Aerofoam T-45
06-15-2021, 06:56 PM
#28
Bob,
The main reason I stopped responding in RCU before is we have all kinds of experts that know better than anyone else. It's not a jab at you, but you can see how everyone can hide and say whatever they want. Now back to the UAT or small tank. It has been used on the Aerofoam line of jets since day one. One example, to me, I do not like the aluminum fuel lines used, only because I like to use Barbs on all my fuel fittings. Does that make the product worthless or useless? NO, it is a matter of personal taste, preference and opinion. You can see the top of the tank when the receiver tray is installed. and that works for most people, but of course not all.
The main reason I stopped responding in RCU before is we have all kinds of experts that know better than anyone else. It's not a jab at you, but you can see how everyone can hide and say whatever they want. Now back to the UAT or small tank. It has been used on the Aerofoam line of jets since day one. One example, to me, I do not like the aluminum fuel lines used, only because I like to use Barbs on all my fuel fittings. Does that make the product worthless or useless? NO, it is a matter of personal taste, preference and opinion. You can see the top of the tank when the receiver tray is installed. and that works for most people, but of course not all.
I took a look at the "bubble trap" that is included with the aircraft - I did not call it a UAT as UAT is really a "brand name." I'm a little bit concerned if it will function well, and also concerned that when its mounted under the receiver board, you can't see it to determine if its working and if the fuel system is letting air in.
I'm wondering, did anyone of you who have this plane use this? Did you modify the RX board or where the bubble trap is mounted so you could inspect it for air in it after a flight?
Bob
I'm wondering, did anyone of you who have this plane use this? Did you modify the RX board or where the bubble trap is mounted so you could inspect it for air in it after a flight?
Bob
06-15-2021, 07:07 PM
#29
The strut support? It is a decorative piece, how hard did you land? It is a tube inserted into another tube. The brakes on the T-45 have not been reported as having a problem and after your post, I went and checked them on the runway about 20 times? I am still using 7.4 on mine but do have the AG63 on them.
Ralph
Ralph
Overall, they fly great. I am quite enjoying it in the big picture.
The brakes seem weak overall even with the 9.9v life recommended for the gear and brakes.
The strut support behind the front gear that connects to the fuse is weak at the base and broke on my first flight
Thinking about the L-39 next.
The brakes seem weak overall even with the 9.9v life recommended for the gear and brakes.
The strut support behind the front gear that connects to the fuse is weak at the base and broke on my first flight
Thinking about the L-39 next.
06-15-2021, 07:17 PM
#30
The answer to your points:
1. It is decorative piece, not structural.
2. We have tested this countless times, you can't be going fast when putting the gear up, we have asked the manufacturer to make stronger motors.
3. Move the tank 1/2 inch forward or install it on top of the tray if you want to see it. Opinions matter but only to a point. Is it critical for you to be able to see the fuel tank in the jet for the tanks to work?. You fill the UAT in what 15 seconds, then what? The main tanks take over.
4. We need to look at that to see if it's like that on all or why his was like that.
We tested the airplane for 6 months and made countless changes, and got 4 revision and test jets each with their own improvements. This is not meant to be a Top Gun scale quality, but a good representation of the Jet. If Bob wants to make his more scale or to his preferences, in no way shape or form is that a short coming from the manufacturer.
Ralph
Global Jet flight Team.
1. It is decorative piece, not structural.
2. We have tested this countless times, you can't be going fast when putting the gear up, we have asked the manufacturer to make stronger motors.
3. Move the tank 1/2 inch forward or install it on top of the tray if you want to see it. Opinions matter but only to a point. Is it critical for you to be able to see the fuel tank in the jet for the tanks to work?. You fill the UAT in what 15 seconds, then what? The main tanks take over.
4. We need to look at that to see if it's like that on all or why his was like that.
We tested the airplane for 6 months and made countless changes, and got 4 revision and test jets each with their own improvements. This is not meant to be a Top Gun scale quality, but a good representation of the Jet. If Bob wants to make his more scale or to his preferences, in no way shape or form is that a short coming from the manufacturer.
Ralph
Global Jet flight Team.
So, a few counter-counter points if I may...not intended as a poke in any individual’s eye, just a furthering of the discussion:
1) Weak gear support broke on a first flight
2) Gear that won’t retract (how was this not clearly known to the mfr before release?)
3) Not-visible UAT (critical preflight item)
4) Sloppy control linkage (perhaps usable but at least questionable)
This isn’t a race for the bottom, two wrongs don’t make a right, folks jumping off of a bridge doesn’t mean that others should follow suit etc...So...The fact that some other mfr’s have something as bad and/or worse and/or more expensive neither changes the basic premise that of the above are clear signs of lack of development/testing before being released to consumers who then find themselves having paid hard earned $ for the privilege of doing the manufacturer’s work. Nor does it somehow excuse the foisting of known defects upon consumers.
Being fun to fly once the consumer works out inherent defects? Check. Great. But one should be clearly informed and forewarned when buying any product and that is the clear value of this thread IMO. Buy this model with the understanding that it’s a Harbor Freight jet that looks good in the color advertising but doesn’t live up to the job in reality and needs work.
Lastly, I respectfully disagree that “Plug and Play” is in the eye of the purchaser. By definition, the play part should..play. Right? Using an electronics or software analogy here, PNP doesn’t mean plug then re-solder connections or re-write code to achieve the basic intended functions. While some of the above squawks could admittedly be subjective, the play part w/r/t the landing gear structure and retract function isn’t working here as stock. This may be a simple case of semantics though as the quoted post did clearly indicate that this is PNP with the exception of the gear.
To each his own obviously because that’s what a free market is all about, but I’d offer that this jet is “Plug, Work On It, Play”, and because it’s not advertised as such I define that as a mess. All the more so because I can’t imagine the mfr not knowing of certain issues before shipping.
None of my opining should be construed as detracting from the OP’s and others’ efforts, volunteering their time to educate and inform. That’s both laudable and invaluable.
1) Weak gear support broke on a first flight
2) Gear that won’t retract (how was this not clearly known to the mfr before release?)
3) Not-visible UAT (critical preflight item)
4) Sloppy control linkage (perhaps usable but at least questionable)
This isn’t a race for the bottom, two wrongs don’t make a right, folks jumping off of a bridge doesn’t mean that others should follow suit etc...So...The fact that some other mfr’s have something as bad and/or worse and/or more expensive neither changes the basic premise that of the above are clear signs of lack of development/testing before being released to consumers who then find themselves having paid hard earned $ for the privilege of doing the manufacturer’s work. Nor does it somehow excuse the foisting of known defects upon consumers.
Being fun to fly once the consumer works out inherent defects? Check. Great. But one should be clearly informed and forewarned when buying any product and that is the clear value of this thread IMO. Buy this model with the understanding that it’s a Harbor Freight jet that looks good in the color advertising but doesn’t live up to the job in reality and needs work.
Lastly, I respectfully disagree that “Plug and Play” is in the eye of the purchaser. By definition, the play part should..play. Right? Using an electronics or software analogy here, PNP doesn’t mean plug then re-solder connections or re-write code to achieve the basic intended functions. While some of the above squawks could admittedly be subjective, the play part w/r/t the landing gear structure and retract function isn’t working here as stock. This may be a simple case of semantics though as the quoted post did clearly indicate that this is PNP with the exception of the gear.
To each his own obviously because that’s what a free market is all about, but I’d offer that this jet is “Plug, Work On It, Play”, and because it’s not advertised as such I define that as a mess. All the more so because I can’t imagine the mfr not knowing of certain issues before shipping.
None of my opining should be construed as detracting from the OP’s and others’ efforts, volunteering their time to educate and inform. That’s both laudable and invaluable.
Last edited by Turbulence; 06-16-2021 at 01:29 PM.
06-16-2021, 04:46 AM
#32
The UAT works just fine. I have had a lot of flights on 3 different planes over the last 3 years with no problems with air bubbles etc. The only problem I have seen is in my L39 the stopper and cap is not as secure as I would like but I have never had a leak.
06-17-2021, 12:21 PM
#33
Bob,
The main reason I stopped responding in RCU before is we have all kinds of experts that know better than anyone else. It's not a jab at you, but you can see how everyone can hide and say whatever they want. Now back to the UAT or small tank. It has been used on the Aerofoam line of jets since day one. One example, to me, I do not like the aluminum fuel lines used, only because I like to use Barbs on all my fuel fittings. Does that make the product worthless or useless? NO, it is a matter of personal taste, preference and opinion. You can see the top of the tank when the receiver tray is installed. and that works for most people, but of course not all.
The main reason I stopped responding in RCU before is we have all kinds of experts that know better than anyone else. It's not a jab at you, but you can see how everyone can hide and say whatever they want. Now back to the UAT or small tank. It has been used on the Aerofoam line of jets since day one. One example, to me, I do not like the aluminum fuel lines used, only because I like to use Barbs on all my fuel fittings. Does that make the product worthless or useless? NO, it is a matter of personal taste, preference and opinion. You can see the top of the tank when the receiver tray is installed. and that works for most people, but of course not all.
You are exactly right - its simply a person preference. You decided to modify your's to suit your preferences, I simply decided to replace it with a purpose-designed product because that was my preference.
For the purpose of illustration, below is a picture of the bubble-trap included in the T-45, and the one included in the JMB Jets T-7A we purchased earlier this year.
I must say that I like the function of the one in the T-45 better and either one probably would have worked fine, but I'm not really satisfied with either, so I replaced both - my choice.
As for the gear problem. I haven't flown mine yet, but I've tested them and the seem to work fine. I don't think its really a motor size problem as its a motor cut-off current problem. That's one of the reasons I'm replacing my controller with a Xicoy LGC13 controller as the cutoff current can be adjusted by the user.
I'll measure the current that the motor draws on the bench and then set the cut off to be slightly above that. I doubt that the motors will "burn out" bringing the gear up at whatever current setting is necessary as the gear transit times are small.
I'll report what I find here...
Bob
06-17-2021, 07:39 PM
#34
So I cycled the gear manually with an ammeter in the circuit. I didn't see any current above 200mA until the gear reached its limits. I've left the fake struts in place - as I don't think they have anything to do with the problem. I also think that the motors in the gear are of sufficient size.
You should be able to set the cutoff current to 500-600mA and have the gear go up with no problem. On the T-7A, I had to set the cutoff current up to 1.2A to get the gear to cycle reliably and the motors handle it fine.
Bob
You should be able to set the cutoff current to 500-600mA and have the gear go up with no problem. On the T-7A, I had to set the cutoff current up to 1.2A to get the gear to cycle reliably and the motors handle it fine.
Bob
06-28-2021, 04:12 PM
#36
My Feedback: (28)
The strut support? It is a decorative piece, how hard did you land? It is a tube inserted into another tube. The brakes on the T-45 have not been reported as having a problem and after your post, I went and checked them on the runway about 20 times? I am still using 7.4 on mine but do have the AG63 on them.
Ralph
Ralph
Skip
06-29-2021, 08:08 PM
#37
Senior Member
07-25-2021, 06:43 PM
#39
First flight today. Flys great, no real issues. I need to do a littel tuning on the gear - the doors closed too quickly.
I found that the recommended throws were good - I didn't need more, and actually needed lower rates. It also could use a gyro on the roll axis, although it was a bit breezy and bumpy out.
Bob
I found that the recommended throws were good - I didn't need more, and actually needed lower rates. It also could use a gyro on the roll axis, although it was a bit breezy and bumpy out.
Bob
08-03-2021, 07:29 AM
#41
My Feedback: (20)
First flight today. Flys great, no real issues. I need to do a littel tuning on the gear - the doors closed too quickly.
I found that the recommended throws were good - I didn't need more, and actually needed lower rates. It also could use a gyro on the roll axis, although it was a bit breezy and bumpy out.
Bob
I found that the recommended throws were good - I didn't need more, and actually needed lower rates. It also could use a gyro on the roll axis, although it was a bit breezy and bumpy out.
Bob
Gary
The following users liked this post:
Viper1GJ (08-06-2021)
08-05-2021, 05:09 PM
#44
I was looking at that... The problem is (I know, there's always a problem), I can't leave work until Wednesday afternoon and I have to be back on Sunday. I don't think I can do a 9+ hour drive for that short a time - and then turn around and do a 5+ hour one for Tiger Meet the next week...
Bob
Bob
08-27-2021, 01:35 PM
#47
If most of you saw I already have the maiden done on mine. I'm working on a new paint scheme too. I noticed my motors on the mains we're getting hot and shutting down. I'm wondering if it's because they have the wrong end points. I am using the AG68 and DS3.
08-28-2021, 02:42 PM
#48
I'm not sure what the controller that comes with the aircraft is set too, but I ditched mine before even trying it and put in an Xicoy LCG13 gear controller. All of my electric gear use this controller (the LCG15 is also good, but more than needed for this aircraft). It is completely adjustable (if you have the data terminal) and a much better controller.
The gear would probably work better if they were equipped with bigger motors, but they can be made to work - with a controller where you can adjust things like the cutoff current and the door delay...
Bob
Bob
08-29-2021, 02:00 PM
#49
My Feedback: (16)
Victor,
I'm not sure what the controller that comes with the aircraft is set too, but I ditched mine before even trying it and put in an Xicoy LCG13 gear controller. All of my electric gear use this controller (the LCG15 is also good, but more than needed for this aircraft). It is completely adjustable (if you have the data terminal) and a much better controller.
The gear would probably work better if they were equipped with bigger motors, but they can be made to work - with a controller where you can adjust things like the cutoff current and the door delay...
Bob
Bob
I'm not sure what the controller that comes with the aircraft is set too, but I ditched mine before even trying it and put in an Xicoy LCG13 gear controller. All of my electric gear use this controller (the LCG15 is also good, but more than needed for this aircraft). It is completely adjustable (if you have the data terminal) and a much better controller.
The gear would probably work better if they were equipped with bigger motors, but they can be made to work - with a controller where you can adjust things like the cutoff current and the door delay...
Bob
Bob
up on Friday however I think the unit may be defective. I have wired in the Xicoy controller to my new aircraft for testing prior to physically installing it however I have noticed that the unit only outputs 4.75 volts even though I have gone with both 6v to 7.4v. Take a look at the two images I took. I don't think the unit is working correctly. This is configured for "Standard - two-channel mode" under the radio. I was wondering why the gear never retracted after I added the power battery (2cell lipo7.4v). Any thoughts? I've gone through the manual as well as watch several videos however I also have the original controller plus JP controllers which I've tested the gear on to make sure that it retracted prior to setting up the new LG-15 unit. Also, I retested with several controllers after trying to get this working with the LG-15 unit and the gear does work right now with the other two controllers. Oh just to add, the other controllers put out the 7.4v on the retract end except for the LG-15 unit.
Any thoughts? Could this one be a malfunctioned unit?
08-31-2021, 11:55 PM
#50
My Feedback: (16)
Ok, I finally was able to connect to Gaspar and basically, that unit is not set up for JP retracts systems so I had to modify the servo cable connections supporting the gear outputs from the LG-15 unit to the gear by reversing the red and white cable connections. Now the unit works flawlessly!
Andrew
Andrew