Which Ultra Stick for B-test?

[Mike.K 60]

I`ve got a few here ready to go but which one would be best suited to taking the B-test? Only trial flying will tell me.

No 1 is my six cell, 360Kv original fitted with either 15x8 or 16x6 prop. With the 16x6 it goes like a rocket but gobbles battery power. With the 15x8 performance is reasonable and dependent on flying style, will give about 10 mins of flying time. I used No 1 to gain my A-test and very suitable it was too. Its a good hack model.

No 2 has a brand new and only just run in Irvine Q72 two stroke. This engine was formerly an un-run spare reserve for Rob Newman`s Panic Team.  I found it at the shop wrapped in newspaper and surplus to Rob`s immediate needs. No 2 fuselage is a cloned copy of a Hangar 9 original. It has flown just twice previously but with a 420Kv/6 cell set up.

No 3 is an original Hangar 9 fuselage fitted with a large fuel tank and a Yamada YS140FZ pumped four stroke. The engine and mount only just fit onto the front bulkhead. Extra reinforcement around the nose has been added. The motor has had to be upright mounted because it is so bulky! Servos are tail mounted with a 2600NiMh for the radio gear being located on a removable external plate about six inches in front of the leading edge of the tail-plane. That helps with C of G attainment. A 16x10 prop and genuine YS140FZ exhaust are due here on Monday. Even with the aft mounted battery fitted, I expect to have to add a little lead to the tail to achieve a neutral C of G. This model is the "Big Daddy" of the fleet. It was never built for A or B test work but solely as an engine test bed. Of all these Ultra Sticks, this one is probably the least suitable as an A or B test mule!

No 4 is my genuine Hangar 9 conversion to a low winger. The wing has been cut in half and re-joined with a little dihedral to make to improve appearance, make it a little more docile at low speed and alleviate any chance of adverse rudder yaw. The fuselage has been inverted, a landing gear block inserted topsides and the bulkhead removed and refitted to give the correct right side thrust. The fin and rudder are now remounted on what was previously the bottom of the fuselage. Wing incidence and the front bulkhead retain the original zero, zero, zero set up. Its a pretty conversion but is as yet un-flown. The motor is a new two stroke ASP.91.

No 5 airframe is a scratch built twin engine configuration as is totally unsuitable as an A or B test air-frame!

No 6 is another clone fuselage fitted with a side mounted SC120FS four stroke motor. As with the No3 fuselage, fitting of this motor was a tight squeeze. A 2600NiMh battery is fitted just aft of the marked neutral C of G position. A little lead figures under the tail plane to help with the C of G positioning.

I have two original Hangar 9 wings in stock. They fit all the above fuselages. Why no more wings? I did build a clone example last year but it ended up warped and essentially is only fit for the bin. It was not the easiest wing to build so I`ve not bothered to build anymore. Additional genuine wings are around £106 each....a complete kit is £206 complete with a £30 landing gear, wheels, pushrods, engine mount, tank, etc,etc. So much hardware comes with the complete kit that the wing cost alone is hard to justify. I`ll buy your old Hangar 9 Ultra Stick wings if you have wrecked a fuselage!

I now need to get flying these kites and getting them set up. The focus for this year is attaining a B-test so I need to do some practice flying over the next few months.

More news in due course.

Mike

[Mike.K 60]

I`m beginning to favour No 4, the low winger as the B-test airframe.

It has an ASP.91 two stroke and weighs a moderate 8.7Lb dry. It is now fully completed but still has to have its maiden flight. No Ultra Stick could ever be said to be pretty. Perhaps though, this low wing conversion goes some way towards being angularly attractive?!

Mike