MichaelEllis
New member
I've been saying forever that FT Simple Scout is THE best RC plane you can build (in my opinion). This is only one of the many reasons.
That was cute! When do you try the table top landing?I've been saying forever that FT Simple Scout is THE best RC plane you can build (in my opinion). This is only one of the many reasons.
Hahaha! The fence right behind the table might pose a problem but I'll try it one day for sure. ;-)That was cute! When do you try the table top landing?
Have fun!
You have to try. What's the fun of taking off of a table if you can't land on it tooHahaha! The fence right behind the table might pose a problem but I'll try it one day for sure. ;-)
Nothing like a landing approach that you can't abort from to increase the pucker factor!Hahaha! The fence right behind the table might pose a problem but I'll try it one day for sure. ;-)
I have not personally had the pleasure of having too much motor. That's a pretty beefy motor, though. The specs call for a 10 or 11 inch prop. I'd say throw a 10x4.5 on it and let it rip! Nothing says you've got to go full throttle.Question for you all about the Simple Scout. I give you a bit of back story...
I have had so much luck flying the Mini Scout compared to any other scratch build I have done so far. Now I would like to try the larger version given that I have components to run it, and I am seeing that people are saying it could be a good trainer for the size, 3 or 4 channel. I do have a larger motor set up that may exceed the C pack by a bit. It's a 3536 1200Kv Rimfire .15 on 40 amp Eflite ESC spinning a 9x6 prop. Is this to much for the Simple Scout? There will be a 3s 2200mah backing up the muscle. Now if I do use this motor should a smaller prop calm down the situation?
Any replies would be appreciated. Thx
Also noticed that the power pod isn't the usual swappable design. Is it smarter to use the regular swappable pods and mod the fuse, just cuz I tend to put my battery in the pod instead of attaching it with Velcro to the bottom, or to use the power pod that is intended?I have not personally had the pleasure of having too much motor. That's a pretty beefy motor, though. The specs call for a 10 or 11 inch prop. I'd say throw a 10x4.5 on it and let it rip! Nothing says you've got to go full throttle.
That combo should fly the Simple Scout pretty comfortably at lower throttle. The Simple Scout is still the smoothest flying plane I've had the pleasure of flying. It crashes really hard, though. That's why I've never made a biplane of it.
I'm jealous. You can put that motor into any full size FT plane and just let 'er rip!![]()
The only benefit I've noticed from swappable power pods is that the airframe survives a crash. I can't imagine how anyone can put skewers through perfectly enough to swap powerpods between planes. I certainly can't. The benefit I've noticed is that so long as I strengthen the holes where the power pod goes through on the fuselage, I can munch many power pods, but continue to fly the plane.Also noticed that the power pod isn't the usual swappable design. Is it smarter to use the regular swappable pods and mod the fuse, just cuz I tend to put my battery in the pod instead of attaching it with Velcro to the bottom, or to use the power pod that is intended?
I've had a couple of those crashes on some planes where wing not being glued in tore the fuse apart as well. It was a tip from The Bix and it seemed like a good idea. One was the Mini Speedster and the wing ripped right thru the back of the fuse where the TE is notched through, not much meat there to take the hits alone. I found that gluing the wing solid distributes the impact evenly. The doublers on the plans for the simple scout are gonna be extended to wrap around the wing inserts to effectively double the surface area the wing makes contact with, then glued in from all sides. As it works out there is only going to be 9"s of balsa inside the spar to handle the load not being taken up from the missing LE inside the fuse.I don't see why it wouldn't work. The hatch is a neat idea. The wing is already pretty heavy, though. I had a few hard nose-ins with mine and the major damage was the wing crushing it's way forward through the fuselage. The wing was left unglued to the fuselage for just that purpose though. The plane survived. I ended up gluing braces on the outside of the fuse to keep the wing in place and finally had to glue the wing in after a couple more hard "landings".
I was running a 2200 3s under the nose with a velcro strap around it for security. My batteries never took any damage, but the field I fly over (and crash in) is pretty soft, all things considered.
My Scout is a bit on the overpowered side. I've found that, even with the specified size prop, I get a LOT of left-bank torque if I take off at full throttle. A larger prop and motor is going to increase that, and the Scout's barely-above 3' wingspan doesn't give a lot of leverage to counteract it at that initial low-speed moment of acceleration. Two flights ago, I decided to see what would happen if I took off at reduced throttle, and found she lifts off quite nicely at about half-throttle. You'll likely find the same thing, perhaps less throttle.Question for you all about the Simple Scout. I give you a bit of back story...
I have had so much luck flying the Mini Scout compared to any other scratch build I have done so far. Now I would like to try the larger version given that I have components to run it, and I am seeing that people are saying it could be a good trainer for the size, 3 or 4 channel. I do have a larger motor set up that may exceed the C pack by a bit. It's a 3536 1200Kv Rimfire .15 on 40 amp Eflite ESC spinning a 9x6 prop. Is this to much for the Simple Scout? There will be a 3s 2200mah backing up the muscle. Now if I do use this motor should a smaller prop calm down the situation?
Any replies would be appreciated. Thx
Thank you for the tip, that was something I was concerned about myself. I noticed that the Mini Scout has considerable right and down thrust but the Simple Scout has none. Being it is set up for the B Pack with a smaller pitch prop that might make sense. I am gonna use a fixed firewall so I was thinking of cutting in some down and right to the doublers to compensate for the size of the motor. Does this make sense? All feedback is appreciated. Thx againMy Scout is a bit on the overpowered side. I've found that, even with the specified size prop, I get a LOT of left-bank torque if I take off at full throttle. A larger prop and motor is going to increase that, and the Scout's barely-above 3' wingspan doesn't give a lot of leverage to counteract it at that initial low-speed moment of acceleration. Two flights ago, I decided to see what would happen if I took off at reduced throttle, and found she lifts off quite nicely at about half-throttle. You'll likely find the same thing, perhaps less throttle.
The other thing you'll have to watch with that larger motor and battery setup (I'm running a 3S 1300 mAh battery), is your nose weight is going to be more likely to pull the plane over, especially on landing.