peternj

My Feedback: (5)

Ok, looks like Ihave a little project. I'll run down to kinkos and get the plans scanned into electronic format. This way thay can be printed in full size on a plotter printer. Once Ihave this we'll take it from there. Iguess we'll need to encode the ribs and formers into cad so they can be cut out. Do you know a good lazer cutting place or have a CNC machine?

mrshea

My Feedback: (2)

i would be interested in the plans and patterns my self as it seems great planes is a little slow in shipping what they have. Phil

Twin_Flyer

My Feedback: (4)

While I am sure I still have my plans, an electronic copy would be great!

I have read if they dont feed the plans into the machine correctly or if it hasnt been well maintained, they can skew or slide around while being read which can cause errors in the copy. Plus some machines just cannot make a true 1:1 copy.

Bill S.

alfredbmor

That is correct, I have had that problem before and almost end with one side of the wing larger than the other.
Anyway, having a back up plan is a great idea and make the corrections on pen when needed.
I have a clear crystal table in home and I use to check if the copies are OK placing the original and the copy together and a lamp under the table.

Having a scanned plan is even better, then you may enlarge it and make a bigger biplane.

We are living in a great technology era and we can do almost everything throughout computers, scanners and internet.

Many parts of the Ultimate can be seen at the plans, so if you still have your plans, you are lucky and can repair any mishap with out problem.

Ribs are all the same size with the exception of those where the wing struts are attached, the only difference is on the material and the tabs.

72

Count me in. This is my last Ultimate - sold last year. Now have another kit to build. I'm looking for fiberglass cowl and pants if anybody has a set. What number am I ?

alfredbmor

You are in.
Thanks for posting your last Ultimate picture, it looks great.
What engine are you going to use on your next build?
Please take note, you got # 57.

I will post shortly the actual members list, the same that you can find on page six of this thread, it is already updated.

Welcome to the Brotherhood.

72

Thanks, this airplane had an ASP 108 with an enclosed pipe. My next one I'm not sure. I have an SK130, an OS160, a Saito 125 and a Saito 150 on the shelf. Can't make up my mind!

alfredbmor

An updated members list:

maukaonyx # 01
JohnMcGowan # 02
Cub Man # 03
DanS # 04
u2builder # 05
CRJDriver # 06
alfredbmor # 07
captinjohn # 08
yekots # 09
everwood # 10
JNorton # 11
Tailskid # 12
Crash Campbell # 13
frequent flyer # 14
daveopam # 15
VCScott # 16
PropWash # 17
eaticus # 18
mistermnkim # 19
Zebra One # 20
JimboGreek # 21
tony 0707 # 22
pushinoldrc # 23
bigal126 # 24
Steve Campbell # 25
raubold # 26
Revy Maxx # 27
twn # 28
vt-flier # 29
rk2648 # 30
Francisco Ortiz # 31
JohnB 96041 # 32
David Agar # 33
IMaflyer # 34
Reefrus # 35
Jduran157 # 36
Bipeguy03 # 37
SRQFlyer # 38
Charlie111 # 39
Flygilmore # 40
Falling leaf # 41
ericzombie # 42
Pacomb # 43
Atlanta 60 # 44
Gunneredwards # 45
braddock VC # 46
Cyberfyn # 47
Mrshea # 48
Peternj # 49
WarbirdAirRacer # 50
Abbott915 # 51
ArcticCatRider # 52
THEJADEGROUP # 53
Jjoos99 # 54
MajorTomski # 55
Twin Flyer # 56
72 #57
George Waldrop #58
TripleDeucer # 59

All numbers from here and on, are available.

New members, who want to join this great Brotherhood, please take the next number available (# 60 in example) or grab any number in advance of your choice.

Thanks.

alfredbmor

How did the enclosed pipe work? I have always wondered since I saw the plans for the first time.

I have never used a pipe, I know that there is a catch in the setup relating the distance from the engine to the thicker part of the pipe and from there to the end, but it is still a mistery to me.

72

The pipe worked fine but was fairly hard to build in and still have room for everything else. I ended up putting the elevator and servos in the tail. The pipe tunnel was built from 1/32 ply and extended to behind the cockpit. In the picture you can see the exhaust tube exiting the bottom of the plane. The hatch behind that is where the servos are located. Didn't require any added weight anywhere for balance. Ran nice and clean that way but I don't think I will do it again..

raubold

My Feedback: (156)

I am converting both of mine to DLE 20 at this moment. I will report results after next weekend and post some pictures here
Since they are powerfull enough and afordibel, I say No to Glow. The fist one came out lighter then with the YS 120 so far.

72

It will be interesting to see how they hold up to the vibration of the gasser. Once you get some time on them a report on this would be great.

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

Riddle me this. Why would a gas 1.20 engine have more vibration than a glow 1.20? Isn't the reciprocating mass the same for each? I'm talking single cylinder 2 stroke. I do not have 1.20 / 20 cc 2 stroke only 4 stroke and I haven't purchased a DLE-20 yet so I cannot do the test myself. But I'm really thinking of using a DLE-20 in my CG Ultimate.

I've asked the same question as it relates to servos. Most answers being to use metal geared because it is a gas engine. What difference does it make?

John

72

Thats my reason for asking the question. I have no idea what a 20cc gasser runs like so I was hoping to get some firsthand information. As far as metal gear servos versus regular ones, I use both in my 50cc gassers and haven't seen the difference yet.

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

72

Me too. I have a Saito 125 that should be equivalent to a DLE-20. I had planned on using a .91 Magnum 4 stroke for a power plant. I like the idea of lower fuel costs but I do not like overweight aircraft. I also do not like the typical chain saw noise of a 2 stroke gas engine. So I'm really on the fence waitng to hear from actual users experience. I want spring here - let's just bypass winter entirely.
John

TripleDeucer

My Feedback: (129)

I might be wrong on this, but I think the difference is in the length of stroke. A gas engine has a longer stroke so that is why they have more vibes. I remember back when OS came out with their long stroke .61 engines for pattern flying. The worry then was about vibration.

alfredbmor

Yes, I think I have read something about the same issue. On the other hand we have to remember that the props are longer and the airframes still are made from thin balsa and plywood, then the larger the engine, the stronger the vibration. (Assuming both causes, the one inferred by TripleDeucer and the largest props.)
There are anyway other Ultimate users that have gone with the gas option, I think that their opinion could enlighten our point of views.
On the other hand I strongly believe that the Ultimate airframe should be maintained at its lightest side, that way you could be on the safe side when an undesired death stick comes up.
By now I have seen two of them falling like a rock with out the time to save them using both YS 1.20 engines which are fairly on the heavy side but still far from the gassers.
I still suggest the OS 1.20 AX which is light and powerful (16 x 8 or 17 x 6 with around 9,000 rpm reading). Of course they are a bit expensive, but they do not consume your glow fuel like other big engines, neither have to use high nitro glow fuel.
The fun about all this is that the same airframe can use a wide variety of engines and still fly like a dream.

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

OS 120AX
Displacement: 1.218 cu in (19.96cc)
Bore: 1.197" (30.4mm)
Stroke: 1.083" (27.5mm)
DLE20
Displacement: 1.22cu in (20cc)
Bore and Stroke: 1.3 x 1.0" (32 x 25mm)
So the stroke is actually longer in the AX. I think I'll ask this in the gas forum later after giving time for more replies. My gut feeling is there should be no difference for the same size engine.
John

PowerPlay

My Feedback: (11)

72

Nice job with the pipe, looks really clean. If you built your next Ultimate as light as possible and put that Saito 125 on it - you wouldn't be disappointed

raubold

My Feedback: (156)

I think and i am sure after benchruning the Dle, it will be smoother on that Golberg and the Plane will sustain the DLE vibration easy. Thats one of the reasons i pulled the YS of, that Motor is anything but smooth. I see next week how it goes and let you know here in the forum. Should get the kill switch by the end of the week.

WarbirdAirRacer

My Feedback: (16)

I am sorry but, Ive been flying YS engines for more then 20 years and not once have I had a problem with vibrations! And Ive always ran 15x8 to 16x8 APC props! I even had a YS 1.20 with more then 4000 flights on it! And the ONLY reason I took off my YS off my Ultimate is because its a gas hog! And with the price of fuel I can no longer afford to feed it! So I am gonna bolt a DLE 30cc on mine! And if anyone wants to sell their vibrator YS'es I would be more then happy to buy them.

raubold

My Feedback: (156)

hmmm, i have a couple YS in use and semi retiredYS Engines witch perform graet and having them since ?? forgot but i found a bunch other wonderfull Engines witch putt just as good with less vibrations. I stick with my DLE 20 conversion, less Fuel $$ and less Rolls of cleaning Rags. 14 + lbs thrust verses 9 lbs raedy to go Airframe is goodenough for my expectaions.
Now i just have to figure outhow to post my pictures here, alredy put them in my Gallery because i know how to do that alright
PS:next weekend rain/snow, but Turkey day sounds goo to me for first flight DLE.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/gallery/ga...memid%3D139371

http://www.rcuniverse.com/gallery/ga...memid%3D139371

georgewaldrop

My Feedback: (28)

Hello folks,

I would like to join the CGU brotherhood.

I'm an old fart that has had a CGU framed for over 20 years...never finished it through several moves and life events, it has sat crated up from a move since 1991. I originally built it for an Enya R120 4St, but this winter when I [hopefully] finish this bird, I intend to more than likely go with the DLE20...I actually contemplated the DLE30, but after flying them, I am not sure this would be a good idea considering the reinforcement that would likely be necessary to the airframe and the resulting weight penalty...it just doesn't seem like it would/could fly as well overall!

Any of you that has/are making this change (DLE20), please post pics/specs/results as I am very interested (as many obviously are from the discussion here) in how the airframe takes the conversion and how the power of the DLE carries the airframe. I have a number of the DLE30 engines and love them, but haven't stepped up on the 20 yet.

Keep the faith!

alfredbmor

George, you are very welcome to this Great Brotherhood, I hope someone can be able to show some pics of this DLE20 which I have heard enough but I have never seen it in action. I bet that you will end with a tremendous powered biplane.

George your # 58, and i hope to see more of your project soon.

Thanks for joining.

Alfred.

georgewaldrop

My Feedback: (28)

Alfred,

Thanks for establishing the Brotherhood, and for letting me join. I hope to get back on the Ultimate in a couple months and [hopefully] by that time I will have my DLE20, and as I progress, will try to post some pics of the build. I built the Ultimate almost to the point of final sanding and covering over 20 years ago, so I will need to check it out and verify the viability of the construction and the wood, then finish it up. I have heard nothing but good about the CG Ultimate so I am looking forward to it. I sure hope to see some of the folks here also complete the conversion to the DLE so we can all see the advantages and [if any] pitfalls of that direction.