Suggestions for Sport Pattern 40 - 60 size plane
Paul Horan
phoran at vvm.com
Wed Oct 20 08:18:57 AKDT 2004
George,
Your description of the Javalin has me interested and I think I may very well buy one.
My main problem is that I should have said a throw away plane rather than knock around. The Twist definitely qualifies as as
throw away, maybe too much so. I expect I will tire of it quickly. BUT it would be OK for fun flies. Actually I would prefer
something that locks on a little better but still in the throw away class of toy airplane. Any ideas ? Besides fun flies I would
use it when I am too busy instructing or helping others to mess with a actual pattern plane, this way I don't totally forget what
those sticks do.
My pattern plane now is a Meridian with a YS 91 AC. It flies well but is too heavy, landing are warp 7 or better, if I do slow
it down and there is a cross wind it gets nasty. Speed it up a LITTLE with the cross wind and it is off the end of the runway. It
is a lead sled. The weight is also a problem on the half square half roll in Intermediate. The answer is not more power but
another plane. It was OK for Sportsman but will not cut it for Intermediate.
This thread stresses serious practice, I expect the Javalin II or Excelleron 90 would satisfy serious practice and also be
satisfactory for contests, they may be better than the Meridian.
One question of the Javalin, many of todays planes are set up for a 4 cycle. When a 2 cycle is mounted they become tail heavy.
Did you have this type of problem ?
Thanks,
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Sport Pattern 40 - 60 size plane
> Paul,
> I think what may possibly happen with that approach is that you may acquire the Twist and then say, "Hmmm, this is not doing
> exactly
> what I want, I think I'll try that Javelin afterall". Save yourself the cost of buying something that initially sounds less
> expensive,
> but in the end will set you back 100 bucks. The popularity of the Twist was phenominal when first introduced, but the thrill is
> now
> wearing thin in my neck of the woods.I don't see anybody crashing a Twist and then going out and buying a replacement Twist, they
> seem
> to be speculating about the virtues of the Funtana or the XX-50 or whatever the current craze is at the local field. The quest for
> that
> elusive perfect sport offering is a never ending search. I'm not saying that the Javelin is the perfect plane either, but when I
> crash
> number 2, I can guarantee there will be a number 3. It's that good IMHO.
> Oh, it doesn't require much down stick inverted and as I stated in one of my earlier posts, the C.G. markings are located right on
> the
> surface of the wing covering and are right on the money. Any airplane that I build, I draw out a scale planform of the wing and do
> my
> own calculations of where I want the C.G. to be. Never trust that the manufacturer has indicated the proper location. I built a
> Saphir a
> few years back and placed all of the components in the exact locations called out on the plans and when I checked the C.G. it came
> out
> exactly where the plan indicated it should be, however when I took it to the field to fly and tried to pull out of the first
> humpty my
> heart jumped to my throat as the pullout was inches from the ground. Needlessly to say I immediately landed and went home and drew
> out
> the wing and determined that the C.G. indicated on the plan was a full 2 inches ahead of where it should have been. Now if someone
> was
> to relate this experience to me I would have a hard time believing that any production unit could be that far off, but I moved all
> the
> servos back about 6 inches and the pack about 14 and the beast was tamed. I still have it BTW and it still flies nicely.
> No reason why you couldn't bolt on the wing of the Jav and chuck it in the back of the van, just take it off periodically and
> check that
> all internals are holding up as prescribed.
> I'd like to know how you finally decide on this and wish you the best in your decision and I promise not to say "I told you so".
> Georgie
>
>
> Paul Horan wrote:
>
>> George,
>> The Javalin II does sound interesting.
>> I checked on the RCU review and it shows a one piece wing - nice. The construction looks pretty simple and straight forward.
>> I
>> am still considering getting a 3D as a knockaround, the H9 Twist sound good. But, the Javalin II sounds good too. I'm having
>> trouble making up my mind. In favor of the Twist is I can toss it in the back of the van with the wing on - no setup just fly.
>> If
>> it goes in - no heartache there. It also works well for fun flys.
>> I am currently flying a Meridian and have just gotten booted up from Sportsman to Intermediate. I expect to be a cellar
>> dweller
>> for quite a while BUT do not want a plane that has so many quirks that I learn bad habits while practicing Intermediate. By bad
>> habits I mean fighting a plane that does no groove (lock in on pitch and roll). I've been there and done that - its not practice
>> just massive frustration and learning bad habits.
>> Back to the Javalin, how durable is it ? How much push is necessary for inverted, this is usually a matter of preference
>> depending on how far the CG is moved back. What CG are you flying at ? Any other info ?
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "George Kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 4:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Sport Pattern 40 - 60 size plane
>>
>> > There's no way that you would ever confuse the Javelin with a 3D airplane,
>> > although you can get it to snap very nicely on low rates for things like the
>> > avalanches and 45 downline snaps and FAI humpties thus eliminating the need for
>> > switching. Nice package. Go to Cermark's site Ed. Tell 'em you want it for $ a
>> > buck and a half and they'll probably go for it. That's what I paid back in the
>> > spring. It's probably the quickest build out there and the results are as good
>> > as or better than anything in the class.
>> > A friend of mine, who is relatively new to pattern, bought one on my
>> > recommendation and immediately stripped it because he was not thrilled with the
>> > colors and recovered it in blue and yellow and I was convinced that he had
>> > probably wrecked it, but he recently let me try it and it was immediate comfort
>> > on his sticks. It flew every bit as nicely as mine( and I wrestled with the
>> > thought that it might be even better).I'm a little frustrated with the fact that
>> > I can't get guys to try this thing. Guys want to buy a knock-around beast that
>> > they have to fight through every maneuver instead of something that flies with
>> > the precision of a much larger bird and on top of that they end up paying just
>> > as much or more.............Jeeeeesshh!
>> > I feel like "WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH THESE GUYS ?", .....If you get one and you
>> > don't like it, take it to an auction and sell it for almost as much as you paid
>> > for it! You ain't gonna do that with a 3D plane. Those auction people love
>> > pattern planes.
>> > O.K., O.K. .......I'm done.
>> > G.
>> >
>> > Wade Akle wrote:
>> >
>> >> I looked at the Javelin 2 at NESail.com . Is this the same one? it looks
>> >> more like 3D rather than a pattern?
>> >> Wade
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Paul Horan" <phoran at vvm.com>
>> >> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> >> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:13 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Sport Pattern 40 - 60 size plane
>> >>
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Thanks for the info.
>> >> > So far the candidates for knock around sport pattern are:
>> >> > * Venus, possibly some QC problems but most have worked well and fly
>> >> > well.
>> >> > * Javalin II, sounds good but who carries it and how much.
>> >> > * Excelleron 50 & 90, also sounds good but a bit on the expensive side for
>> >> > a knock around.
>> >> > * Swallow, Yes Chuck you kicked my butt with this. I'm not sure it fits
>> >> > as a sport knock around.
>> >> > * Wideboby 40, I'm not sure about this. Haven't seen one yet. Does it
>> >> > fit as a knock around plane.
>> >> >
>> >> > What I am looking for is something that is
>> >> > *relatively inexpensive (< 200),
>> >> > *takes a 40 - 60 2 stroke,
>> >> > *is pretty sturdy (or replacement parts are available),
>> >> > *flys well enough that casual Intermediate pattern practice will not teach
>> >> > me bad habits or cause me to spend most of my attention on fighting the
>> >> > plane rather than working the manuevers.
>> >> > * Is an easy to build arf - the easier the better. This is a knock around
>> >> > plane and
>> >> > expendable.
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyone have any coments on a 46 powered 3d plane that fits this
>> >> > description ?
>> >> > The Venus sounds interesting. The only downside is the pitch hunting
>> >> > and it may
>> >> > be a bit more serious than a knock around plane.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks
>> >> > Paul
>> >> > KC5NF
>> >> > AMA 57131
>> >> > NSRCA 3606
>> >> > =====================================
>> >> > # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>> >> > and follow the instructions.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> =====================================
>> >> # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>> >> and follow the instructions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > =====================================
>> > # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>> > and follow the instructions.
>> >
>>
>> =====================================
>> # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>> and follow the instructions.
>
>
>
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list