baldrick

It's really your call on engine choice. When I build from a kit the largest recommended engine is the smallest I use. I just think that 40-50cc is a bit big. You need to think of the extra torque the motor has and the size prop you will need with it. Also with more weight you increase wing loading which in turn significantly reduces the performance envelope the planes was designed for. Some one correct me if I am wrong. From the video that RCDON did showing the 1.80 4 stroker there is no need to go larger than that.

RVM

ZDZ 40 still too big and heavy. Brison 2.4 = 40cc, and the 3.2 is 50cc, both of which are again, too big and heavy.

I would stick to glow with this particular aircraft. How about a Saito 1.25?

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

thanks but I am lookin to open new doors.... and if i did that i would stick with a YS.

RVM

Then go with a YS 1.10 or something.

I just don't think a gasser is the way to go with this particular model, especially not any of the ones you have mentioned. They're designed to haul around 14lbs-18lbs planes...

FlyerBry

My Feedback: (8)

If you are looking to go gas on this plane here are some choices to consider. Note that a 26cc is roughly the same displacement as a 1.60 glow engine. The difference, however, is in the fuel and weight of the gas engines versus the glow options. Gasoline produces less power than glow fuel and the gas engines are also heavier than a comparable glow engine so keep this in mind.

http://www.bcmaengines.com/BCMA26.htm

http://brillelli.com/brillelli_engines_007.htm

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...rodID=ZENE20EI

In terms of performance, the best options on this airframe include the YS 110 and Saito 125. These will provide maximum power at minimum weight. Of course, the drawback is you are burning expensive glow fuel that is a sloppy mess to clean up.

The gas choices are much cleaner and therefore require much less cleanup. Also, gasoline is dirt cheap in comparison to glow fuel. The plane will also require a smaller fuel tank that can be located on the CG than if running a glow engine. However, the gas engines will be heavier so your plane will be dragging around extra engine weight (not totally offset by the lighter fuel load) while not making as much power.

It depends on how you want the plane to fly and your flying style if you will be satisfied with one of the gas engines on this plane. This would be an easier decision if we were talking about a scale high winger. In a high performance biplane however, the gas choices may not be a good match.

I have been trying to make this very decision myself and although I have talked to a couple people who have seen or known someone with an Ultimate 10-300 with a Zenoah G23/G26 on it, I haven't been able to actually find anyone who has first-hand experience with a gas engine on this plane. Therefore, the final performance with one of these engines is a bit of a shot in the dark. While I believe these engines are light enough for the airframe, I'm not so sure they would have enough power to make me feel satisfied.

FlyerBry

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Thanks for the comment but I've been running YS 120s in this airframe for the last 16 years....Though dont get me wrong I love YS and their performance and will stand behind YS bar-none. But im looking to open new doors and make waves that have never been made before.

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Thanks for the comments....I did talk with BMCA today for about 30 mins and will probably go with their 26cc engine. And its a plus because they are local to me and if I have a problem with their engine then I can take it to them for a tune etc.

I was also looking at like a G 26 etc. but I dont think they will give me the performance I want and am looking for. but if I could find something like their 38 then maybe so but after looking at their weights I will prob. stick with the BMCA engine line.

As your last statement said that their isnt hardly anyone dropping a gas in this frame because they think it will break or wont fly good but as I always say you never know till you try. And if it flys good and flys like you want then everyone else can copy the stuff you already did first. But then again there is alot of people that are ok with flying the same comb forever....and I was one of those but now with how far gas engines have come in the last 10 years or so Im looking to open new doors. Hell a person could find their were better off leaving it the way it was rather then spending the money to change over to gas....then all you can say after that is hey I tryed.

John

RVM

I'm going to guess that the only maneuver you really wish to perform with this plane is hovering, because I think the BCMA 26 will put the wingloading through the roof.

There is no gas engine that will fit this airframe that will provide anywhere near the power:weight that a glow engine will give. The wingloading on the Ultimate, with an extra pound or more of engine, ignition and battery will go through the roof.

Expect a lot of tipstalls and snaps.

Also, I don't think there are many waves to be made with this airframe. Most things that work have already been tried and tested, and they're commonly used for a reason.

Just my thoughts, but whatever you enjoy is the best thing to do, since this is your plane, not mine!

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Well Im glad everyone and their brother lives at sea level where glow runs its ass off and makes more power then gas. They must only sell the power house glow engines where everyone else lives and send the ****ty ones here. ...... But im not one of those lucky brothers that lives at sea level.....so when you live at 6000 OVER sea level glow doesnt run as good as it does at sea level. One must look to different roads to go down....And last I checked that BMCA 26 was about 38 ounces (including ignition and muffler) and a YS 1.40-1.60 was 33 ounces (plus 20oz. of glow fuel) so you add all that up and thats 53 ounces. (3lbs 31oz.) and even if I went with the 26 with a 16 oz. tank that still 1 oz. more then the YS with a 20 oz. tank...hell we've even put 25 oz. tanks in Ultimates before with no proglems.....but im sure you thought about that while looking at their web site, before making your post or knew that before you made that post. ...So I dont think the wing loading will rocket through the roof like you think. Sorry Im not die hard glow fan (like you) that loves to pay 18.00 bucks a gallon for fuel and only get about 7 flights on a gallon of fuel. I believe there is better and cheaper (2.03 a gallon for gas) ways out in the world and I am going to use them. Gas has came along way since my earily days of flying and I love the performace of gas up here and I am going to go that route. Guess I better pick up a super tiger 4500 for my H9 46% Ultimate since glow makes so much more power.

If you dont mind me asking.......I was wondering how many CG Ultimates you've owned and flown and built and for how long ? I myself have been flying and building this airframe for the better part of 16 years for myself my father and others that have wanted one.

FlyerBry

My Feedback: (8)

WarbirdAirRacer, I say give it a try... I agree, I don't think the wing loading will be too bad. The new Zenoah G20ei is being advertised as a good match for .60 size warbirds and the Ultimate will have more wing area than a typical .60 size warbird for sure. To me the big question has always been the power output. I don't think there will be any problem with the 26 working with this airframe. The level of performance is the big question mark for me. It seems to me everything I have read about this plane is it will fall out of the air during deadstick landings due to the typical biplane drag that causes it to lose speed so quickly. Sure the stall speed will be a little higher than if a lighter engine were installed but I don't think it will be unmanagable for any pilot that is already experienced enough to handle this plane. As you alluded to in your post, gas engines offer the advantage of being more reliable so the dreaded dead stick landing is much more unlikely. There have also been quite a few examples of this airframe powered with glow engines along with smoke system installations which may provide a similar wing loading to one of the gassers without smoke.

RVM, as far as everything already having been tried with this airframe I'm not so sure I agree with that statement in this case. While some have run the Zenoah G26 on this airframe and it seems to be considered a little too heavy by most. The engines I listed in my post have just come on the market in the last year or two. I seem to recall the BCMA or Brillelli being introduced at the Toledo show in 05. The little Zenoah is the most recent and it is the first gasser in this range to be introduced by a big manufacturer. Most folks stick to the mainstream engines so there isn't much information on the other two when considering this airframe or any other for that matter. Horizon has advertised that the little Zenoah will work acceptably on the Funtana 90 - a 3D airframe. I am a bit suspect as to how good a match the Funtana and G20ei really is but that tells me it should be an even better match for a non-3D plane at a similar weight.

I do have my doubts about any kind of hovering/3D capability with this airframe. The Ultimate isn't known for 3D even when running a lightweight glow engine. I would expect smooth, graceful aerobatics above anything else. This shouldn't be any surprise to anyone as this airframe has been around far longer than the 3D craze.

WarbirdAirRacer, go for it and let us know what you think. I think you will be as good a judge as anyone with your past experience with this airframe.

Keep us posted!

FlyerBry

R/C Lee

My Feedback: (3)

For what it's worth, I was using a Saito 1.25 in my Ultimate and I have been underwhelmed by its performance. As WarbirdAirRacer mentions, flying at altitude makes a lot of difference. I fly at 3500 feet and the performance is severely limited compared to flying at 500 feet. I have taken the Saito out of mine and since I had it available, I am in the process of installing a ST 3250 on glow. It's not that I need vertical out of site performance, it's just that the Ultimate absorbs a lot of energy and the additional power available in the vertical side of things will really help. Needless to say, I won't be flying at full throttle all of the time, although it's been my observation that many modelers don't use the throttle appropriate to the maneuver. The great thing about this hobby is that even with all of these differing opinions, we continue to experiment and have fun doing it. Lee

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

Im glad im not the only one that thinks that the left stick needs or has to be all the way at the top of the radio in order for something to fly....You know FlyerBry your right...There is people that have put smoke systems in these with out issue. So I dont think that it is or will be as big of an issue as some make it out to be......I think people make it an issue is beucase one doesnt look at a smoke as alot of weight...vs a gas engine that looks like alot of weight and once someone sees how much something weighs then it takes on a new toll....I also think that Ultimates dont bleed off tons of speed on a DS landings like most think....But then again alot depends on how or where and what the plane was doing when the engine died.

People are always scared to try something new or afraid to try something new or change what works or what works best for them...which is ok because we all do it. I just want to do something new and be a first of its kind and if it dont work well then i guess its back to the power house glow engines. [&o]...will add more later

RVM

You were mostly talking about DA50s and whatnot. Frankly, a ZDZ40, Brison 2.4, DA50 or any engine in that class on this airframe is asking for trouble and is not a good idea.

YS engines are not affected very much by altitude, even at 6,000' ASL.

The 26cc, from what I've read, so this could be incorrect, has about the same power as a YS1.10, if a little bit more. The thinner air makes your wingloading exponentially more important than it does for us sea level folks. So what you have is about the same or a little more power than a YS 1.10, but the gasser is affected by altitude where the YS basically is not (not to mention loss of propeller efficiency, so the gasser is hit twice), and a heavier airplane that is in thinner air where it actually needs to be even lighter than it would have to be elsewhere. Wingloading and air density are exponential factors, not linear, so bear that in mind when considering how heavy you can let your plane get.

While your wingloading may not "go through the roof", as I said, it will go up, and probably significantly so. This might not be so bad at 100' ASL, but at 6,000' ASL you could have some serious problems.

You never mentioned you were at 6,000 feet. Don't throw that into my face as if I should have been able to figure it out. There are lower elevations in CO.

This is not a cheap hobby. While I certainly like to cut costs as much as possible, I've given myself over to the fact if I want to fly I gotta pay. It's like keeping marine reef aquariums and whatnot ... $18.00/gallon for fuel is just part of it, and unfortunately at your altitude I think a YS with the plane as light as possible is the best choice.

I have flown both light and heavy CG Ultimates. The plane has a tendency to tip stall and snap when it is light and at sea level. If you are very high and heavier you will have more of a problem.

It's up to you, obviously, and your ideas may work and be the best combo ever envisioned for the CG Ultimate. I never said it wouldn't. I simply said that I really think it's not the best choice.

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

On this 18th page I stated that I was looking into getting the BMCA 26cc gasser... but after looking at specs I think I will go with their 40cc..as its not more more then what was in the plane already. The DA 50 would be about 5lbs with everything from spinner to 10 oz. of fuel to standoffs.....and yes I agree that is to much weight. But that doesnt mean that its the end of the world for this model, or new ideas for it.

"YS engines are not affected very much by altitude, even at 6,000' ASL."

Yes I know this and that is why they have been the number 1 engine in my hangar for the last 16 years. They are whats in my Top Flite warbirds and every Ultimate I have owned or built for someone, hands down.

"You never mentioned you were at 6,000 feet. Don't throw that into my face as if I should have been able to figure it out. There are lower elevations in CO."

Oh Im sorry I didnt know I had to state where I live when it posted under my screen name.[sm=thumbup.gif] Plus there is not that many places here in CO that are under 4000 feet. And if I have to go to some place (other then my flying field) to enjoy my flying skills then there is something wrong.

Well about the fatest Ultimate I have seen was about 13.5 lbs.....and it really didnt fly any different then ones about 11lbs or so....So Im not to worried about it being a brick when i lay off that left stick. so wing loading isnt really the number 1 thing that I am worried about though you may think that is wrong and I hard headed and I suck but I guess I will learn the hardway.

It's like keeping marine reef aquariums and whatnot

LOL you got that right my 210gal reef tank kills me sometimes.

Yes your also right about YS being the best comb for this plane and it has been my number 1 choice for many many years....And now I just want to try a new road to go down. And if doesnt work then I can always go back to the YS and 18.00 bucks a gal for fuel

It's up to you, obviously, and your ideas may work and be the best combo ever envisioned for the CG Ultimate. I never said it wouldn't. I simply said that I really think it's not the best choice.

I think life doesnt always work on the whats the best choice...Im sure there was people back in the day that told our ansisters not to do something because they thought is wasnt the best choice......rules are made to be broken and and new roads are made to be driven on and open the door(s) for someone that may want to do something like this after me. Most people want to wait for someone else to try new things and wait to see what happends to them....but im not waitting any longer.

RVM

Well, I wasn't trying to start a flame war, just offer some advice. Whatever you decide, do let us know how it turns out. You may prove me very wrong. God knows it has happened before!

RVM

Ooo got some pics of your reef? I had to take down my nanoreef (20 gal long) and my 120 when I moved from California some years ago. $5000+ into the 120, and I got the rock at a steal around $5/lbs (Fiji, very porous). People think R/C is expensive. They don't know what an expensive hobby really is methinks. [X(]

What kind of corals did you keep? I had softies in my nano and mostly SPS in my 120. I especially loved my acros. I had a beautiful irridescent purplish/blue acro that I would sell frags off of for $40. I think my overall favorites were the Tridacna sp. that I kept. Some pretty maximas up top and a few squamosa on the bottom.


[quote]ORIGINAL: WarbirdAirRacer



It's like keeping marine reef aquariums and whatnot

LOL you got that right my 210gal reef tank kills me sometimes.

baldrick

What I have noted is all engines lose performance at higher altitudes. This is due to the density of the air thus less getting into the air fuel mix (the higher you are the less air there is). Methanol engines produce more power than the same sized gas engines BUT they use more fuel in the process. This is why gassers are more econimical but also shows why in general you need to have larger gas engines.
I have flown from about 4m ASL at one strip, and now fly from 200m ASL to 1500m ASL and I can tell there is a difference in the performance of the engines depending on altitude.

baldrick

It seems that if you are into R/C aircraft you need to keep fish. We have 11 tanks running at the mo and I have about 12 models getting built. I just cant find time for both easily

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

lol I wasnt trying to start a flame war....just stating some facts from the past and what i know.....I just believe things are ment to be tryed and records broken. (per say)

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

I will have to do some digging around for some pics...I know i had some pics on ReefCentral.com.....I will hunt some down and send em over your way....I had some small brains but it was mostly a shark and ray tank. I also had all fiji live rock in there.....I couldnt keep much because of the ray's and sharks because of their skin. But I had some shrimp in there aswell....I dont have it anymore because I had to movie a few times over the year and couldnt keep it because of size and to much work and plus it wasnt good for the fish so I sold everything to a local fish store that im good friends with......

How I got all my stuff was at almost cost because I am a truck driver and I use to drive for a Central Pet and they own alot of the smaller companys like all your aquariums and Oceanic etc. matter a fact their home office was in cali.... so im sure you know who im talking about...I have been looking into getting back into getting another tank/salt water but right now I would rather spend my pop can pennys on airplanes.....LOL

RVM

You're in NZ though - you have relatively easy access to the most beautiful corals and fish in the world. You have to keep them on principle!

RVM

Ahh cool I am DrBeer (I think) on ReefCentral. I haven't posted in a long time though.

You're a shark person. I see! What kind of shark did you keep? Must have been one of only a couple of species that you can keep in a 200-300 gallon tank.

Man it must have been nice to get marine gear at cost. It's so bloody expensive. I'm in the same boat as you right now - I can only afford one hobby and airplanes is it for the time being. That is, until my wife finishes law school.

baldrick

Fish keepers go to WWW.FNZAS.ORG.NZ Lots of info, pics, and we have internation members. We are "Loopy" on the site.
You'll see some NZ tanks and what people are breeding at the mo

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

I had 2 black tip reef sharks that were about 13 inches long and a blue spotted ray...plus some other small coral/reef fish that could live in the rocks/brains. I havent posted on RC.com in prob. a year and a half or so. I do miss it alot and really have been thinking about getting a small tank like a 55 or a bow front of about the same size. But I dont think I could or would do another huge tank like that again. Let a lone a shark tank as they are very picky and you really have to watch everything that gose into the tank and it was more of a pain in the ass then it was fun,,,,but it always brought good convs. after dinner when we have friends over. lol

WacoCabinaero

It's easy to say after the fact but I have learned the hard way that Redundant switches "JR HD w/gold connectors" are my choice to help prevent such loss. The second switch with a bat pack going into an an unused channel on RX for parallel redundancy. The best switches wear out and in theory should be tossed periodically. Hard to do. Small wonder 1:1 AC have stringent log keeping. I look at the loss of this gent's beauty Ultimate and think about running the mentioned switches that fail in the closed position. This simple concept keeps every car with an errant thermostat from boiling over. The dumb luck that we are served by in the practice of using single simple switches with seemingly few incidents lull us into a false sense of security.

I have seen what I suspect is switch failure in many instances where the affected individual did not have the courage to admit that the switch got him and therefore not benefiting the rest of us from his loss. Kudos to you for having the guts to demostrate the need for switch awareness. Despite the dangers I am still guilty as I still base the need for redundancy on the cost of the possible loss of what I'm flying. I will now try to be more aware of what "My" switch failure may cost "Someone else".