells.

The closest (so far) to a standard shape pack has been the long series of 3S appx 1800 to 2200 mah (which have kept same proportions but slowly shrinking size while increasing capacity and C rating) or the special hard shell packs for RC cars which have to fit a specific space in the cars (defined by the old 6 cell Sub-C NiCd packs) which have been steadily increasing capacity and C rating.

*****************

See if you can shave a little foam without compromising the aircraft structure so you can move the packs where you want them.
I've carved a LOT of foam in a lot of models to accommodate the LiPos' changing shapes. Because I've done the carving I now generally need to add foam padding to keep the LiPos from moving (lipos getting smaller and I already cut the spaces for the older, larger, lower capacity packs)

[Dirty Dee]

Need input/help pleeeease..Bought 2 Turnigy 5000mah 60 c batteries...cant get them to fit in battery bays to properly balance plane. Anyone have these batteries and if so how did u set them up

Thanks

do you have a picture of you batteries in the bay? is it too nose heavy, or too tail heavy?

[brrzee]

Nose heavy

[xviper]

Need input/help pleeeease..Bought 2 Turnigy 5000mah 60 c batteries...cant get them to fit in battery bays to properly balance plane. Anyone have these batteries and if so how did u set them up

Thanks

I use 2 Turnigy Heavy Duty 5000’s batteries in mine. I unscrewed that control board and shoved it and the wiring as far back as possible into the rear of the compartment. The one battery goes as far back as possible against the board and wiring. I think I had to relocate one of the battery straps to make it work. The second battery goes on the front tray with most of it aft of that strap. It balances quite well that way. I’m using the altered CG (more aft) as recommended by many of the posters here.
When I’m more inclined to do aerobatics, I will install another strap in a better location to secure the front battery. For scale and sedate flying this set up works fine.

[janmb]

I don't care what the rules about flying a so called neutral plane, mine are nose heavy and that is the way I like em......:)

I fly my FW A-10 at the forward CG range so when you pull power, the old hog will drop the nose and head for the runway, just did it this morning, last flight of the morning and pulled power all the way off, coasted right in for a nice greaser, no throttle what so ever, if I didn't have it nose heavy it would just float in and stall, I do fly it in with power most of the time but man it will do those coaster landings with ease. Not trying to argue your point, just saying what I like versus the neutral way......:Cool:

As I wrote, you are definitely more than welcome to fly your models in any way you see fit and prefer - as is everyone else.

All I am trying to achieve here is for pilots in general to stop and ask themselves one extra time "could I do this in a better way?". And the answer to that question could still be a yes even if you just had the best greaser ever :D

[janmb]

Need input/help pleeeease..Bought 2 Turnigy 5000mah 60 c batteries...cant get them to fit in battery bays to properly balance plane. Anyone have these batteries and if so how did u set them up

Thanks

Have you tried stacking both batteries in the aft position? That's what I did with my revo 5800 packs.