Next time let it roll a longer distance so the plane get more speed and it will fly more stabil, the pilot made the same mistake at the first video. Byside the take off looks more skale if you do so.
Yeah it took a few crashes to find some of the design problems.. It has eventually flown..poorly ..I might add ! I have seen a few others get in the air online..hopefully this plane helped them fix some issues BEFORE they flew it !
Tail heavy planes take off nose high. The way the plane rolled from left to right did not appear to even be from pilot input, and was simply from a tail heavy plane at stall. These guys can call it pilot error, but the rearward cg would have made it difficult to fly, even after a longer takeoff run. After enough scratch builds, you know these things from observation.
@WTFLYR, thankyou, finally, somebody who actually knows what they're talking about! There are too many loud know-nowts on here who always type "pilot error" when they see a model go in.
I suppose pilot didn't learn his past lesson...pity...what CG? it is 100% pilot error! eh..try to read the manuals and learn to fly!!! before taking off this kind of plane...don't pull up to quick!!! arrhhg...whats a matter with you? give it a run, to gain a speed...or you will always crash it...The thrust of engines not equal of plane weight, so it is necessary to gain a speed befor pull up elevator...
At first it looks like the plane is pulling to the left of the airstrip which is a sure indication of no right thrust or not enough. Also it looks like there was to much input on the elevators causing a massive nose pitch up .Not enough air speep and that is what exactly happens. I hope this help ,it sure was a pretty plane and I hope you rebuild it and give it another go . Try letting the tail come up on its own first then a little lift on the elevators .Use all of the runway.
One of the many problems to solve in this kit includes the cg.. The plane did this radical leap without applying elevator. Sometimes design issues look like pilot input.
Oh man, sorry about your plane. These videos make me cringe every time, what a beautiful airplane. I was just wondering where you got it and how much it cost. I have a friend looking for remote control airplanes and I would really like him to get this one.
This airplane once a source of dissapointment and grief has turned into a rather funny struggle against the odds ! I sure was sick of seeing it on my buddys bench though, when he has other cool projects on hold!
@raddaguy, you have the right idea but well secured lead is better for balancing models, it weighs more so you can use and stow a smaller quantity for the same weight.
Originally the plane had three 46 2 strokes on it, now it has a rossi 60 in the nose and 46s outboard. I think the CG was the most critical error , but it really needed to have flaps, and washout in the wings, also I question the airfoil as it appears to be fully symetrical and looks like a thick 3d type wing ..
On the first flight I can't say whether the ailerons were backwards or not, only that I am sure it couldn't fly when built to specs, as it was totaled this flight after major changes to make it more stable proved to not be enough. It is a unique plane and my buddy has just stuck whith it as he likes a challenge !
This plane has been rebuilt and flown twice since this crash...The CG was moved again, and more tail surface was added with a less blunt leading edge to the stabilizer.Washout was built in to the wings, slightly more down thrust in the motors.. Both flights since those changes were fast and scary. The plane just doesn't fly well even now.
I can't tell you how much weight was gutted and work done by my friend to finally get this thing to even fly at all.
Dear foodstick, I can see here that the model did indeed go to the right this time, unlike in the first video that 7452 shot. In one of the responses, it was found that the ailerons were indeed reversed on the first video. Can you confirm in the RC universe forum for me under "Cant Z 1007 Bis" that indeed this was the case. The model this time still looks under powered and tail heavy. Any suggestions. My heart goes out to the builder and owner of the model. So very sorry.
I'am so sorry for that i pain to much i know what you have do!!! see my works!!
Today i flying for the second time.!!
3djungle 3 months ago
It's so sad to see the beautiful plane crash like this one.
It is apparent that C.G. is way too far back from its correct position.
Many r/cers say side-thrust angle of the two engines should be outward, but it is not true.
No side-thrust is necessary.
Only a down-thrust of about 2 degrees is sufficient for a scale-like stable flight.
Hope you to rebuild it once again and acquire a much better result.
JetCatKorea 3 months ago
try going a little nose heavy on newly designed planes its way better then tailheavy
g6rcteam 4 months ago
Did the gerbil died?
jrg8008 5 months ago
again, maybe its the autoflap, the original version got it hahahhhaahahah
nolifemerc 6 months ago
bad.. very bad..
Maxim499 8 months ago
I had a RC plane once that was tail heavy, flew like a pig until the motor cut then it flew deadstick just fine.
Not as bad as this one mind. Comiserations for your hard work.
TheophilusPWildbeest 8 months ago
Its authentic for an Italian WW2 Aircraft.
Its avoiding combat at ALL cost!!
admiraldma 9 months ago
english when your poeople they hear SM79 still hiding under tables and pull the boats ashore.
sardosfish 9 months ago
@sardosfish Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Almost as funny as the Italian navy!!!
CAPE MATAPAN!!!!
admiraldma 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sardosfish Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Almost as funny as the Italian navy!!!
CAPE MATAPAN!!!!
admiraldma 8 months ago
@admiraldma lol, that's absolutely true.
"E' sempre meglio un vigliacco vivo che un eroe morto, soprattutto se il vigliacco sono io."
"A living coward is always better than a dead hero, especially if I am the coward."
(Antonio de Curtis aka Totò)
playittwicesam 4 months ago
anything itailan ww2 fails because thay where cowards innit
trojanoutwood 11 months ago
its take off so early until its stall
MyJoylee 1 year ago
MUAHAHAHAHAHA LOOOOOOL, what a shit plane
XSparrow76X 1 year ago
Next time let it roll a longer distance so the plane get more speed and it will fly more stabil, the pilot made the same mistake at the first video. Byside the take off looks more skale if you do so.
Amongoeth1946 1 year ago
CG ! the center of grashes !! right ?
GeopoSki 1 year ago
Yeah it took a few crashes to find some of the design problems.. It has eventually flown..poorly ..I might add ! I have seen a few others get in the air online..hopefully this plane helped them fix some issues BEFORE they flew it !
foodstick 1 year ago
Tail heavy planes take off nose high. The way the plane rolled from left to right did not appear to even be from pilot input, and was simply from a tail heavy plane at stall. These guys can call it pilot error, but the rearward cg would have made it difficult to fly, even after a longer takeoff run. After enough scratch builds, you know these things from observation.
WTFLYR 1 year ago
@WTFLYR, thankyou, finally, somebody who actually knows what they're talking about! There are too many loud know-nowts on here who always type "pilot error" when they see a model go in.
pete2778 1 year ago
I suppose pilot didn't learn his past lesson...pity...what CG? it is 100% pilot error! eh..try to read the manuals and learn to fly!!! before taking off this kind of plane...don't pull up to quick!!! arrhhg...whats a matter with you? give it a run, to gain a speed...or you will always crash it...The thrust of engines not equal of plane weight, so it is necessary to gain a speed befor pull up elevator...
mcxv77 1 year ago
i saw the problem, it lost control on takeoff. same thing happened to my RC P-47
cessnaoneeightytwo 1 year ago
you should take flying lessons and buy a super cub
halosuck99 2 years ago
Per essere precisi il nome del modello è Savoia Marchetti "SM 84"
primo volo nel 1935 in servizio nel febbraio 1941. "246" esemplari
sostituito dal Fiat G.18 aereo trasporto civile.
translate! To be precise the model name and Savoia Marchetti "SM 84"
first flight in 1935 in service in February 1941. "246" copies
replaced by the Fiat G.18 civil transport aircraft.
Solarsystem075 2 years ago 2
Anyone-what is wrong with this stupid ass plane??
rcwarbirdbuilder 2 years ago
At first it looks like the plane is pulling to the left of the airstrip which is a sure indication of no right thrust or not enough. Also it looks like there was to much input on the elevators causing a massive nose pitch up .Not enough air speep and that is what exactly happens. I hope this help ,it sure was a pretty plane and I hope you rebuild it and give it another go . Try letting the tail come up on its own first then a little lift on the elevators .Use all of the runway.
greg2840 2 years ago
its not the plane, its the pilot
phishingword 2 years ago 2
greta model.i love italian ww2 airctraft.
why not check the balance and make the tests of taxiing before attempting takeoff?is a pity that your model has broken.i hope you want to rebuild it!
sardosfish 2 years ago
Hate to say it but... Pilot error
Pgabs123 2 years ago
nice plane ir's an savoietta marchetti (sm79)
getinu87 2 years ago
The correct name is: Savoia Marchetti, the model I'm not sure at 100% but I think is the SM 89.
Bye, bye...
pulineg 2 years ago
One of the many problems to solve in this kit includes the cg.. The plane did this radical leap without applying elevator. Sometimes design issues look like pilot input.
foodstick 2 years ago
Oh man, sorry about your plane. These videos make me cringe every time, what a beautiful airplane. I was just wondering where you got it and how much it cost. I have a friend looking for remote control airplanes and I would really like him to get this one.
GShepardP 2 years ago
This airplane once a source of dissapointment and grief has turned into a rather funny struggle against the odds ! I sure was sick of seeing it on my buddys bench though, when he has other cool projects on hold!
foodstick 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
mate use a fucking wind tunnel or maybe pick up more speed?
sod16 2 years ago
actually why did you pull up sooooo much? that was atleast 45 degreese, its suppost to be around 10
sod16 2 years ago 2
Is that taps I hear playing in the background! ;-)
jjs4you2 2 years ago
try to balance out the tail weight by putting small aluminum weights near the front engine.
raddaguy 3 years ago
@raddaguy, you have the right idea but well secured lead is better for balancing models, it weighs more so you can use and stow a smaller quantity for the same weight.
pete2778 1 year ago
That was pilot error, I've seen perfect flying planes do that cause they tried to take off to soon.
brettwrb 3 years ago 2
Damn, just makes me cringe. Sorry for all involved. You sure are die-hards! Looks like a great place to fly, though.
zipperneck1321 3 years ago
Originally the plane had three 46 2 strokes on it, now it has a rossi 60 in the nose and 46s outboard. I think the CG was the most critical error , but it really needed to have flaps, and washout in the wings, also I question the airfoil as it appears to be fully symetrical and looks like a thick 3d type wing ..
foodstick 3 years ago
On the first flight I can't say whether the ailerons were backwards or not, only that I am sure it couldn't fly when built to specs, as it was totaled this flight after major changes to make it more stable proved to not be enough. It is a unique plane and my buddy has just stuck whith it as he likes a challenge !
foodstick 3 years ago
This plane has been rebuilt and flown twice since this crash...The CG was moved again, and more tail surface was added with a less blunt leading edge to the stabilizer.Washout was built in to the wings, slightly more down thrust in the motors.. Both flights since those changes were fast and scary. The plane just doesn't fly well even now.
I can't tell you how much weight was gutted and work done by my friend to finally get this thing to even fly at all.
foodstick 3 years ago
Dear foodstick, I can see here that the model did indeed go to the right this time, unlike in the first video that 7452 shot. In one of the responses, it was found that the ailerons were indeed reversed on the first video. Can you confirm in the RC universe forum for me under "Cant Z 1007 Bis" that indeed this was the case. The model this time still looks under powered and tail heavy. Any suggestions. My heart goes out to the builder and owner of the model. So very sorry.
davidapolley1
davidapolley1 3 years ago