Here is an ESC-crippled sneak peak:
Thursday, April 19, 2012
100 MPH Z8RC "Piggy Bee" (E-Flite UMX Gee Bee R-2 with AS3X)
Unfortunately the first test flight was hampered by the 20A piggyback ESC imposing a current limit in the air due to severe overheating. The Pig limped home with its ESC covering pealed away from heat. 30A on deck.
Here is an ESC-crippled sneak peak:
Here is an ESC-crippled sneak peak:
E-Flight UMX Gee Bee R2 BNF with AS3X - Flight Review
 |
| Standing tall (for an ankle biter). |
Update 9: See 100 mph Z8RC Piggy Bee
Update 8: Sadly the 5 x 2.75 prop has been causing frequent out of control flight conditions lately. I don't know if AS3X is dealing with more vibes as the plane ages or what, but it seems to be getting rapidly worse. I had to switch back to the stiffer stock prop which fixed the problem.
The Gee Bee flies fine on the 5 x 2.75 without AS3X, but with AS3X the thinner material of the alternate prop resonates enough to throw AS3X for a loop. The prop is perfectly balanced but the thin material allows a standing wave to form and AS3X goes nuts, quickly inputting full deflection aileron, elevator and rudder control gyrations. The plane suddenly spirals violently at certain power settings and air speeds. A quick-thinking change of the throttle setting brings the plane around but a 50 foot altitude loss is common. If the throttle isn't moved promptly to a friendly setting the plane will hit the ground full force.
AS3X is turning out to be a big minus on this plane, especially considering there is little noticeable difference flying the Gee Bee with or without it. Arguably it flies better without AS3X for intermediate skills and higher.
Update 8: Sadly the 5 x 2.75 prop has been causing frequent out of control flight conditions lately. I don't know if AS3X is dealing with more vibes as the plane ages or what, but it seems to be getting rapidly worse. I had to switch back to the stiffer stock prop which fixed the problem.
The Gee Bee flies fine on the 5 x 2.75 without AS3X, but with AS3X the thinner material of the alternate prop resonates enough to throw AS3X for a loop. The prop is perfectly balanced but the thin material allows a standing wave to form and AS3X goes nuts, quickly inputting full deflection aileron, elevator and rudder control gyrations. The plane suddenly spirals violently at certain power settings and air speeds. A quick-thinking change of the throttle setting brings the plane around but a 50 foot altitude loss is common. If the throttle isn't moved promptly to a friendly setting the plane will hit the ground full force.
AS3X is turning out to be a big minus on this plane, especially considering there is little noticeable difference flying the Gee Bee with or without it. Arguably it flies better without AS3X for intermediate skills and higher.
Update 7: See Z8RC UMX Gee Bee Scorches Past 50 mph (introducing the "Piggy Bee")
Update 6: See Flying the E-flight UMX Gee Bee withOUT AS3X
Update 5: Added a rudder blanking video to the discussion below.
Update 4: See also: Head2Head E-Flite UMX Gee Bee R-2 vs. Great Planes Gee Bee R-1
Update 3: The Beast 3D 5 x 2.75 prop flies slightly better than the stock prop. There is no difference in top speed due an offsetting increase in RPM. But the lower prop gearing results in a top-to-bottom increase in RPM range which is useful for more controlled blowing of the vertical stabilizer at slow speeds and high AOAs. This yields better center rudder yaw stability during landings at 10-20% throttle.
The only issue I have with the 5 x 2.75 is a very strong AS3X-induced low frequency wing wobble from standing-wave resonance at 40% throttle. Prop balance is perfect wide open. It is not a factor, as the throttle setting isn't particularly useful for sustained flight and it's probably specific to my sample. But if the resonance is universal, it might explain why E-Flite switched to a new, stiffer prop, to suppress faulty and/or overly-sensitive AS3X logic.
You'll need to place two #6 washers behind the prop to take up extra shaft. The wider cowl-to-prop spacing adds to the prop's increased thrust efficiency and reduced amp load.
Flight times are improved by about a minute.
All in context, the 5 x 2.75 is definitely the preferred prop for the UMX Gee Bee.
Update 2: See Z8RC 100% OCP Fix
Update: It seems my production-lot replacement airplane's built-in ESC is also bad. From this failure I have to conclude the entire Gee Bee fleet is known to be marginal if not defective. Incapable of handling the larger kV/prop combo at zero airspeed, the production sample motor is cutting out on run up too. In fairness, when unloaded in the air, the motor seems to run fine. But also in fairness, one has to wonder if this degradation in the ESC current handling curve will continue to slump lower.
Check your plane. If your Gee Bee tests bad, send back only the airplane. If the plane tests good, send back both the airplane and the battery.
One obvious remedy is to use 90% throttle on takeoff, or reduce throttle travel slightly with a computer radio or trim. Another possible fix is to change the prop to one the power system can handle.
With fully charged batteries, here is the Stock Gee Bee prop (5.25x3.5) versus the standard UMX prop (5 x 2.75). The 5x2.75 doesn't cut-out at all, I pulled the power back each time even though the first pull was a little quick, as evidenced by the prop not stopping. Reversing the batteries produces identical results. Note the static thrust difference:
While this does not appear to be an inflight-problem, Horizon releasing known defective products to the general public raises questions of willful negligence and they need to immediately refund anyone who wants their money back. Horizon Hobby continues to disappoint the RC community with their upper management's chronic unethical behavior.
Original review follows:
The E-Flite UMX Gee Bee R2 is one of the few attempts by large RC houses to reproduce this classic racer. It has always surprised me how difficult it is to find a decent R2 model. The few models that do exist sport basic numbers and construction methods that just don't work well, and some look way off. Until recently, the Gee Bee mostly remained a mystery to RC community, and especially to park fliers.
Thankfully the drought has ended.
|
The wrap was that Granvilles were too difficult to fly if not pilot killers. I've never bought that. Jimmy Doolittle loved the R1 flight characteristics and flew it to victory himself. He made his opinion pretty clear, "She is the sweetest ship I've ever flown. She is perfect in every respect and the motor is just as good as it was a week ago. It never missed a beat and has lots of stuff in it yet. I think this proves that the Granville brothers up in Springfield build the very best speed ships in America today."
But several Gee Bees crashed, giving the plane a lethal reputation. Never mind that freak accidents caused most of the fatalities. The first crash was caused when an errant gas cap whacked the pilot. Another was CFIT, no, not today's definition of CFIT: Controlled Flight into Terrain; the 1930's version: Controlled Flight into a Tree. Cecil Allen became famous for dying in his modified R1-R2, after the Granville Brothers advised him against impairing the CG with a larger, more aft fuel tank. Then there was that old rag in the carburetor problem, causing record-setter Francisco Sarabia to pancake in the Potomac River.
More recently, Delmar Benjamin and Steve Wolf built an exact replica of an R2 and flew it in airshows for more than a decade, proving that the R2 was a fundamentally excellent and highly aerobatic airplane.
And now we have E-Flite's gorgeous little Ultra Micro. I doubt E-Flight knew Hobbico was going to release their Gee Bee R1 parkflyer when they priced their 20" UMX bird a stunning $35 higher ($10 higher before typical email coupons) than a new parkflyer that is 9 times more massive.
Look for a review of Hobbico's Gee Bee R1 soon in a Z8RC exclusive Head2Head value showdown with the E-Flight UMX.
 |
| Great Planes 38.5" Gee Bee R1 is selling for $159 minus the usual $25 or so in email coupons with free shipping. A quick look at the parts specs derives a practical (80% of theoretical) pitch speed over 97 mph on 3-cells. Could be gravy. |
I know what you are thinking, this is where I rip up E-Flite's just plain stupid $170 price tag. Wrong. Well, ok, I thought about it. But given there is nothing else like this mini R2 on the market and the level of detail, I'm almost ok with the price. True, the Hobbico's 2 lb-class RxR Gee Bee R2 blows this micro midget away on price per pound, at around $135 after member coupons and free shipping. But with AS3X possibly serving a purpose in this plane and an integral Rx, customer value isn't as deep into the sewer as the typical E-Flite UMX-pensive bird.
Street Price per Pound
| |
Great Planes Electrifly Gee Bee R-1
|
$67
|
E-Flite UMX Gee Bee R-2
|
$756
|
Barring the pebbled beer cooler style Styrofoam, this model would be just as much at home under glass as flying down the street. But that would be pretty damn stupid.
 |
| E-Flite's cute Gee Bee R-2 has great details for a micro, although it is missing the thin black cheater lines dividing the red and white paint (except on the decals). |
I spent a little extra time on the photography out of appreciation for E-Flite's obvious effort on the details. Hopefully it'll be worth dragging and dropping selected photos into the URL Address bar, then clicking them up to full size. Unfortunately, Blogger forced a 90% megapixel reduction from the 12.3MP full frame Canon L glass DSLR originals, so most of the photo detail is gone. But these pix should give you a better view than Horizon's dreadful quality web page photos.
The micro Gee Bee looks fabulous, for it's scale. This is one of the few planes that might even be cooler smaller than bigger. I think the Pony Keg look of the UMX-pensive adds to onlooker disbelief that this thing could actually be airworthy.
Unlike the UMX Beast 3D "BNFU" intentional rip off config, the UMX Gee Bee is a legitimate BNF with a 200 mAh 2S Lipo battery and a field charger to get bindable customers in the air. Still, there is no wall plug, so people who live in a house are out of luck.
The included E-Flight battery has their infamous 2S connector, meaning the plane is unflyable with other 2S mini LiPos. One of these days I'm going to finish my aircraft-side adapter to convert my UMX 2S planes to a standard 2S connector and use my stash of $2 2S Zippys. Until then, there are the outstanding $4 Turnigy Nano-Tech batteries which are sold as an E-Flite knock offs, complete with custom connector. They have more power and longer life than E-Flite originals, even at one size smaller.
Although my photo doesn't show it like I envisioned, there is strong aerodynamic washout very evident near the wingtips, maybe 2 degrees of forward twist. Horizon obviously read my Jiggy review. Nice.
Additionally, the plane has a subtle plastic chin protector and a plastic landing skid on top of the rudder--hmmm, I wonder what that's for? Great job all around!
The only drawback I see is the obvious integration of the body, wings, and tail section. Looks like it might be hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
In the Air:
If you are expecting a long and twisted analysis of a devilishly tricky airplane to hurl through space, I'm sorry to disappoint you. The UMX Gee Bee is an easy airplane to fly. In fact, it flies great, but with one substantial vice.
First things first, take off is like any tail dragger. Apply a little up-elevator to guard against a prop strike and get the power in fast enough to energize the tail for slow speed directional control. That's a complicated way of saying, power up and pull. Duh.
The Gee Bee is very nice flying airplane. It flies just like any low wing sportster, and it is very stable at speed. It's tempting to call it almost trainer-like, as long as you keep the pace clicking, it is as stable as a trainer. Unfortunately, beginners probably won't like holding a medium pace all the time, so it's probably not a great trainer.
My first flight was in 4-6 mph slightly gusty winds, and the wind didn't present that much of a problem. The plane has plenty of power to stand up for itself, but if anything it can feel a little underpowered at times. The brushless motor needs to be about 30% larger. Once you build a head of steam, speed is zippy but nothing spectacular, at it flat-lines pretty early against an aerodynamic wall. Let's just say it gives the flavor of air racer and call it good.
Flight times are lame at 2-4 minutes. I put the battery smack in the middle of the tray and the CG felt well balanced during glides, maybe a little tail happy with the motor spinning--the nose drifts into a slight climb upon speed reduction indicating a tail heavy condition. AS3X doesn't do much the keep the tail level as speed bleeds. The wing (and fuselage?) loading is low enough, so E-Flite could have included a 250-300mAh higher C rate battery with a larger motor to suit the air racer's personality.
A second possibility for the power-off climb is that E-Flite angled the thrust line a little to keep their perceived beginner-level user base out of hot water. Whatever the reason, the thrust-line-to-elevator-chord-line relationship seems a little off. For most, the easiest solution will be to nudge the battery a quarter inch forward and forgo best range glides. Another possible explanation of the manufacturer's slight miss is a heavier battery option in the works, or a larger motor version forthcoming. The plane needs both, but why not set each release up properly?
Aerobatics need pace, but are straight-forward and pure. Coupling between controls is minimal. A left bank knife edge flys almost hands off. A right 90 degree bank knife displays minor torque and elevator coupling requiring minor aileron/elevator inputs. Knife edge flight in either orientation is sustainable in the first half of battery life. Loops can be big and are generally roll-free and yaw-stable. Rolls are fairly axial and the nose stays more level than you might guess for a barrel on wings.
Power-off glides are surprisingly shallow with the slightly light nose with the default setup. Although inverted flight is cooperative, it needs about 1/3rd down-elevator, indicating the elevator and thrust line are off.
Racing flat-out evokes a shrill scream from the winged beer keg, but top speed is held firmly in check by an aerodynamic wall. Typically over-gained AS3X adds significant drama by fluttering the wings wildly while flirting with the bleeding edge of the airspeed envelope; the plane appears to be on the verge of frantic disintegration. It is by far my favorite thing about AS3X in this airplane.
Making the flying experience special, the Gee Bee's WCL measures two categories below purpose. A refreshing 10.2:
Target Wing Cube Loading
Gliders - 1 to 4
Trainers - 4 to 7
Aerobats - 8 to 11 << The UMX Gee Bee flies here
Scale - 12 to 15
Racers - 16+ << Not here
In a word, the little Gee Bee is an overachiever. Better, it carries enough aerodynamic headroom to improve the motor/power solution down the road. The stock motor is adequate for spunk, but the racer inside could use 25%+ more speed, or about double the horsepower.
I would have predicted the family-model motor was a planned obsolescence feature with a plug-in performance upgrade in the works, but given that the main board can't handle the tame stock motor at full grunt without faulting, sadly that can't be the case.
Second UMX Gee Bee R2 Flight in 2-3 mph winds.
Video Markers:
0:32 - Aft CG, power-off climb
0:50 - Best Speed
0:52 - Uncoupled left knife
1:05 - Right weather vane, aborted right knife edge
1:10 - Aft CG, power-off climb
1:20 - Right knife edge with some cross controls
1:30 - Aft CG, power-off climb
1:40 - Inverted flight, hunting for copious down-elevator
1:50-1:58 - Idle glide. Already feeling the motor worble on power-up
2:17-2:20 - 10% power-on final; a very easy to land airplane with space
As I mentioned above, there is one vice with the airplane. I would call it minor, but I guess it's enough to get a beginner in trouble if they don't recognize it or have a good feel for what's going on aerodynamically.
I've heard a lot of complaints about Gee Bees being tricky to land, but I've yet to hear anyone finger the root problem. The single problem with the design (Gee Bee's design, not E-Flite's fault) is really as glaring and obvious as the design itself is bold, you can feel it to some small degree on just about every airborne pass in light+ wind. It's not that big a deal, but it can turn into a big deal if you let it go too far...
The bullet fuselage blanks the vertical stabilizer at moderate to high Angles of Attack (AOA).
Complicating things some, the fuse is a thick longitudinal airfoil in its own right, so it wants to weather vane by yawing into any crosswind. The whole rear fuselage is, more or less, a flying wing turned on its ear, and it forms a pretty good lifting body on knife edge.
Even though the small rudder is moderately effective at speed, once the plane slows down, turbulent air sliding off the obese nose reduces directional yaw control to a democracy, and rudder position only gets one vote. At slow speeds and high AOA, P-Factor and torque begin to out-vote the rudder about 2 to 1 and the nose wants to skid left regardless of rudder input. Make sure you increase rudder servo travel to 125% and don't reduce it much if any on low rates.
Interestingly, since this problem is a lack of orderly airflow over the control surface AS3X can't do much about it, and it doesn't. What AS3X does do fairly well is keep the wings level, isolating the lack of rudder control to a numb, uncooperative slow yaw rotation. This is a case where the gyro hurts a little. If the plane were reacting purely aerodynamically, a loss of rudder control might kick one wing forward into the relative wind. That wing would create more lift and the plane would start to roll, consequently, adverse yaw would tug the wing back inline. As a minimum, you'd get more aerodynamic feedback so you could counter the problem. With AS3X, the rotation is more insidious, like a flat pinwheel slowly spinning in the wind.
High AOA Rudder Blanking
This whole discussion amounts to a non-problem at medium airspeed and faster. Unless there is big hairy Weeping Willow 10 feet upwind of your flight path, the plane's weather-vaning into crosswind is easy to counter given some airspeed, but it can make finding neutral rudder trim a little tricky. While all single engine planes do this to some extent, the difference with the Gee Bee is that the rudder surface gets almost completely blanked by turbulent air at slow speeds with an elevated AOA, so the mild yaw tends to progress regardless of rudder input. The easy answer is to to carry a few extra RPM/knots through touch down. That's a shame because the plane has plenty of lift left in it to slow down. In fact, carrying those knots makes the plane want to balloon in the flare, requiring a longer runway than other micros. A more advanced solution is to land in micro right bank to counter the anticipated left skid and help keep the rudder cutting clean air.
I'm sure there is some way to help the rudder aerodynamically, or with a mix. I'll play with it soon and post the fix here as I figure it out.
Until then, it's past time for grades:
Appearance: A
Thrilling scale lines. With better foam, it could be a static model.
Airframe: A
A racer, not a lover. Slight light nose. Glides well. True to scale challenges.
Power System: C (Update D+, ESC is over-amped w/degradation)
Build Quality/Durability: B
Power is just ok. 4 min flights. Battery upgrade would help both.
Build Quality/Durability: B
Styrofoam. Cheap servos. Plastic chin, toes, and rudder roll over protection.
Value: C-
$170?? So few nice Gee Bees around. Numbing-AS3X is a wash.
Overall Grade: A (Update B+, overloaded ESC increases risk)
Fun starts from open box. Looks and flies great--like a Gee Bee!
Select Scale Focke Wulf FW-190 EP RxR Flight Review
Update: Here is the Fw-190 with a Power 10 running on 3S (4S is not a Power 10 option). It achieves about the same speed as the stock airplane on 4S. It might even be a hair faster, but I'm still not 100% happy with an Fw-190 that isn't the powerhouse it should be:
The final product is worth the effort. The servo-driven stock retracts sag too much in the air and collapse under any firm landing.
Update: 70 mph obtained with a 4S and 10x7 prop on the stock motor.
Update: 4S tests added.
Original article follows:
The Fw-190 is a classic warbird with some of the most sinister lines of all time. Perhaps the most recognizable feature are its long legs and wide stance. Hobbico came very close to replicating Kurt Tank's masterwork, this is a beautifully executed foamie.
TECH SPECS:
This is the 2.4GHz radio controlled brushless electric powered RXR (Receiver Ready) Focke Wulf FW-190 from Flyzone by Hobbico. This version includes motor ESC and servos.
**Additional Technical Info Will Be Added When It Becomes Available.**
FEATURES:
- Construction: AeroCell foam
- Motor: Brushless
- Servos: Five micro (1-ailerons 1-flaps 1-landing gear 1-elevator
- 1-rudder)
- ESC: 30A
- Landing Gear: Retractable
- Propeller: 10x6 3-blade
- Spinner
INCLUDES:
- RTF Focke Wulf FW-190 with five Servos 30A ESC
- Propeller Spinner and Instruction Manual
REQUIRES:
- Radio: 6-channel
- Battery: 11.1V 1800mAh LiPo
- Battery Charger
- Tools and field equipment
SPECS:
- Length: 39" (990mm)
- Wingspan: 44.5" (1130mm)
- Wing Area: 349 sq in (22.5 sq dm)
- Weight: 2.25 - 2.5 lb (1020 - 1134 g)
- Wing Loading: 17 oz/sq ft (52 g sq/dm)
- Center of Gravity (CG): 3" (76mm) from the leading edge
Control Throws: Low Rate, High Rate
- Elevator Up/Down: 5/16" (8mm), 7/16" (11mm)
- Rudder Right/Left: 3/4" (19mm), 1" (25.4mm)
- Ailerons Up/Down: 3/8" (10mm), 1/2" (13mm)
- Flap: Down 1/2" (13mm)
On the Ground:
This kit comes as an RTF and RxR, so one would expect little-to-no assembly. The airframe ships in three pieces: Wing, Fuse, and Horizontal Stab.
The Aerocel foam used in this build is among the best there is: hard but pliable, lightweight, and very smooth. This is my second Select Scale model, both are stronger and better looking better than Horizon Hobbies Z foam. For example, the paint doesn't usually peel off with tape application and removal.
The paint job is scale, so I can't critique the utility--it is designed to be hard to see from the ground. The yellow nose should be a nice visual cue in the air.
The lines of the Fw-190 can't be beat, the plane is menacing from every angle. At the same time, it looks athletic and muscular. The stubby nose and resulting short CG moment indicate a monster motor for the size of the airframe. Hobbico stuffed the ESC up in the nose, next to a reasonably chunky motor to keep the balance right:
The prop mounts on a collete-style adapter, which first goes though a hole in a supplied plastic plastic engine bay cooling fan. Neat. The engine's side louvers are functional, they vent the engine bay to outside air, as shown in wide angle shot below:
The Wulf's paint job is tremendous, with nice details and presumably authentic German warnings printed on the plane mostly everywhere you look.
Inspecting and assembling the plane is full of pleasant surprises:
First, the plane is listed as RxR, basically an RTF without a battery, charger or receiver. Of all the types of purchases, I enjoy RxR/PnP the most, because I like the latitude to use my preferred radio system and I have too many LiPos already. This plane has a very high degree of in-the-box completion, but it isn't quiiiite RTF, even if it had a Rx. You'll have to slide the tail plane in and glue it, then install the prop-fan, collet, propeller and spinner. The ESC wires are on the short side to get the Rx in easily.
The second great surprise was the inclusion of split flaps and retracts. I actually didn't notice that this plane had either of them when I bought it. That's a very good thing, because the flap mechanisms were both broken out of the box. The gear works ok, but the included servo needs a significant total travel increase, on my set up, in order to fully lock down and to fully lock up. The gear seem to stress the servo a lot.
The flap problem is troubling, since a quick inspection reveals that the flap pushrods turn an interior bellcrank which then extends the flaps. The bell-cranks are located inside the foam wing, which is pre-glued together, and both of them separated from their glued base and were free-floating out of the box. The only way to fix them would be to cut an access hole in the bottom of the wing, unless there is a trick I'm missing. I can't imagine that Hobbico isn't fully away of this quality/design defect. The good news is that the flaps are rather small and their partial function is a bit asymmetric, so the fix is easy: glue them up and save the servo weight.
But wait, that's not all... there was a third surprise. The second time I plugged in a battery to finish up testing the radio function, there was kind of a funny smell. Sort of... electrical. Hmmm, that looks like whitish-gray smoke coming from the cowl. For a moment, I thought the battery might be on fire and thought twice about grabing the plug to unhook it. But after a quick focus, the source of the smoke now rapidly intensifying, was the interior of the ESC. Luckily, I was able to yank the battery plug before any flames appeared. The ESC smoked for another 30 secs, a quick touch revealed intense heat. Ooops! That's not supposed to happen.
Five minutes later a trusty old 30A from my parts bin was installed and ready to go. I used the opportunity to move the ESC backward, just in front of the wing leading edge, to help with a very nose-heavy CG when using a 2000mAh battery.
Speaking of CG, as assembled with an 1800mAh battery (recommended) in the vertical battery compartment, the plane balances about an inch in front of the prescribed CG location. Moving the battery back, almost to the leading edge, puts you in business.
Overall, the plane looks terrific and is a quick build, around 30 minutes as designed. But I spent a few hours anyway, figuring out, then fixing several serious quality defects. The flaps and gear didn't have enough servo travel as designed, which also takes a little time to work out. The flaps are no big deal, you may wish to seal them up anyway. The gear is another story. Unless you increase servo travel by 25% or so, the gear will either collapse, hang out when retracted, or both. This could be a trick depending on your choice of radio.
In the air:
The 190 is a typical WWII warbird in that the control surfaces and throws are reasonably sized, if not small. I decided to set up my rates biased toward maximum, with 125% being in highest rate switch position. I'm glad I did that.
Taxing out was uneventful, the plane clearly has good pull. A nice positive run up to full power for takeoff brought the rudder to life and the plane lifted off the ground after a 25 foot roll, with a minor toque tug to the left. The Focke Wulf has enough power to climb out 60-70 degrees nose high without much fuss, but it is no 3D machine. The plane needed quite a bit of nose down elevator to achieve a solid speed level cruise; flush elevator seemed to be set up for the forward CG, as shipped, not the instruction manual's recommended CG which is how I set the plane up.
Even with the more aft CG (the flight manual position), the 190 tracked beautifully in the air once trimmed up. After the straight tracking, the most interesting characteristic is a lack of motor noise--this plane is exceptionally quiet. Part of the quiet nature of the plane is good strong power system, only running at about 30% throttle for metered flying.
Unlike most RC warbirds, this one has storng slow flight ability. Bringing the throttle back to just 25% brought the Fw to a nice medium-high alpha attitude in level flight. The plane looked so relaxed and silent, I wasn't 100% sure the motor was running. The Fw tools around slowly without a whole lot of fuss, but you have to stay on top of the yaw axis with solid rudder corrections. Getting slow, even at low power settings, torques the nose left, so you need preemptive right rudder. Failure to keep the fuse aligned with airflow results in a mild snap roll to a nose-down spin. At any point in that chain of events, a spin-prevent (relax back pressure to slight forward stick, along with a positive application of opposite rudder) brings enough rudder to bear to stop any auto-rotation.
Flight control authority is normal for a WWII style aircraft. There is enough rudder authority to upset the apple cart with full application, but nowhere near enough to sustain knife edge flight even though the power system is plenty strong. Aileron throw is very good, but the ailerons aren't big enough to rapidly roll the plane; the achieved roll rate at 125% servo movement is reasonably spirited, but not excellent. Adverse yaw is significant due to the moment arm of the high throw ailerons located so far from the fuselage. Elevator authority is more than adequate, and the wing supports impressively tight turns. With full throw on the elevator, demanding too much pitch results in a sharp, uncommanded roll as one side of the wing quickly decides enough is enough.
The plane has plenty of power with the stock motor and prop running on 3S. Torque from the viscous 3-blade needs right rudder whenever the plane is slow, to include initial takeoff, which requires about half of the available right rudder or the plane wants to veer to the left side of the runway. I visually aligned the elevator with the horizontal stab, which turned out to be unnecessary once airborne. The plane wanted to climb very strongly at first, so the stock setup was probably closer to the final solution. I also visually aligned the rudder with the vertical stab, that will not counter the left torque in cruise--try about 1/8th inch of right rudder deflection when the stick is neutral for straight line flight at 50% throttle.
Once the plane accelerates to a comfortable cruise, left yaw is easily countered with a dose of right rudder trim. As discussed above, without a mixing radio and a lot of experimentation, the Fw-190 needs a canted rudder to track straight and level, which means the plane will gently spiral to the right in a hands-off glide--including the end-game flare and landing. The only way to eliminate that tendency, while still tracking straight during cruise is with a Throttle>Rudder mix. I'll post the mix that works for me as so as I have time to iron it out.
Top speed is good, but not exactly rousing. The draggy 3-blade holds the plane back in the zip dept. I'll move my Parkzone Fw-190 2-blade spinner over and retest the plane with a few 2-blades...
Ok, here are the numbers we are looking at using an average battery:
Hobbico doesn't publish the motor's specs, so it is unclear exactly how far we can push the power solution. The base prop works fine and presents a reasonable compromise between performance and looks, so there is no need to change. Only one 3-blader is supplied, so it is a good thing that if/when one landing gear collapses the other main gear standing alone is long enough to keep the prop from striking the ground (the landing gear had a tendency to collapse until I increased servo travel and adjusted the travel end points.
If you want longer flight times and faster passes, the MAS props look like the best way to go. For absolute performance, the MAS 10x7 was the most effective with 33% more speed and the most efficient with 36% longer flight times. In the "scale-look" category the MAS 10x7x3-blade was the best choice tested, with 24% more speed and 7% longer flight times.
This plane flies very nicely and is more stable than most warbirds, due to the built-in wing dihedral and long tail. It is comparable to, if not easier than a PZ T-28 Trojan in ease of flying, but a better turning airplane at the limit.
The setup ships with a far forward CG, but even with the CG moved to the manual's recommendation, the plane dives strongly in idle. The CG could slide a little farther aft still, for ultimate maneuverability. Even so, loops can get impressively tight and rolls are naturally axial, minus noticeable adverse yaw tug on the rising wing. The adverse yaw tend to help keep the nose from falling as much when the wings are slicing along the gravity vector, so it is not all bad. Still, an aileron roll will drop the nose by 5-10 degrees per 360 without mid-roll rudder and some down-elevator application when inverted.
The gear up position looks more realistic as the plane effortlessly rolls into strafe, terrorize, and lay waste to the good people of the world. Surprisingly, lowering the gear at pattern speed doesn't generate much of a pitch change, though the speed clearly bleeds.
Landing is easy once you become accustomed to the sensitive but fully predicable elevator--nothing a little D/R and Expo can't smooth right out. Three point touchdowns quickly become the rule rather than the exception, and the plane rolls out very straight as long as you avoid the temptation to over-correct.
The landing gear is quite complex, and includes spring piston shock absorbers and plastic extension guidance hardware. And that created my final maiden voyage surprise: after I taxiied over and picked up the plane, a main wheel feel off. Hmmm, probably not the best plan to use a axle nut that one wheel naturally spins to loosen. Nut lost. Replacement size hard to find.
Another problem with the gear is the plastic elbows providing directional guidance for the mains. The plastic is so flimsy that the wheels tend to wobble. Another easy fix, super glue the spring pistons so nothing moves. Shock absorbers are overrated, anyway.
Power System: B+
Overall Grade: D+
I've also installed servoless retacts, which was not easy. I used the same $10 retracts I put into my J-Power P-38. The stock retract are very hard to remove. I had to slice them down the middle with a Dremel metal-cutting wheel, then slide the front half back and the back half forward to remove the base from the foam wing. Next I had to cut the gear hinge rod in half to similarly remove it. The cut carbon fiber reinforcing rods that extend back into the wing from the gear hinge point. To install the servoless units, I had to cut a complete hole in the wing from top to bottom, then glue them in place and re-cover the top.
Update: 70 mph obtained with a 4S and 10x7 prop on the stock motor.
Update: 4S tests added.
Original article follows:
This is the 2.4GHz radio controlled brushless electric powered RXR (Receiver Ready) Focke Wulf FW-190 from Flyzone by Hobbico. This version includes motor ESC and servos.
**Additional Technical Info Will Be Added When It Becomes Available.**
FEATURES:
- Construction: AeroCell foam
- Motor: Brushless
- Servos: Five micro (1-ailerons 1-flaps 1-landing gear 1-elevator
- 1-rudder)
- ESC: 30A
- Landing Gear: Retractable
- Propeller: 10x6 3-blade
- Spinner
INCLUDES:
- RTF Focke Wulf FW-190 with five Servos 30A ESC
- Propeller Spinner and Instruction Manual
REQUIRES:
- Radio: 6-channel
- Battery: 11.1V 1800mAh LiPo
- Battery Charger
- Tools and field equipment
SPECS:
- Length: 39" (990mm)
- Wingspan: 44.5" (1130mm)
- Wing Area: 349 sq in (22.5 sq dm)
- Weight: 2.25 - 2.5 lb (1020 - 1134 g)
- Wing Loading: 17 oz/sq ft (52 g sq/dm)
- Center of Gravity (CG): 3" (76mm) from the leading edge
Control Throws: Low Rate, High Rate
- Elevator Up/Down: 5/16" (8mm), 7/16" (11mm)
- Rudder Right/Left: 3/4" (19mm), 1" (25.4mm)
- Ailerons Up/Down: 3/8" (10mm), 1/2" (13mm)
- Flap: Down 1/2" (13mm)
On the Ground:
This kit comes as an RTF and RxR, so one would expect little-to-no assembly. The airframe ships in three pieces: Wing, Fuse, and Horizontal Stab.
The lines of the Fw-190 can't be beat, the plane is menacing from every angle. At the same time, it looks athletic and muscular. The stubby nose and resulting short CG moment indicate a monster motor for the size of the airframe. Hobbico stuffed the ESC up in the nose, next to a reasonably chunky motor to keep the balance right:
Inspecting and assembling the plane is full of pleasant surprises:
First, the plane is listed as RxR, basically an RTF without a battery, charger or receiver. Of all the types of purchases, I enjoy RxR/PnP the most, because I like the latitude to use my preferred radio system and I have too many LiPos already. This plane has a very high degree of in-the-box completion, but it isn't quiiiite RTF, even if it had a Rx. You'll have to slide the tail plane in and glue it, then install the prop-fan, collet, propeller and spinner. The ESC wires are on the short side to get the Rx in easily.
The second great surprise was the inclusion of split flaps and retracts. I actually didn't notice that this plane had either of them when I bought it. That's a very good thing, because the flap mechanisms were both broken out of the box. The gear works ok, but the included servo needs a significant total travel increase, on my set up, in order to fully lock down and to fully lock up. The gear seem to stress the servo a lot.
But wait, that's not all... there was a third surprise. The second time I plugged in a battery to finish up testing the radio function, there was kind of a funny smell. Sort of... electrical. Hmmm, that looks like whitish-gray smoke coming from the cowl. For a moment, I thought the battery might be on fire and thought twice about grabing the plug to unhook it. But after a quick focus, the source of the smoke now rapidly intensifying, was the interior of the ESC. Luckily, I was able to yank the battery plug before any flames appeared. The ESC smoked for another 30 secs, a quick touch revealed intense heat. Ooops! That's not supposed to happen.
Five minutes later a trusty old 30A from my parts bin was installed and ready to go. I used the opportunity to move the ESC backward, just in front of the wing leading edge, to help with a very nose-heavy CG when using a 2000mAh battery.
Speaking of CG, as assembled with an 1800mAh battery (recommended) in the vertical battery compartment, the plane balances about an inch in front of the prescribed CG location. Moving the battery back, almost to the leading edge, puts you in business.
Overall, the plane looks terrific and is a quick build, around 30 minutes as designed. But I spent a few hours anyway, figuring out, then fixing several serious quality defects. The flaps and gear didn't have enough servo travel as designed, which also takes a little time to work out. The flaps are no big deal, you may wish to seal them up anyway. The gear is another story. Unless you increase servo travel by 25% or so, the gear will either collapse, hang out when retracted, or both. This could be a trick depending on your choice of radio.
In the air:
The 190 is a typical WWII warbird in that the control surfaces and throws are reasonably sized, if not small. I decided to set up my rates biased toward maximum, with 125% being in highest rate switch position. I'm glad I did that.
Taxing out was uneventful, the plane clearly has good pull. A nice positive run up to full power for takeoff brought the rudder to life and the plane lifted off the ground after a 25 foot roll, with a minor toque tug to the left. The Focke Wulf has enough power to climb out 60-70 degrees nose high without much fuss, but it is no 3D machine. The plane needed quite a bit of nose down elevator to achieve a solid speed level cruise; flush elevator seemed to be set up for the forward CG, as shipped, not the instruction manual's recommended CG which is how I set the plane up.
Even with the more aft CG (the flight manual position), the 190 tracked beautifully in the air once trimmed up. After the straight tracking, the most interesting characteristic is a lack of motor noise--this plane is exceptionally quiet. Part of the quiet nature of the plane is good strong power system, only running at about 30% throttle for metered flying.
Unlike most RC warbirds, this one has storng slow flight ability. Bringing the throttle back to just 25% brought the Fw to a nice medium-high alpha attitude in level flight. The plane looked so relaxed and silent, I wasn't 100% sure the motor was running. The Fw tools around slowly without a whole lot of fuss, but you have to stay on top of the yaw axis with solid rudder corrections. Getting slow, even at low power settings, torques the nose left, so you need preemptive right rudder. Failure to keep the fuse aligned with airflow results in a mild snap roll to a nose-down spin. At any point in that chain of events, a spin-prevent (relax back pressure to slight forward stick, along with a positive application of opposite rudder) brings enough rudder to bear to stop any auto-rotation.
The plane has plenty of power with the stock motor and prop running on 3S. Torque from the viscous 3-blade needs right rudder whenever the plane is slow, to include initial takeoff, which requires about half of the available right rudder or the plane wants to veer to the left side of the runway. I visually aligned the elevator with the horizontal stab, which turned out to be unnecessary once airborne. The plane wanted to climb very strongly at first, so the stock setup was probably closer to the final solution. I also visually aligned the rudder with the vertical stab, that will not counter the left torque in cruise--try about 1/8th inch of right rudder deflection when the stick is neutral for straight line flight at 50% throttle.
Once the plane accelerates to a comfortable cruise, left yaw is easily countered with a dose of right rudder trim. As discussed above, without a mixing radio and a lot of experimentation, the Fw-190 needs a canted rudder to track straight and level, which means the plane will gently spiral to the right in a hands-off glide--including the end-game flare and landing. The only way to eliminate that tendency, while still tracking straight during cruise is with a Throttle>Rudder mix. I'll post the mix that works for me as so as I have time to iron it out.
Top speed is good, but not exactly rousing. The draggy 3-blade holds the plane back in the zip dept. I'll move my Parkzone Fw-190 2-blade spinner over and retest the plane with a few 2-blades...
Ok, here are the numbers we are looking at using an average battery:
Select Scale Focke Wulf 190
| ||||||
Battery
|
Volts
|
Prop
|
Amps
|
Watts
|
RPM
|
MPH
|
3S 25C
|
12.6
|
Stock 10x6x3-blade
|
26.59
|
293.33
|
8,043
|
45.70
|
3S 25C
|
12.6
|
APC 10x7
|
20.23
|
230.37
|
8,876
|
58.84
|
3S 25C
|
12.6
|
MAS 10x7
|
19.42
|
221.76
|
9,195
|
60.95
|
3S 25C
|
12.6
|
GWS 10x8x4-blade
|
32.10
|
347.22
|
7,622
|
57.74
|
3S 25C
|
12.6
|
MAS 10x7x3-blade
|
24.79
|
274.80
|
8,518
|
56.46
|
4S 25C
|
16.4
|
Stock 10x6x3-blade @ 55%
Throttle Limited |
33.71
|
495.30
|
9,165
|
52.07
|
4S 25C
|
16.8
|
APC 10x7
@ 100% Throttle |
31.46
|
467.80
|
10,730
|
71.13
|
Note: the first 4S solution choked (screeched and wound down) above 57% throttle, so I limited the 4S 10x6x3 thrust curve to 55% by computer radio. It is unclear at this point if the ESC or the motor is the problem, but this partial solution still added 150W to the previously most powerful solution. More testing required to see if the engine choke is an ESC, Motor, RPM, Amp, prop drag/torque or a thrust limit.
A second test with an APC 10x7 registered almost 11K RPM at 100% throttle, and a pitch speed of over 70 mph. This indicates that prop drag/torque may have been be the limiting factor on the 3 blade test.
These preliminary results were obtained with a Hobby King 40-50A ESC driving the stock motor.
A second test with an APC 10x7 registered almost 11K RPM at 100% throttle, and a pitch speed of over 70 mph. This indicates that prop drag/torque may have been be the limiting factor on the 3 blade test.
These preliminary results were obtained with a Hobby King 40-50A ESC driving the stock motor.
Max Amps
|
Avg Throttle
|
Battery mAH
|
Flight Time
|
19.42
|
50%
|
2100
|
12.98
|
19.42
|
75%
|
2100
|
8.65
|
19.42
|
100%
|
2100
|
6.49
|
26.59
|
50%
|
2100
|
9.48
|
26.59
|
75%
|
2100
|
6.32
|
26.59
|
100%
|
2100
|
4.74
|
32.1
|
50%
|
2100
|
7.85
|
32.1
|
75%
|
2100
|
5.23
|
32.1
|
100%
|
2100
|
3.93
|
Hobbico doesn't publish the motor's specs, so it is unclear exactly how far we can push the power solution. The base prop works fine and presents a reasonable compromise between performance and looks, so there is no need to change. Only one 3-blader is supplied, so it is a good thing that if/when one landing gear collapses the other main gear standing alone is long enough to keep the prop from striking the ground (the landing gear had a tendency to collapse until I increased servo travel and adjusted the travel end points.
If you want longer flight times and faster passes, the MAS props look like the best way to go. For absolute performance, the MAS 10x7 was the most effective with 33% more speed and the most efficient with 36% longer flight times. In the "scale-look" category the MAS 10x7x3-blade was the best choice tested, with 24% more speed and 7% longer flight times.
This plane flies very nicely and is more stable than most warbirds, due to the built-in wing dihedral and long tail. It is comparable to, if not easier than a PZ T-28 Trojan in ease of flying, but a better turning airplane at the limit.
The setup ships with a far forward CG, but even with the CG moved to the manual's recommendation, the plane dives strongly in idle. The CG could slide a little farther aft still, for ultimate maneuverability. Even so, loops can get impressively tight and rolls are naturally axial, minus noticeable adverse yaw tug on the rising wing. The adverse yaw tend to help keep the nose from falling as much when the wings are slicing along the gravity vector, so it is not all bad. Still, an aileron roll will drop the nose by 5-10 degrees per 360 without mid-roll rudder and some down-elevator application when inverted.
The gear up position looks more realistic as the plane effortlessly rolls into strafe, terrorize, and lay waste to the good people of the world. Surprisingly, lowering the gear at pattern speed doesn't generate much of a pitch change, though the speed clearly bleeds.
Landing is easy once you become accustomed to the sensitive but fully predicable elevator--nothing a little D/R and Expo can't smooth right out. Three point touchdowns quickly become the rule rather than the exception, and the plane rolls out very straight as long as you avoid the temptation to over-correct.
The landing gear is quite complex, and includes spring piston shock absorbers and plastic extension guidance hardware. And that created my final maiden voyage surprise: after I taxiied over and picked up the plane, a main wheel feel off. Hmmm, probably not the best plan to use a axle nut that one wheel naturally spins to loosen. Nut lost. Replacement size hard to find.
Another problem with the gear is the plastic elbows providing directional guidance for the mains. The plastic is so flimsy that the wheels tend to wobble. Another easy fix, super glue the spring pistons so nothing moves. Shock absorbers are overrated, anyway.
Appearance: A+
Nice scale rendition. What's not to love?
Airframe: A
Nice foam. Easy assembly. Strong pliable foam and surface.
Power System: B+
Not a bad stock motor so far. Battery strap is useless.
Build Quality/Durability: F
Great airframe. Crap components. Dangerous ESC malfunction.
Value: B+
Better than more expensive Parkzone flyers in this class.
Overall Grade: D+
Super foamie, minus a little issue with spontaneous combustion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Top 10 This Week
-
Completed model including guide wires, painted prop and 9 cylinder radial. Update 11: Paint and landing gear mods. I added two 2 mm c... -
Update: Downgraded to F for poor quality. Became unflyable after a few hours use with no crashes. I got the opportunity to pick up a b... -
Computer simulation has gotten good enough to be useful for learning to fly RC. Some might even say a good sim is a modern necessity. Can ... -
The HK P-38 flies beautifully, so it was an easy choice to sink $35 into a decent set of 32g servoless retracts . The stock retracts don...
-
Updated in yellow. A flurry of Super Cub's have hit the market, it's an embarrassment of riches. Flyzone's entry, their Sele... -
Update: Coming Soon - AS3X Head-to-Head comparison. Yes, I admit it, I knew from the start that my easy-hovering gyro-enhanced Cessna 150... -
Update: Here is the Fw-190 with a Power 10 running on 3S (4S is not a Power 10 option). It achieves about the same speed as the stock airp...
-
INTRO Update: The Edge is insanely overpowered wi... -
Update: Also see: Fixing the Flyzone Fokker Dr.1 Micro Update: After all that was discussed below, the little Fokker's motor shaft r...
Top 10 This Month
-
Update 3: See also: http://z8rc.blogspot.com/2012/01/blade-mcp-x-100-tail-blow-out-fix.html Update 2: mCP X with Z8RC truss upgraded to A...
-
This area is for feedback, suggestions, or questions about any topic...
-
Continuing and ending my mini-series on how to land, this article focuses on flying a good traffic pattern: the military Overhead. The Ove... -
Scam alert. After posting a few of actual reviews on RCGroups.com, I was met with this message: Critical of a paying sponsor, your post h...
-
Individual model recommendations are based on an overall grade of B- or higher. This overall tabulation revealed that covers the 67th per... -
Update: Scoring matrix added, below. Update: Z83X vs. AS3X flight testing is complete. Flight videos and conclusions listed below. Mane... -
Update 9/14/2012: In the update below, I noted that the 12,200 trigger was breached, but this is the problem with using absolute thresholds... -
Update 2: Video with a 3S 180 mAh 25C: Pretty fast little jet! Update 1 : In early December, 2011 Z8RC began exclusively designing an... -
Completed model including guide wires, painted prop and 9 cylinder radial. Update 11: Paint and landing gear mods. I added two 2 mm c...
-
Some might not notice, but with very few exceptions the airplanes that I review all have one thing in common: they are classics. This buil...
