You must Sign-in or Register to post messages in the Hobby Squawk community
Registration is FREE and only takes a few moments

Register now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wobisch View Post
    Can somebody tell me if it is really possible to fly the A-10 with two of these Admiral Carbon Lipo despite the heavier weight? Some say it is a good fit.

    I can tell you that those battrries are on the parts list on Motion RC's website for the A-10, so Motion RC believes you can fly with them. They are the same weight, (866 grams X 2 = 1732 grams), as the Rcjetwerx 5100 carbon packs previously mentioned. Motion RC lipo 5000 packs weigh 732 grams a piece X 2 = 1464 grams. Per the A-10 manual the birds weight without batteries is 4250 grams, thrust is 6600 grams. With a thrust to rate ratio of 1.3 to 1 weight is not your issue. Very few fighters have ever had better than 1 to 1 ratio in the full size jets. 5982 grams AUW with the 5100 carbon packs on board is still better than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio, the trick for you will be maintaining your CG with the added weight for the moment. With my two lipo CHNL 6s 6000mah 70c packs, side by side all the way back to the connection board I am still a little on the nose heavy side. I am debating creating a shelf over the top of the connection board to support the battery weight so that I am able to move the batteries further back for optimal CG towards the aft end of the limit for maneuverability, because when the gear swing up the CG shifts forward a wee bit. I know this was long but hope it helps. :Whew:

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Aros.MotionRC View Post

      Thanks Tom! The paint I used was Krylon Flat White and Krylon Flat Black. The yellow on the tails is Valspar Tractor and Implement "Transport Yellow". (I love that yellow as it is more of an orange yellow than a bright, canary yellow. I use it for any livery that has yellow accents and works perfect to paint warbird prop tips). I then hit it with Miniwax Polycrylic satin. The Arctic Thunder livery actually is on Callie's site...Check it out here.

      Note, I had Callie do a custom order for me because there's quite a bit of nomenclature and graphics missing from that set that I wanted added to mine (see the photo below). I referenced this sweet Mibo turbine version for mine... (try not to drool too hard, lol!!) Total came to 30 bucks. Well worth it!

      Click image for larger version Name:	Capture6.PNG Views:	1 Size:	573.5 KB ID:	82906

      I had to take several screen shots of that video above to get the camo pattern correct. There's no perfect top down, bottom up shots so it was as close as I could get it based on the views I had. If you would like the photos I referenced send me a PM with your email and I will be happy to email them to you!

      I noticed the no step is much too large as well, shot her an email and hopefully they are on the way soon! I also got a set for my L-39 where the scale was a size too large. She seems to be great about fixing the mix ups luckily!

      I am still looking for a full aircraft map of all the rest of the decals for this livery, having to piece it togeather through multiple photos

      Comment


      • Callie is above board...Always quick to fix any inaccuracies with a smile. :Cool:
        My YouTube RC videos:
        https://www.youtube.com/@toddbreda

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Phantom View Post
          Originally posted by Wobisch View Post
          Can somebody tell me if it is really possible to fly the A-10 with two of these Admiral Carbon Lipo despite the heavier weight? Some say it is a good fit.

          I can tell you that those battrries are on the parts list on Motion RC's website for the A-10, so Motion RC believes you can fly with them. They are the same weight, (866 grams X 2 = 1732 grams), as the Rcjetwerx 5100 carbon packs previously mentioned. Motion RC lipo 5000 packs weigh 732 grams a piece X 2 = 1464 grams. Per the A-10 manual the birds weight without batteries is 4250 grams, thrust is 6600 grams. With a thrust to rate ratio of 1.3 to 1 weight is not your issue. Very few fighters have ever had better than 1 to 1 ratio in the full size jets. 5982 grams AUW with the 5100 carbon packs on board is still better than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio, the trick for you will be maintaining your CG with the added weight for the moment. With my two lipo CHNL 6s 6000mah 70c packs, side by side all the way back to the connection board I am still a little on the nose heavy side. I am debating creating a shelf over the top of the connection board to support the battery weight so that I am able to move the batteries further back for optimal CG towards the aft end of the limit for maneuverability, because when the gear swing up the CG shifts forward a wee bit. I know this was long but hope it helps. :Whew:
          I fly mine with a pair of Turnigy Graphene 5000 packs that are ridiculously heavy. The A-10 is the only jet I have that doesn't mind the weight. 80mm. It's a tight fit but works.

          Comment


          • Looking for some advice on my 80mm A10. Aircraft is together now time to balance. My problem is very tail heavy. I didn’t do any mods to it and I have 2 4000mah and 2 4500mah packs. Gear down, right side up and using 78mm the book calls for. What am I doing wrong? Any help would be great.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tim_nelson9 View Post
              Looking for some advice on my 80mm A10. Aircraft is together now time to balance. My problem is very tail heavy. I didn’t do any mods to it and I have 2 4000mah and 2 4500mah packs. Gear down, right side up and using 78mm the book calls for. What am I doing wrong? Any help would be great.
              1. It's a low wing plane. It should be balanced inverted.
              2. The plane calls for 4000 to 6000 mah batteries, so 4000 and 4500 are on the low end. One battery should likely be almost over the nose tire and the other as far forward as need be.
              3. Try balancing with gear up. I do it that way because that's how the plane flies most of the time in the air, with gear up not with gear down.

              Comment


              • Xviper, in regards to Tim_nelson9's question;

                There is a possible problem with that advice of balancing the plane gear up, with respect to the A-10. The A-10's gear travels forward during retraction, so the true CG with the gear down will be aft of the recommended CG window from the manufacturer if you set your CG with the gear up. When you drop the gear the CG will move aft, combined with takeoff flaps this may result of an early rotation during takeoff or even a over rotation when up elevator is applied during takeoff. Depending on the pilot's skill level the aircraft might be uncontrollable if it is in fact a maiden and trimming/throws and expo haven't been dialed in yet. The other consideration is during landings. Most airplane's have a ballooning effect, or a pitch nose up attitude when configuring flaps for landing, due to the center of pressure or lift vector moving aft on the wing as the camber changes, which I am sure you are already aware of but Tim_nelson9 might not be. With the CG outside the aft limit due to the balancing wheels up, if you were to throw in a stiff breeze or 90° crosswind, to the less experienced among us it can make for a hairy landing at best. With no wind, you might find yourself coming in to land with a higher AOA than you'd like and have to throttle up to keep the nose down, thereby inviting VMCA and a nasty departure from controlled flight, low and slow. After lighting the burners for a go around, (I know the A-10's didn't have them lol), and using rudder to keep the wings level, (ailerons might cause a wing tip stall if used in this area of reverse command), you'd be resigned to making a no flap landing while keeping the speed up, to get her down. She's a heavy bird that carries her energy well, even after touchdowns due to the wheel bearings in the wheels. You would need plenty of runway, and preferably a grass run off to come out of that scenario unscathed, save for a heart pounding like crazy. Not trying to one up anyone here, but as you might have guessed, I am a big proponent of proper CG, and we should definitely place our best foot forward when issuing advice... just my 2 cents.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tim_nelson9 View Post
                  Looking for some advice on my 80mm A10. Aircraft is together now time to balance. My problem is very tail heavy. I didn’t do any mods to it and I have 2 4000mah and 2 4500mah packs. Gear down, right side up and using 78mm the book calls for. What am I doing wrong? Any help would be great.
                  Even though the book calls for 78mm on the CG, it actually flies better at 86mm. If you are behind that, move the batteries as far forward as possible, or think about getting some bigger packs. I fly mine with RoaringTop 5800 35Cs, and just this past weekend I moved up to 6250 35Cs. Flies great on both sets of packs.
                  Pat

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Phantom View Post
                    Xviper, in regards to Tim_nelson9's question;

                    There is a possible problem with that advice of balancing the plane gear up, with respect to the A-10. The A-10's gear travels forward during retraction, so the true CG with the gear down will be aft of the recommended CG window from the manufacturer if you set your CG with the gear up. When you drop the gear the CG will move aft, combined with takeoff flaps this may result of an early rotation during takeoff or even a over rotation when up elevator is applied during takeoff. Depending on the pilot's skill level the aircraft might be uncontrollable if it is in fact a maiden and trimming/throws and expo haven't been dialed in yet. The other consideration is during landings. Most airplane's have a ballooning effect, or a pitch nose up attitude when configuring flaps for landing, due to the center of pressure or lift vector moving aft on the wing as the camber changes, which I am sure you are already aware of but Tim_nelson9 might not be. With the CG outside the aft limit due to the balancing wheels up, if you were to throw in a stiff breeze or 90° crosswind, to the less experienced among us it can make for a hairy landing at best. With no wind, you might find yourself coming in to land with a higher AOA than you'd like and have to throttle up to keep the nose down, thereby inviting VMCA and a nasty departure from controlled flight, low and slow. After lighting the burners for a go around, (I know the A-10's didn't have them lol), and using rudder to keep the wings level, (ailerons might cause a wing tip stall if used in this area of reverse command), you'd be resigned to making a no flap landing while keeping the speed up, to get her down. She's a heavy bird that carries her energy well, even after touchdowns due to the wheel bearings in the wheels. You would need plenty of runway, and preferably a grass run off to come out of that scenario unscathed, save for a heart pounding like crazy. Not trying to one up anyone here, but as you might have guessed, I am a big proponent of proper CG, and we should definitely place our best foot forward when issuing advice... just my 2 cents.
                    I can tell you that there will not be a problem. I've balanced mine this way and it takes off and lands and flies just great. This thing can weigh in at nearly 14 lbs when all the batteries are in. That slight bit of change due to the retracts being down or up is really nothing. My logic is that I want the plane to be balanced just right during the bulk of it's flight. When taking off and landing, it's all "hands on" and the plane must be controlled more so than when just flying around, where you might like to be able to have moments of "hands off" flying and controllable handling when inverted. With my A-10, there is no nasty departure of controlled flight, ever. Of course, there are those guys who fly most of their flights with the retracts hanging down because for some reason, their brains haven't quite registered that the gear should go up once the plane leaves the ground. For those, then sure, balance it gear down if it makes for less butt clenching.
                    As for being a proponent of proper CG, keep in mind that these are models and any published CG is purely a recommendation for where to start. Of the 150 planes I've had, not a single one was ever unforgiving if the CG was varied by 10mm. My so called "advice" is based on experience and not by some aeronautic engineering degree that has been transferred by osmosis from the real thing to little models, so I guess my words don't mean anything.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tim_nelson9 View Post
                      Looking for some advice on my 80mm A10. Aircraft is together now time to balance. My problem is very tail heavy. I didn’t do any mods to it and I have 2 4000mah and 2 4500mah packs. Gear down, right side up and using 78mm the book calls for. What am I doing wrong? Any help would be great.
                      Don't know if these pics will help you, and I know we all have our opinions on the CG, thought I would show you how I measured mine with the gear down, measure back from the leading edge, 80mm is between the two tabs where the inner bombs slide on, that pencil mark is 80mm and my 5000 45c sitting right where they are in the pic. I tried 85mm and it just didn't feel right on approach for me, 80mm is fine, 85mm is fine too, anyway it is a safe CG for your maiden, mine has many flights on it now, lost track actually and it's all stock as it came out of the box. I know you have smaller batteries you said but seems like if moved them all the way forward you might get the 85mm at least?
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • Crxmanpat,

                        I haven't put enough flights on my A-10 to feel like I've dialed in my optimal CG yet, still a work in progress. Your experience flying it nose heavy apart from the manufacturer's recommended CG maybe a personal preference or may lead to prove that the manufacturer's recommended CG is not correct.

                        BREAK;

                        Xviper,

                        I definitely wasn't trying to stir up a hornet's nest with you by any stretch of the imagination. Having read Crxmanpat's experience flying his bird forward of the recommended CG successfully, in contrast to the manufacturer's setting, reminds me to take that setting "with a grain of salt". I've only been doing this hobby for about 9 years, judging by your reply sounds like you've been in the game for longer, and no doubt have a significant amount of stick time in the RC world than I do. My day job is a pilot and has been for the last 17 years, unlike most of my colleagues, I've opted to fly multiple airframes both rotary and fixed wing. Not because I am Chuck Yeager, but because I have a genuine curiosity for aerodynamics that seems neverending. Most of my fellow pilots are satisfied with learning one platform for the duration of their careers and "cruising" on that to retirement. My affliction, meaning my love affair with aerodynamics and theory of flight, lead me to this hobby when the real thing couldn't fulfill all the burning questions in my head! :)

                        I was certainly not calling into question your experience or RC expertise, merely throwing out a cautionary reply, so that someone reading these threads, who might be on the inexperienced side of the sticks, meaning slightly new to the hobby, doesn't lose an expensive bird because he isn't taking our advice as fact instead of as an opinion, which is what our advice is. An opinion based on our own experiences, that if taken literally might ruin someone's day at the airfield. Granted the person recieving said advice has an inherent responsibility in applying the information given freely here. I'd like to apologize to you if I ruffled your feathers somewhat, know that it wasn't intentional and that I was merely trying to be helpful.
                        All of my experience has been gained from reading books, and listening to my proprioceptive system whilst sitting in cockpits. I have no aeronautical engineering degree, nor any university degree period. The Army however is very keen on the amount of knowledge a pilot should obtain from flight school before operating one of their airframes. Something about not having ejection seats :) The Airforce guys should get that joke. Anyway I thought you'd get a kick at knowing my education level is that of a high school level. I hope this message mends any ill feelings between us, and know that I will keep in mind the light spirit in which these threads are created for. Look forward to conversing with you in the future my friend:Cool:

                        Comment


                        • Book smarts is a beautiful thing. Like advanced education, it can get you places that one cannot reach without it. However, I am reminded time and time again when I do something that doesn't quite go with the grain of book smarts, I am confounded as to "what just happened" and I've learned that sometimes, take things as they are because there are always factors that we cannot account for that play towards throwing a wrench into the works.

                          Comment


                          • Truer words have never been spoken, I am reminded of how NASA has refined its lift equation over the years, its "theory" of lift equation I should say. In recent years they have also completely changed their recommendations on how to deal with and make corrections for tail plane icing that were once apon a time viewed as LAW. In short we are always learning and what is factually scientific today might prove to be incorrect in the future. I appreciate the banter. Curious about where you balance your CG on this bird, do you use a specific panel line or a measurement in mm?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Phantom View Post
                              Crxmanpat,

                              I haven't put enough flights on my A-10 to feel like I've dialed in my optimal CG yet, still a work in progress. Your experience flying it nose heavy apart from the manufacturer's recommended CG maybe a personal preference or may lead to prove that the manufacturer's recommended CG is not correct.
                              Actually, having moved the CG back from 78mm to 86mm puts more weight towards the tail, not towards the nose. I felt that at 78mm it was slightly nose heavy and was harder to hold the nose up during the landing approach. With it back to 86mm, it holds the nose up much better and lands easier.

                              Pat

                              Comment


                              • I started with the CG as was recommended by a couple of the veteran A-10 flyers in this thread. I can't remember exactly what it is but it's not what's in the manual. Of the over 40 active planes I have currently, I forget numbers and mark the wings with auto pin striping tape. However, once I marked the CG on the plane's wings, I balanced it the first time with a set of Gens Ace 5000's. After that, I started to use different batteries of different brands of different weights. In total, I use Admiral 5000's and HobbyKing Heavy Duty and for each I just eyeball it when I strap them in since I know that the lightest were the Gens, then came the Admirals, with the HD being the heaviest. After one such flight (uneventful), I thought to hold the plane on the CG points just to see what it looked like. I was astonished that it was much more nose heavy than it was, yet once trimmed, the A-10 flew just like it did the previously flight. This is one very forgiving model with respect to where the batteries go.
                                The only time I had an issue was user error. I didn't hear the time expired tone and kept flying the plane about 4 more minutes. It ran out of power and my dead stick turn around to come in for the landing didn't quite make it. I repaired it and it flies just as good as ever. In fact, we have an odd saying at the field where I flew. "They seem to fly so much better AFTER a crash and repair." Go figure.

                                Comment


                                • Crxmanpat,

                                  Appreciate the correction, aft CG as opposed to my forward CG comment, I had to go back and review what I had typed lol

                                  Comment


                                  • Xviper,

                                    Appreciate the info. I have the FW F-86 that has more flights than I can remember, including one crash and repair. The crash was my fault as I took off with the FM antenna on my radio, (Its one of two planes I have still flying off FM 72, vs 2.4) was still retracted, as I had forgotten to extend it on my preflight. I was about 2 minutes into the flight with no reception issues mind you, and rather than land and extend the antenna, I was so comfortable with this bird I attempted to extend the antenna in flight. It didn't end well. The repair did allow me to mod the esc's position to bring it flush with the battery area under the hatch and drop the esc further into the airflow. Which in turn allowed me to use 6000 mah batteries in this bird. I now use 2650 x2 - 6000 mah batteries in it and have all the different battery positions marked just under the canopy for quick reference. I was being much more cautious about battery placement my A-10 but between you and Crxmanpat comments, it seems that the A-10 is so forgiving, I should "let my hair down" a bit. I attached a pic of the inside of my F-86 markings in case, I wasn't successfully clear in my description.
                                    Attached Files

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Phantom View Post
                                      Xviper,

                                      Appreciate the info. I have the FW F-86 that has more flights than I can remember, including one crash and repair. The crash was my fault as I took off with the FM antenna on my radio, (Its one of two planes I have still flying off FM 72, vs 2.4) was still retracted, as I had forgotten to extend it on my preflight. I was about 2 minutes into the flight with no reception issues mind you, and rather than land and extend the antenna, I was so comfortable with this bird I attempted to extend the antenna in flight. It didn't end well. The repair did allow me to mod the esc's position to bring it flush with the battery area under the hatch and drop the esc further into the airflow. Which in turn allowed me to use 6000 mah batteries in this bird. I now use 2650 x2 - 6000 mah batteries in it and have all the different battery positions marked just under the canopy for quick reference. I was being much more cautious about battery placement my A-10 but between you and Crxmanpat comments, it seems that the A-10 is so forgiving, I should "let my hair down" a bit. I attached a pic of the inside of my F-86 markings in case, I wasn't successfully clear in my description.
                                      Yup, some of my planes have markings on the battery tray just like yours. I was going to get that F-86 myself, but after seeing a flying buddy struggle with his on our lumpy, bumpy grass gopher field, I decided against it. He even put in an inrunner system with more grunt and the plane barely got off the ground before reaching the end of the runway. I tell ya, bumpy grass fields with gopher holes brings out the best and the worst in any plane. The A-10 does really well in those conditions until the day came when I ran a main gear into a gopher hole on landing. Then there's the mounds of dirt the gophers leave when they dig their holes. :Angry:

                                      Comment


                                      • Sorry to hear about the old hole in one with the nose gear. I currently fly off an aircraft carrier lol The flying field that I'm flying off of has lumpy asphalt, with cracks in places that would swallow even my nitro planes main gear, 4 inch diameter! The other hazard I face from the landing surface are drainage grates, it's an old abandoned parking lot that the local Koreans use for there runway. The reason I call it the aircraft carrier is because on three sides you have a sheer drop off down to the rice paddies, 30 graduating to 60 feet. So if you don't make the runway you get the wall, but it helps to hone your flying skills. If I have to dead stick a bird, forget the pattern and sometimes the wind direction, paramount is head toward the runway first then worry about how to bring her down in one piece lol. There is also a dry lakebed that they use here but it's a 3 hour round trip, so I haven't tried that one yet, I think I will for the FW F-15 and the LX F-4 maidens.

                                        Comment


                                        • Two years ago I started working on a powder cannon for my A-10 and while I have largely set it aside out of frustration for other projects I finally got around to trying something new. I think it is ready for some more air trials next.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X