| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 164.1 | No such animal. | TALLIS::FISHER | Battery, Mags, & Gas Off! | Tue May 12 1987 16:52 | 23 |
| >< Note 164.0 by ANKER::ANKER "Anker Berg-Sonne" >
> -< ACE 4-20 Biplane >-
>
> Because of the decreasing challenge of flying a PT-20
> with an O.S. FS20 I decided to retire (for crash backup) the
> airframe and purchase an ACE 4-20 Biplane. Any experience with
> this kit?
>
> Anker
The ACE 4-20 is not a Biplane.
Only the ACE 4-40 comes in a Biplane version.
But the 4-20 looks like a nice plane.
There aren't many small Bipes, but there aren't many small four strokes.
_!_
Bye ----O----
Kay R. Fisher / \
==============================================================
|
| 164.2 | RCM review | AKOV01::CAVANAGH | Well, I'm up here, how do I get down? | Wed May 13 1987 10:41 | 28 |
| The May issue of RCM has a product review of the ACE 4-40 Bipe.
The 2 line summary reads as follows:
WE LIKED THE:
Construction features, flying characteristics.
WE DIDN'T LIKE THE:
Small fuel tank compartment, short wing spars (minor).
The review says things like 'The 4-40 Bipe is reputed to be a
"Pilot Friendly" airplane, with excellent ground handling characteristics
and capable of slow and stately flight maneuvers. The design has certainly
accomplished that.' and, 'No surprises whatsoever! All the basic aerobatic
maneuvers are easily within the capabilities of the 4-40 Bipe, and attained
with smoothness, thanks to the generous wing area. Takeoffs and landings
are about the easiest of any taildragger we've flow.'
Their conclusion was:
'Though the 4-40 BIPE is not a beginner's airplane, any builder/flier
with a moderate amount of experience should not encounter any problems
with either construction or flying. Even the experienced flier will enjoy
the flight characteristics.'
Jim C
|
| 164.3 | I'm confused | ANKER::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Wed May 13 1987 10:45 | 12 |
| Re:< Note 164.1 by TALLIS::FISHER "Battery, Mags, & Gas Off!" >
There's some confusion about the ACE mono and biplanes.
RCM in their review of the 4-40 biplane states that there are
biplanes in all sizes. There was also an ad from a company with
the 4-20 biplane, which I ordered. When the kit arrived it was a
4-40 bipe, so you may be right.
Back to the question, slightly revised. Does anyone have
experience with the 4-40 bipe?
Anker
|
| 164.4 | There is a listing for a 4-20... | AKOV01::CAVANAGH | Well, I'm up here, how do I get down? | Thu May 14 1987 12:02 | 10 |
| >There was also an ad from a company with
>the 4-20 biplane, which I ordered. When the kit arrived it was a
>4-40 bipe, so you may be right.
You are right! In RCM, there is an ad for Sheldon's Hobby Shop. They
list an "ACE 4-20 4/cycle Sport Biplane". I think this must have been a
misprint.
Jim C
|
| 164.5 | Sheldon's it was | ANKER::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Thu May 14 1987 14:08 | 9 |
| Re:< Note 164.4 by AKOV01::CAVANAGH "Well, I'm up here, how do I get down?" >
Yup,
They are the ones I ordered it from. Not a big problem,
except buying a new engine. I really like the O.S. FS40 Bypass
which will probably make this plane a screamer.
Anker
|
| 164.6 | An early review | ANKER::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Wed May 20 1987 13:58 | 24 |
| Re:< Note 164.0 by ANKER::ANKER "Anker Berg-Sonne" >
I'm in the midst of building the kit and though I might
give a review.
The kit is very easy to build for an experienced builder.
The materials are well below Great Planes in finish, and require
a fair amount of care to come out right.
The fuse is made from ply and is solid as a rock, this
plane is going to be able to fly straight into the ground without
a scratch. The only problem is that the ply parts aren't stamped
out terribly well and when you pop them out they tend to rip the
ply on the back. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact
that both sides come from similar sheets, so one of the ripped
sided will be on the outside.
The wings are fairly straight forward to build.
The instructions are really skimy. Unless you have built
a kit before you will have a lot of difficulty understanding how
to do it.
Anker
|
| 164.7 | Not as strong as it looks... | LEDS::SMITH | | Thu May 21 1987 08:49 | 21 |
| As far as flying into the ground... I just completed the Ace 4-40
last friday and attempted to fly it saterday morning. The take
off roll was straight but as soon as the plane came off the ground
it rolled a little to the left and I overcontrolled with too much
right (too much airleron throw). The right wingtip hit the ground
and it did a 180 and pancaked onto the ground. It didn't hit hard
enough to break the wood prop but the fuse broke cleanly in half
at the trailing edge of the wing. At this point the bottom decking
ends and there is no support forward of the former on the top.
The only structure is the sides and the bottom joint to the sheeting
and former. The break was very clean on both sides and only took
a half hour to repair, but when I did repair it I reinforced the
area by epoxying some tri stock on both sides and the bottom, joined
to the former behind the wing. BTW the plane flew on monday (takeoff
and landing performed by my instructor Bill Lewis).
I had the same complaints about the stampings and the instructions.
Was a very easy plane to build other than the extra work to clean
up the stamped parts.
-Charlie
|
| 164.8 | It actually flies! | ANKER::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Mon Jun 01 1987 16:10 | 57 |
| Re:< Note 164.4 by AKOV01::CAVANAGH "Well, I'm up here, how do I get down?" >
> >There was also an ad from a company with
> >the 4-20 biplane, which I ordered. When the kit arrived it was a
> >4-40 bipe, so you may be right.
>
>
> You are right! In RCM, there is an ad for Sheldon's Hobby Shop. They
>list an "ACE 4-20 4/cycle Sport Biplane". I think this must have been a
>misprint.
They are still running the same ad in the July issue!
A couple more notes on bulding. The struts have to be
soldered and I was a bit worried about how easy/difficult that
would be. It turned out to be easy with a 40W iron and the wings
came out straight and true. While soldering I kept measuring the
distance between the lower and upper wing tips both in front and
in back, just to be sure.
This last weekend I took the plane out for the first
time. The previous afternoon I had spent running the O.S. FS 40
Surpass in. It's funny with mixture and needs to be run very
rich in order to prevent detonations, which are so severe that
they yank the propnut loose. Anybody experienced these?
So I take it out to the field, a little worried because
all I have ever flown is a high wing trainer, and I'm not going
to let someone else test it for flyworthiness.
First problem is that the ground range of the Tower
Hobbies mini flight pack receiver is about 10 feet with the
antenna down! This compares with 75 feet for the regular
receiver. We check the range with the antenna up and the plane
lifted into the air. Maybe 300 feet! I decide to to risk $500
worth of plane on a piece of junk like this, so on the spot I
cannibalize my Great Planes Trainer 40 radio and battery, and now
I'm O.K.
Off to the runway (this is a breezy day). Whats's this
noise (bum, bum, bum), oh just the old pump pushing adrenaline.
Put it down on the runway, full throttle and it really takes off,
an I'm still in control! Very, very little trimming is needed
but the controls are a bit sluggish because of the microservers.
I had been a spot worried about the travel of the control
surfaces, but they were close to the recommendations. Finally
the engine dies (still not fully run in and adjusted) and I come
in for the best and cleanest dead stick landing I have ever made!
Since then I have started practicing rolls, Immelmans,
upside down flight, simply had a ball.
I love this plane!
Anker
Morale: Don't buy the Tower Hobbies mini flight pack!
|
| 164.9 | flight packs --- airborne radio subsystems | CRVAX1::KAPLOW | There is no 'N' in TURNKEY | Mon Jun 01 1987 19:22 | 4 |
| I have a friend who uses the tower mini packs with no range
problems. There may be something wrong with the one you got. Give
them a chance to swap it before writing it off. What have you got
to lose by trying?
|
| 164.10 | Silicon Valley hobby shops | CLOSUS::TAVARES | John--Stay low, keep moving | Tue Jun 02 1987 11:20 | 16 |
| Anker, my Tower Hobbies mini flight pack range checks normally;
that is, I can back off 50 or so feet (never tried it farther),
point the collapsed antenna at at the plane, and get full
control. Sounds like you got a "Friday" radio (made on Friday
when the worker was thinking on the weekend!).
On Sheldon's; I used to buy there when I lived in Silicon Valley.
It's a nice little shop, with some of the best prices in the
country, but I can't believe they're under Tower or Mutchler's on
anything. Like I said, their prices are good....
The new outfit, PEC Hobbies, in Mountain View, was under their
prices on many things.
By the way, I notice Ray's Hobbies, in Texas, offers some nice
deals, and their shipping and handling charges are less than Tower.
|
| 164.11 | Thanx | ANKER::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Tue Jun 02 1987 11:31 | 21 |
| Re: .9 & .10
Thanks for the info on the receiver. under 10 feet was
way too short. I called Tower and got them to agree to take the
receiver back, but because I can fit the full size reciever and
battery into the plane I asked them to substitute those instead.
A thought on hunting for the right prices. I personally
lean towards using the local stores to build a relationship in
spite of the small price penalty. I do most of my purchases from
Bob Fisher and have found that he gets friendlier and friendlier
the more I buy. In the end I believe the advice and service he
can give is well worth the extra money.
A piece of information that Also would like to share is
that Bob Fisher has an arrangment with an old guy who builds
models for $70. This includes engine and control rod
installation plus a superb covering job. For beginners or those
who simply can't find the time, this is a steal.
Anker
|
| 164.21 | first flight on a 4-40 | WMOIS::DA_WEIER | | Tue Jan 16 1990 18:33 | 57 |
|
First Ace 4-40 flight
While shoveling the last bit of snow off the driveway from yesterdays
dusting, it slowly dawned on me that possibly, just possibly this might
be a nice flying day.
I work second shift, so I loaded up my recently completed 4 - 40,
all excited about my possible first glo powered flight. I headed out to
the Garder field with a quick stop at Tom's hobby on the way down (good
thing, because it turns out I needed the extra glo plug and the props
I purchased.
I got to the field, and after awhile I got the FS-40 to idle
decently when the glo driver was removed. During the process, I
switched the glo plug, and made some mixture adjustments. It finally
ran well, but had a rough idle. Oh well, I decided to go for it, and
carried the plane out to the runway for its maiden trim flight.
(The radio chack had previously been completed at home)
WOW!!! I couldn't believe the ailerons could be that much out of
trim! The plane started veering left on takeoff. I thought it just
needed right rudder application, but it turned out the ailerons were
so far out, that I needed full right trim to get any chance at straight
and level. After it (and I) settled down, I decided to fly for awhile
and get the feel before landing. After awhile I got a little more
confident and tried a loop and a roll. at the end of the roll, I
throttled back, and voila!, deadstick landing! At this point, I
am thanking the lord for all my deadstick experience flying electrics!
The landing was a little short, but turned out fine.
After stopping from shaking, I made the trim adjustments to the
Ailerons and the throttle and tried again. Thid time the plane took
off like it was on rails: Slight up elevator, full throttle, very
litte rudder needed, and a nice smooth take-off resulted.
As I got the feel of the bird, I started doing some low/slow passes
over the runway to practice landing approaches. It was really neat
to see the 4 - stroker just pulling the plane slowly down the
runway.
As for the rest of the flights; I got to slow and low on the third
flight, stalled, bounced and landed. The bounce was so severe that the
prop was broken, and the wheels came right trough the monocote on the
wings.
Summary: Glo planes are messier than electrics.
It took awhile to get used to the longer flight times.
The 4-40 is a nice flying plane, with no bad habits that
I can see. And it is really built tough, and can standup
to a good a mount of abuse.
The plane is designed to fly the wing, and therefore is
fairly low powered, but graceful in flight. I think a 48
Surpass, or an Enya 53 would be a nice improvement (No Eric,
not a YS-120!) In general, I am pleased with this as my
first glo plane, and would recommend it to others.
BTW, I this counts for my January flight,
Dan
|
| 164.16 | A new plane.. | AKOV11::CAVANAGH | R/C planes..The bigger the better! | Thu Jan 18 1990 13:58 | 18 |
|
Well this seems to be the closest topic for this one sooooo...
After losing my Goldberg Cub I need to build another plane. Right now
I am thinking of the ACE 4-60 with my ASP .61 in it. I know the 4-60
refers to a .60/4-stroke, but I don't have one and can't afford one so
the ASP will have to do.
I know a number of people who have built, or are building the bipe
versions of the 4-XX, but no one that has experience with the mono.
So, is there anyone with comments on the 4-60? And yes, I have read the
preceding notes in this topic.
Any input is welcome!
Jim
|
| 164.17 | | HEFTY::TENEROWICZT | | Thu Jan 18 1990 14:17 | 8 |
| Jim, A fellow pilot in my area had one with an OS longstroke in
it. Flew well on half throttle. BUT. When you cover the wing do
so with a plastic film that resists stretching under loads. He had
used a woven material and it would flex under load. At full throttle
the plane was interesting to fly. It actually lost aileron athority.
Tom
|
| 164.18 | 4-40 experience. | WMOIS::DA_WEIER | | Thu Jan 18 1990 18:10 | 65 |
|
Jim,\
I just completed an ace 4-40 monoplane. Essentially the same
aircraft downscaled to a .40 size. I only have a couple of flights on
it, but I can share some info with you.
The series are designed around 4-strokes for the reason that they
have a barn door sized semi symetrical wing, and therefore a fairly
low wing loading. The planes are designed to take advantage of the
4-strokes torque vs the 2-strokes rpm. An analogy would be using
a geared electric motor vs a direct drive on a glider. In the
instructions, they say a 2-stroke can be substituted, but a lot of
the grace is lost. I woud imagine that they would recommend a .40
2-stroke for the ACE 4-60, but I am sure you can get the .60 to work.
About the plane:
Very rugged fuselage made almost entirely of plywood. The wing
also seems very rugged (I covered mine in Monocote). Aluminim gear is
provided, and bolted to the bottom of the fuse (also a rugged
arrangement). The plane overall is made to stand up to a fair amount of
abuse (I know, I have already given it some during my first flights.
One problem (Opportunity) is the relitively small area they
provide under a hatch for the fuel tank. I could only fit a 4 0z
in my plane. This may or may not be a problem with the 4-60, but
something to consider, especially with the higher fuel consumption of
the 2-strokes.
I also made a different windshield for mine, as I didn't care for
the one provided (personal preference).
I took their advice and reinforced the with a 2" strip of glass
down the center before applying the 8' wide cloth over it that they
provide. In retrospect, I would trash the cloth in the kit, and use
something like KB lite for the 8" wide section.
About flying:
With the FS-40 (Not a Surpass) in the plane it provides adaquate
performance, with an average takeoff distance. I think a 48 surpass
would make it a much more exciting airplane to fly, so the .60
2-stroke should offer great performance.
After getting it trimmed, the plane does not exibit any bad habits
that I can see so far. The take off is very easy, and as the
manufacturer claims, it almost takes-off by itself. It has a fairly
wide stance on the main gear, so its very stable. Thedownside is that
the gear does not offer very much ground clearence for the prop. The
gear can be bent to trade wide stance for ground clearance, but so far,
I am accepting the broken props in favor of the wide gear.
I still have my CG at the forward limit, and it is fairly docile
as advertized. Moving it back 1/2 " will make it a much better
aerobatic performer when I am ready. Landing is straight forward.
Summary: I would think the 4-60 would be very similar, and I would
expect it to build and act very similar. If you are serious,
about it, go ahead, although I don't know how the 2-stroke
will change itsd personality.
I will be bringing mine to the next DECrcm meeting, so you can see it
there if you want.
Dan W.
|
| 164.19 | see 412.3 | ABACUS::RYDER | perpetually the bewildered beginner | Thu Jan 18 1990 20:57 | 1 |
| See also 412.3 and 886.1
|
| 164.20 | The 4-60 is still my 1st choice | AKOV11::CAVANAGH | R/C planes..The bigger the better! | Fri Jan 19 1990 09:18 | 23 |
|
Tom,
Thanks for the input about covering the wing. If I do go with the 4-60
I will make sure I have good materials inside and on the wing.
Dan,
Great info.! I am looking at the 4-60 as a step up from my Kadet
Sr. without getting in over my head. The Kadet does not have ailerons
and flies REAL slow (ask Dan Snow about my 15 min. snap rolls 8^).
The 4-60 should be a faster plane (but certainly not a rocket), and the
addition of ailerons should make it a relatively comfortable transition.
I am still looking at some other planes that have been suggested off-line,
but I am leaning heavily towards the 4-60.
Thanks again,
Jim
|