91" Cap
02-28-2006, 08:59 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
91" Cap
I received the 91" Cap and thought I'd post a little info and pics since I haven't seen much about the plane. Here are my initial impressions:
1) I put the wings and horiz stabs on to see how they aligned with the fuse. Both match up very well. I haven't checked the incidence set.
2) The carbon wingtube and stab tube fit their respective openings perfectly; nice and snug but you don't feel like you're going to rip something loose when inserting them.
3) The wings and stabs fit the CF tubes perfectly also; nice and snug but not overly tight.
4) Just did a quick inspection, but it looks like the joints in general are sufficiently glued.
5) The canopy tint has nice even coverage with no splotching.
6) The paint on the cowl is really well done; better than most anything I see at the field. The painted accents on the cowl align with the covering stripes very well.
7) Very little wrinkling of the covering out of the box.
8) The ailerons, elevator halves, and rudder line up very well ... equal gaps between each side of the ailerons' root ribs and the wing panels, the ailerons were properly aligned when the hinge holes were drilled so the outboard ribs of the ailerons align just right with the edge of the wing panels, the leading edges of the elevator halves line up with the stabs' leading edges, the rudder's counterbalance's leading edge lines up with the vert stab's leading edge.
9) The ailerons are pretty stiff. That's needed since the 91" uses a single aileron servo.
10) The yellow scheme is really striking. I imagine it shows up extremely well in flight.
11) It doesn't look like using the pre-drilled mounting holes will quite allow the cowl to cover the slight gap that's between the hatch and former. I don't have any screws yet though so it might just barely cover it once secured.
12) The angle of the former at the rear of the canopy area isn't the same as the fuselage so there is a 3/16" gap between the bottom of the hatch and the fuselage under the canopy area. There are gussets so gently removing the rear former will be more of a challenge but it should be possible without destroying the cockpit floor.
13) I don't have an accurate scale so I don't know what the weights are of the components.
After seeing the size of the airframe, I have to think a person will have a tiger by the tail when using an 80cc motor.
My camera isn't taking too good of pics but here are a few.
Dan
1) I put the wings and horiz stabs on to see how they aligned with the fuse. Both match up very well. I haven't checked the incidence set.
2) The carbon wingtube and stab tube fit their respective openings perfectly; nice and snug but you don't feel like you're going to rip something loose when inserting them.
3) The wings and stabs fit the CF tubes perfectly also; nice and snug but not overly tight.
4) Just did a quick inspection, but it looks like the joints in general are sufficiently glued.
5) The canopy tint has nice even coverage with no splotching.
6) The paint on the cowl is really well done; better than most anything I see at the field. The painted accents on the cowl align with the covering stripes very well.
7) Very little wrinkling of the covering out of the box.
8) The ailerons, elevator halves, and rudder line up very well ... equal gaps between each side of the ailerons' root ribs and the wing panels, the ailerons were properly aligned when the hinge holes were drilled so the outboard ribs of the ailerons align just right with the edge of the wing panels, the leading edges of the elevator halves line up with the stabs' leading edges, the rudder's counterbalance's leading edge lines up with the vert stab's leading edge.
9) The ailerons are pretty stiff. That's needed since the 91" uses a single aileron servo.
10) The yellow scheme is really striking. I imagine it shows up extremely well in flight.
11) It doesn't look like using the pre-drilled mounting holes will quite allow the cowl to cover the slight gap that's between the hatch and former. I don't have any screws yet though so it might just barely cover it once secured.
12) The angle of the former at the rear of the canopy area isn't the same as the fuselage so there is a 3/16" gap between the bottom of the hatch and the fuselage under the canopy area. There are gussets so gently removing the rear former will be more of a challenge but it should be possible without destroying the cockpit floor.
13) I don't have an accurate scale so I don't know what the weights are of the components.
After seeing the size of the airframe, I have to think a person will have a tiger by the tail when using an 80cc motor.
My camera isn't taking too good of pics but here are a few.
Dan
02-28-2006, 10:03 PM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 91" Cap
ORIGINAL: cstevec
Is that yellow the Funtana yellow or cub yellow?
Is that yellow the Funtana yellow or cub yellow?
Dan
02-28-2006, 11:58 PM
#5
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Grantsville, WV, VA
Posts: 1,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 91" Cap
Cool. I dunno why but I have a real aversion to cub yellow. The Funtana is covered in Ultracote Bright yellow but I had a brain strain & forgot what they called it. I do like the looks of that WH cap though.
03-02-2006, 10:43 PM
#8
Senior Member
My Feedback: (61)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: **,
NJ
Posts: 4,741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 91" Cap
ORIGINAL: rctom
That's correct. This plane is a departure, I usually use cub yellow for visibility but this one looks better with the bright yellow.
TF
That's correct. This plane is a departure, I usually use cub yellow for visibility but this one looks better with the bright yellow.
TF
03-03-2006, 12:43 AM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 91" Cap
ORIGINAL: FreedomFlier
What motor are you going to put on it aegis? Keep the posts coming.
What motor are you going to put on it aegis? Keep the posts coming.
Dan
03-08-2006, 06:02 PM
#10
RE: 91" Cap
I am surprised there not more posts on this plane, they just are now available and there should be some out there in the hands of modelers and yet nothing is being posted. Maybe there just wasn't many sold, surprising because everyone was yelling for one.
03-08-2006, 08:23 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Flower Mound (near Dallas),
TX
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: 91" Cap
We've shipped some, but I should have learned by now that a few people yelling for a product doesn't mean a thing. It's a beautiful plane that 3d's better than anything else in the sky (including everybody's darling the Yak) and is as steady as a rock in IMAC type stuff.
You guys are missing a bet.
TF
You guys are missing a bet.
TF
03-08-2006, 08:53 PM
#12
My Feedback: (19)
RE: 91" Cap
Tom,
What airfoil are you using on the CAP and the YAK? How are these planes for IMAC flying ..... how do they stall and snap?
I believe these are the first planes from the Chinese mfgr. How does their quality compare to the planes from Thailand? I know you may not want to comment on this last question but thought I might prod some kind of answer out of you.
Thanks,
Roger S.
(2 rabbits in the nest here!)
What airfoil are you using on the CAP and the YAK? How are these planes for IMAC flying ..... how do they stall and snap?
I believe these are the first planes from the Chinese mfgr. How does their quality compare to the planes from Thailand? I know you may not want to comment on this last question but thought I might prod some kind of answer out of you.
Thanks,
Roger S.
(2 rabbits in the nest here!)
03-08-2006, 10:58 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Flower Mound (near Dallas),
TX
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: 91" Cap
ORIGINAL: Truckracer
Tom,
What airfoil are you using on the CAP and the YAK? How are these planes for IMAC flying ..... how do they stall and snap?
I believe these are the first planes from the Chinese mfgr. How does their quality compare to the planes from Thailand? I know you may not want to comment on this last question but thought I might prod some kind of answer out of you.
Thanks,
Roger S.
(2 rabbits in the nest here!)
Tom,
What airfoil are you using on the CAP and the YAK? How are these planes for IMAC flying ..... how do they stall and snap?
I believe these are the first planes from the Chinese mfgr. How does their quality compare to the planes from Thailand? I know you may not want to comment on this last question but thought I might prod some kind of answer out of you.
Thanks,
Roger S.
(2 rabbits in the nest here!)
Quality control is much much better. I do not have to deal with as many mistakes like wrong canopy, missing parts, etc. Packaging is better so fewer damage claims (almost none).
Once the planes are finished the Thai planes are stronger and slightly heavier, but that's really a design choice, they could make lighter planes if I asked them. The baby edge is an example of lightweight planes from Thailand.
The Chinese planes are just different and cause fewer problems for me.
They are a different style, much like Quique and TOC style of construction, which will be preferred by those who put performance in the air at the top of their wish list. For those who value ruggedness and are willing to accept a little extra weight the Thai planes fill that niche.
I don't remember what airfoil we used. They both snap cleanly and stall in sort of a mush forward. Either one is a good choice for 3d or IMAC, with the advantage probably going to the Cap simply because it's bigger.
The Cap sure does do a beautiful elevator, no wing rock in evidence at all.
TF
03-09-2006, 01:02 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Flower Mound (near Dallas),
TX
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: 91" Cap
Absolutely not, it's now my favorite of the smaller planes.
I was just lamenting the fact that there are people in this world/hobby who cannot get past some bogus rumor from unknown third parties about some plane's handling, and they will not accept any vendor's word about stuff.
This happened with the Giles too, people would call up and refuse to even listen about the Giles because they heard somewhere from somebody they don't remember that Giles are all very snappy. Oddly enough we sold a few hundred of them and never had a single complaint about this from any customer, only complaints from the knuckleheads who refused to listen or try one.
I talk to people every day now who tell me "I don't like Caps, they are snappy and hard to land". Of course none of these people has flown our Cap, most have never flown any Cap, but doggone it they are certain about this.
So the Cap will take a while to establish itself as a much better combination plane than any Yak. But it's coming, wait until we get a few flight reports.
You wanna do one Ben?
TF
I was just lamenting the fact that there are people in this world/hobby who cannot get past some bogus rumor from unknown third parties about some plane's handling, and they will not accept any vendor's word about stuff.
This happened with the Giles too, people would call up and refuse to even listen about the Giles because they heard somewhere from somebody they don't remember that Giles are all very snappy. Oddly enough we sold a few hundred of them and never had a single complaint about this from any customer, only complaints from the knuckleheads who refused to listen or try one.
I talk to people every day now who tell me "I don't like Caps, they are snappy and hard to land". Of course none of these people has flown our Cap, most have never flown any Cap, but doggone it they are certain about this.
So the Cap will take a while to establish itself as a much better combination plane than any Yak. But it's coming, wait until we get a few flight reports.
You wanna do one Ben?
TF
03-09-2006, 02:11 AM
#16
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: 91" Cap
Tom,
I have to whole heartedly agree with your statements about a Giles. I've met and flown with more people than I care to remember that told me how bad a Giles would snap. As you know, I have one of your Giles kits and adore the way it flies, and snapping has never, ever, been an issue. Mine is a little over weight at 26 pounds since I used a 105cc engine instead of the suggested 80, so if one should have a tendency to be snappy it would be a heavier one, and mine is not, period!!
I have also flown many different Caps, and the only ones that ever had a snapping problem were those that were either over controlled, improperly balanced, or both. A fair number of people that I have met that had snapping issues with either type of plane in any size really weren't qualified to be flying planes much beyond the trainer level, but were self convinced of their "superior" ability levels. The end result was always predictable.
I have a Precision Eagle 4.4 just languishing at the house, and your 91" Cap is becoming a very tempting thought upon my return home. Then again, that new 40% series of planes you have in the works may take precidence over the smaller ones. That Utimate I have will never go anywhere, though. She's SWEET!!
Keep up the good work. I believe that all of us truly appreciate a manufacturer/distributor such as yourself that pays attention to the desires of the customers. You and your wife are a rare breed. Thanks!!
Pat Roy
I have to whole heartedly agree with your statements about a Giles. I've met and flown with more people than I care to remember that told me how bad a Giles would snap. As you know, I have one of your Giles kits and adore the way it flies, and snapping has never, ever, been an issue. Mine is a little over weight at 26 pounds since I used a 105cc engine instead of the suggested 80, so if one should have a tendency to be snappy it would be a heavier one, and mine is not, period!!
I have also flown many different Caps, and the only ones that ever had a snapping problem were those that were either over controlled, improperly balanced, or both. A fair number of people that I have met that had snapping issues with either type of plane in any size really weren't qualified to be flying planes much beyond the trainer level, but were self convinced of their "superior" ability levels. The end result was always predictable.
I have a Precision Eagle 4.4 just languishing at the house, and your 91" Cap is becoming a very tempting thought upon my return home. Then again, that new 40% series of planes you have in the works may take precidence over the smaller ones. That Utimate I have will never go anywhere, though. She's SWEET!!
Keep up the good work. I believe that all of us truly appreciate a manufacturer/distributor such as yourself that pays attention to the desires of the customers. You and your wife are a rare breed. Thanks!!
Pat Roy
03-09-2006, 10:39 AM
#18
RE: 91" Cap
ORIGINAL: rctom
Absolutely not, it's now my favorite of the smaller planes.
I was just lamenting the fact that there are people in this world/hobby who cannot get past some bogus rumor from unknown third parties about some plane's handling, and they will not accept any vendor's word about stuff.
This happened with the Giles too, people would call up and refuse to even listen about the Giles because they heard somewhere from somebody they don't remember that Giles are all very snappy. Oddly enough we sold a few hundred of them and never had a single complaint about this from any customer, only complaints from the knuckleheads who refused to listen or try one.
I talk to people every day now who tell me "I don't like Caps, they are snappy and hard to land". Of course none of these people has flown our Cap, most have never flown any Cap, but doggone it they are certain about this.
So the Cap will take a while to establish itself as a much better combination plane than any Yak. But it's coming, wait until we get a few flight reports.
You wanna do one Ben?
TF
Absolutely not, it's now my favorite of the smaller planes.
I was just lamenting the fact that there are people in this world/hobby who cannot get past some bogus rumor from unknown third parties about some plane's handling, and they will not accept any vendor's word about stuff.
This happened with the Giles too, people would call up and refuse to even listen about the Giles because they heard somewhere from somebody they don't remember that Giles are all very snappy. Oddly enough we sold a few hundred of them and never had a single complaint about this from any customer, only complaints from the knuckleheads who refused to listen or try one.
I talk to people every day now who tell me "I don't like Caps, they are snappy and hard to land". Of course none of these people has flown our Cap, most have never flown any Cap, but doggone it they are certain about this.
So the Cap will take a while to establish itself as a much better combination plane than any Yak. But it's coming, wait until we get a few flight reports.
You wanna do one Ben?
TF
03-10-2006, 10:55 PM
#19
My Feedback: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lee\'s Summit,
MO
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 91" Cap
Amen Tom,
You put enough weight on the nose of any plane, and it will snap. I have been temped to put a Giles together just to "rebel" against the concept that the "Giles" snaps. CG, airfoil, wingloading is everything. I've seen the WH Giles video. It's an awesome plane!
BTW, how is the MX2 coming along?
I have a ZDZ-80 hot-rod, and wanting to put a few more square inches of wing area around it. The 91" Cap is looking tasty
You put enough weight on the nose of any plane, and it will snap. I have been temped to put a Giles together just to "rebel" against the concept that the "Giles" snaps. CG, airfoil, wingloading is everything. I've seen the WH Giles video. It's an awesome plane!
BTW, how is the MX2 coming along?
I have a ZDZ-80 hot-rod, and wanting to put a few more square inches of wing area around it. The 91" Cap is looking tasty
03-12-2006, 12:13 PM
#21
RE: 91" Cap
That cap snap stuff is all a bunch of hog wash. The only reason I know is because I bought a good quality one (Kangke CAP 120) and have flown the snot out of it. It flies awesome, no snap at all (just a little heavy). It tumbles better than any of my Edges. It's a great aerobat no question, kudos for bringing a good quality CAP232 to the market Tom!!
03-12-2006, 12:32 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Flower Mound (near Dallas),
TX
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: 91" Cap
Joe is correct, look at the Hangar 9 33% Cap that was so popular a year or so back. No complaints at all about that plane, it was a spectacular aerobat.
Ours is designed almost the same as that one (H9), its fuse is extended to make it look better and it flies very smoothly. Landing is a piece of cake, just point it at th ground and flare about a foot high, I haven't had the slightest bobble landing. So far for me it's as easy as landing our Edge.
TF
Ours is designed almost the same as that one (H9), its fuse is extended to make it look better and it flies very smoothly. Landing is a piece of cake, just point it at th ground and flare about a foot high, I haven't had the slightest bobble landing. So far for me it's as easy as landing our Edge.
TF
03-13-2006, 11:48 AM
#25
My Feedback: (15)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: APO,
AE, GERMANY
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 91" Cap
The 91" seems like a winner. If you take a look at the possible wing loading depending on the engine used - its possible to get something with an incredible amount of power and the lightest wing loading of its class. If the 260 is a floater at a wing loading in my case of 30 OZ per SQIN - then the Cap with say a 3W 75 or possibly the new ZDZ 80 with an AUW of 20lbs or under and a wing loading of 20 OZ per SQIN or less would be awesome. I imagine with some ligthening here and there you could get the AUW down to 19lbs or slightly less.
Now I am not just spitting this out. If you take brand "X" 33% Yak with a similar setup your wing loading will still come up to be a few OZ more and also cost a few hundred dollars more than the Cap.
The same power class of motor will also have more kick in the WH 91" Cap as well. Just something to think about.
Now I am not just spitting this out. If you take brand "X" 33% Yak with a similar setup your wing loading will still come up to be a few OZ more and also cost a few hundred dollars more than the Cap.
The same power class of motor will also have more kick in the WH 91" Cap as well. Just something to think about.