Clipped, Electric weight, E-Impact first flights

[Jim Ivey]

 Jim 
 I am glad to hear these comments about the Aggressor,as my Aggressor(# 3) exhibits the same flying qualities as yours. It is rock solid locked in,moreso than any other plane I have had. The up and down lines are excellant. The plane corners better than any  I have had.The plane presents very well and flys more consistant speed than even my Smaragd.
 I almost lost it to a midair at Andersonville June 4,but I have repaired it and is good as new.
We need to get together and do more comparisons.

Jim Ivey
> 
> From: Jim_Woodward at beaerospace.com
> Date: 2005/06/13 Mon AM 08:58:45 EDT
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Clipped, Electric weight, E-Impact first flights
> 
> (2nd attempt)
> Jim O.,
> 
> I'm not sure what gear box I have, as I'm not really familiar with the 
> previous Hacker motors.  I do see some bolt heads on the back of the 
> motor, which would suggest to me that they run through the motor and into 
> the gear box in the front.  At the front of the gear box, all you see is 
> the bearing with the actual receiving holes for the motor-mounting screws. 
>  
> 
> I flew the Impact 4 flights this weekend.  I did this while flying my 
> Aggressor, and breaking in a new OS 140 RX.  It was one of the funnest, 
> BEST pattern day's I've ever had.  I flew the E-Impact and immediately 
> liked the power and speed control (and ease).  The Impact itself, didn't 
> jump off the board as a perfectly trimmed plane, so I knew I had a little 
> work to do.  After the first flight, the concept was DEFINITELY proven, 
> and I quickly deduced that I need more batteries (first flight was 
> Saturday evening).  After this first flight (with John B. from Surinam 
> watching), we determined the need to paint the bottom of the wings and 
> canopy.  We ran to Lowes and bought some florescent red/orange to paint 
> the stab and wing tips, and we also painted the canopy metallic silver. 
> Also determined that the plane was tail heavy quite a bit.  Anyone 
> familiar with the Impact thread on RCU knows exactly what I'm talking 
> about in regards to the Impact. 
> 
> Sunday morning with CG moved forward, the plane flew better and the small 
> amount of color we put on the plane definitely made a huge difference. 
> After this second flight, also determined that the CG was still too far 
> aft, and that the battery needed to be moved forward (at this point, knife 
> edge needed no mixing), and the plane was carrying a small amount of 
> aileron trim. 
> 
> Then, I flew the Aggressor for the first flight with the OS 140 RX and 
> 17x10 APC.  With th 17x10, the OS was nearly "super-sonic" compared to the 
> Impact, however immediately, the Aggressor's trimmed status and 
> "locked-on" look/feel was evident (as anyone who has seen the plane fly in 
> D3 would attest to.  Due to charging time of the E-Impact, I swapped props 
> to the Mez 18x10, adjusted the throttle curve, and started moving the 
> speed envelope of the Aggressor down to match the Impact in a couple more 
> flights.  My first thought was that if I had the E-setup in the Aggressor, 
> it would be an unstoppable machine!  (Aggressor weight without fuel is 10 
> lbs 13 oz).
> 
> Time for another flight on the Impact.  I flew through PO5 this time, and 
> started getting used to the E-power curve, some rates, etc.  The forward 
> CG move started to pay off, and the plane was drawing better lines (but 
> still not like my glow plane, which is understandable as this was only the 
> third flight on the model). After this flight, again, decided the CG 
> needed to go MORE forward.  Also, we determined that the right wing tip 
> needed about 14 grams of weight to laterally balance the model (a step I 
> did not do in the garage, we added the tip weight at the field).
> 
> Back to the Aggressor:  I flew two more flight back to back on the 
> Aggressor, each time improving the throttle curve to make it easier to 
> match the envelop of the Impact.  The OS ran perfect, and I'm sad that 
> after 5 years of screwing with other engines, to have not just spent the 
> little bit of extra money and ran the OS all along.  Through each flight 
> (90 degrees, 90% humidity), the OS ran superb.  Inflight throttling was 
> great, you could tell the motor was not getting hot, and it was making 
> ridiculous vertical power.  (by the way, this was on an OS A5 plug, C.P. 
> 25% pro-pattern, and ES pipe).  The OS runs VERY smooth with a crazy low 
> idle.  I'm VERY happy with how it ran - not a single dead stick through 
> its first 5 flights - nothing but awesome performance.  The locked in 
> (trimmed) status of the Aggressor, now flying in the slower speed 
> enveloped, had convinced John that this was still the "ticket" as compared 
> to where the Impact was after 3 flights.
> 
> Back to the E-Impact!!!!!!!!!!  For this flight, the 6000 Pro-Lite T.P. 
> battery was moved as far forward as possible (just behind motor).  This 
> flight showed some incredible potential.  In this CG config., the Impact 
> was driving lines similar to the Aggressor (up, down, 45's, etc), and 
> rolling VERY well.  Also, the wing tip weight on the right wing made EVERY 
> SINGLE MANEUVER look better.  The wings were much more locked on, the 
> plane rolled better, exited snaps better, spinned better.  This was a 
> great trimming lesson to me, as the day was getting cross-windy (worse) 
> through out the day as the ruminants of the tropical storm passed through, 
> however in the worsening conditions, this was the BEST of the flights.. 
> After this flight, John immediately was convinced that this was indeed 
> going to be a solid backup or first plane for the nats.  I'm still going 
> to move the receiver battery forward now though, and probably make a 
> lighter rudder (which wouldn't hurt things anyway).  (hacker controller 
> has 3 degrees timing).
> 
> Charging:  I alternated by charging from the car battery, then letting the 
> car idle for the next charge (guess what - no big deal to do this if 
> necessary).  However my limitation is that I only have one Astro 109 as 
> the second one has not arrived yet.  Thus, instead of 45 minute turnaround 
> times, I was 1.5 hrs between flights.
> 
> Impact:  I followed some RCU advice and started with a CG on the center of 
> the wing tube, without wings on.  This is in serious error.  However, the 
> plane will dive mildly when in inverted flight, and it gives the 
> impression through simple tests that the CG is correct.  With this CG, the 
> plane flys off the tail.  In radius, the tails squats and the plane will 
> fly tail low.  After I was done with it, the plane was following the nose, 
> driving excellent lines, similar to the Aggressor (still thanking Tony F. 
> for the trimming help on my Lazulite,which has now gone into all my 
> planes!).
> 
> Glow / Electric:  In a quick comparison, a trimmed plane is what you need. 
>  Electric power itself will help with presentation and probably hide some 
> airplane tendencies (if bad), due to the smaller speed envelope. Although, 
> the power and the plane are working together, they are still a bit 
> separate.  I guess I'm trying to say that a poorly trimmed plane is going 
> to hurt you no matter what motor you have in it.  I'm guessing purely 
> guessing now though, that if two identical planes, both completely 
> trimmed, were equipped with glow and electric, that the E-setup would take 
> the cake as it would allow more of a "show-casing" of the maneuver set. 
> More to follow.........
> 
> Thanks, welcome questions, comments, public or private.
> 
> Jim W.
> 
> 
> 


=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.