Made from strong EPO foam the Pusher Star is an ideal training aircraft. The gentle flight characteristics and a rear pusher prop make flying and landing easy for beginners. The Pusher Star also features a full set of control surfaces (Ailerons, Elevator and Rudder) so you can start learning all the basic controls without any need to modify the model. The included 2210-1900kv motor and 30amp ESC provide plenty of power and all servos are pre-installed making assembly quick and easy. The Pusher Star Also features LED lights on the fuselage and wing tips. All that is required to complete this model is your own transmitter and receiver (Tx/Rx) and a 11.1v 1300mah 3s 20c Lipoly battery. Specs: Wing Span: 1000mm (39.37in) Fuselarge: 1080 mm (42.52in) Flyign weight 620g Motor: 2210-1900kv Brushless (Included) ESC: 30A (Included) Servo: 4 x9g (Included) Battery: 11.1v 1300mah 3s 20c Lipoly (Required)
Required: Battery: 11.1v 1300mah 3s 20c Lipoly Your own Tx/Rx
Just bought this lemon
Would not get airborne from ground
Replaced tiny 6x4 prop with 8x3.8 still struggled even when thrown.
Managed to get up to dizzy height of 2 m but almost uncontrolable with any breeze
Cut and copy from my post below "Power Issue Resolved. Strange Flight Characteristics Not. It turned out the ESC needed to be set to the high and low throttle points of the transmitter. Deep in the included ESC's manual (VII.), it says it needs to be done. The airplane's manual does not mention it at all. Tx on, throttle to highest, plug battery into ESC, "beep", throttle to lowest, "beep", you're done. Now it has enough power with included 6x4 prop, but I still recommend 7x4 to help clear fat fuselage". 7x5 prop may even be better. If you want to solve the strange flight characteristics, you could somehow try to make the vertical stabilizer larger. Just make sure you keep it straight or you could make it even worse.
Hola Carlos como estas, si te fijas ahi dice que solo le tenes que poner la lipo y el receptor, si queres aca mismo venden radios en 2.4 a partir de 22.99 dolares, y buen cargador para lipos te recomiendo el Turnigy accucel 6 que funciona 10 puntos yo tengo uno hace dos años y jamas he tenido un problema, con respecto a uno con motor a gasolina no se ha que te referis si glow a gasolina, pero seguro que te va a salir mas caro ya que estos aviones vas a tener que comprar muchas otras cosas mas, este avion al que te referis viene listo para volar, un brazo.
I am not a massive plane expert but I think the Bixler is a way better option than this plane. I replaced the Bixlers carbon rod with a bit thicker one from my local hobby shop and latter cut the wings about 1 inch form the aileron so that there was no curve and now it does quick rolls and flies faster. Bearing in mind the Bixler was my first ever plane, although 4channel for the first few flights I only used aileron, elevator and throttle. As your experience grow, you have the option to use the rudder and shorten the wing to get it to respond faster. Hope this helped
I'm answering my own question, for those who are looking for the CG of the Pusher Star, I got the answer direct from Riccs CS China. The recommended CG range is 55-63mm measured from the root of the leading edge.The aft end of the range actually coincides with the metal wing joiner, Also, I had calculated the CG using 25%-30% MAC, which closely corroborates the numbers provided by the factory.
ipin17_aero, I don't mean to be rude, but you really don't know what you're talking about. This plane's battery is in the nose, so if you put in a heavier battery it should get nose heavy, not tail heavy. This should make it come down nose first when you cut the throttle, which it still doesn't do. My setup is only 30g more than the recommended setup (4 percent increase, all in the nose). This shouldn't affect flight performance too much. If anyone can get this plane to perform well, I would love to hear about how they did it. I really think there's a major design flaw in this plane somewhere.
Anthony, as you can see from the video, it at least flies now, just horribly. Do you think just more power will remedy it? It comes with a 6x4 prop and I used a 7x4. Dr Kiwi on RCgroups tested this motor a couple years ago and on the bench it overheats with a 7x5 APC. A 7x3.5 GWS HD was OK giving 529g thrust at 10.9v. What size do think would be OK to use in flight without overheating? I don't want to fry it, I could use it on another plane. I have 7x5, 7x5.5, 7x6, 8x3.8, 8040, 0843, 8x6. Dr Kiwi tested with the 8040 and got good thrust numbers before overheating. Should I try that and hope it cools enough in flight? How much weight should I try adding to the nose? Do you think enlarging the vertical stabilizer would help flight characteristics at all? It would mean adding extra weight to the tail, which in turn would necessitate more weight in the nose, porking up this already porky beast.
Power Issue Resolved. Strange Flight Characteristics Not. It turned out the ESC needed to be set to the high and low throttle points of the transmitter. Deep in the included ESC's manual (VII.), it says it needs to be done. The airplane's manual does not mention it at all. Tx on, throttle to highest, plug battery into ESC, "beep", throttle to lowest, "beep", you're done. Now it has enough power with included 6x4 prop, but I still recommend 7x4 to help clear fat fuselage, which I believe is causing all the trouble with this plane.
Here are my recommendations if you are unlucky enough to have bought this plane or still want to risk it and get one. 1. To get the cleanest airflow to the prop, remount motor as high as possible without thrust angle washer, don't use motor cover, and cut as much foam as you're comfortable with to allow as much airflow to the prop as possible, without weakening the motor and wing mounts. 2. If you can, use 7x4 prop to help clear the fuselage. 8x3.8 was too big and made the plane fly even worse, nose pointing at a 30 degree angle to straight, rudder trim didn't help, just steered it. 3. Leave the 28g of nuts in the nose and use at least 170g battery or add equivalent dead weight. BTW, efficiency is low. Be prepared for a shorter flight than you think, even with a 2200 lipo. 4. Pull out the useless rear landing gear whose wheel pops off with anything but a perfect landing. This loses 8g and can allow around 15g less weight in nose (total saving - 23 g) Now it flies a little better, but still not very well. Glide is pretty good, however. Not being one to give up easily, and enjoying a challenge, my next step is to put a 64mm EDF jet above the wing and see if that improves its flight characteristics. Less torque twist and direct intake may be just what this thing needs.
This guy flies a LOT of HobbyKing planes, and he agrees this one is difficult to fly. Check his first video out here. He has a couple other more successful ones too, but continues to say it's difficult. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_r_RbWoHuo
guys you must add as much weight to the nose of the model plane to reach the correct center of gravity by adding a bigger battery your only making the problem worse by increasing the planes overall weight for a margin of extra nose weight so run the recommended battery and add as much weight TO THE NOSE untill the plane flies level all the videos i have seen of this model flying are all obviously tail heavy and make sure when installing the propeller the PRINTING ON THE PROPELLER MUST FACE FORWARD if u still cannot fly the plane upgrade the motor one guy on youtube has this model and he has a 2200mah pack he got over 8 mins of flight time this means the motor isnt producing enough power to fly this model its lacking thrust that it obviously needs try a tower pro 2409-12 with a APC 8x4 for thrust or APC 7x6 for speed u should have around 700grams of thrust
gazza, you obviously haven't read through these comments very well. As I said before the battery IS in the nose. It is in the most forward point possible, so adding a bigger battery means adding nose weight. And the power issue has been resolved - reset the ESC to your Rx and use 7x4 prop. I also said the glide is now OK, so it is no longer tail heavy, but it still flies like it is. This thing just flies horribly, no matter what you do.
I have dealt with similar problems on planes that I have designed, if the trailing of the wing is below the leading edge, when looked at from the wing tip, you have a serious design problem. It basically works like perpetual flaps. Causing the aircraft to stall uncontrollably and constantly
Studied Aerospace engineering, built models for years, flown models for longer.
and last but no least, Ive made this screw up too!
looking at this plane, i ask myself "could this plane fly well?" can't believe people would construct a plane such as this and expect people to buy it. i prefer to buy a clouds fly, kinetic 800* even the minimoa because they look aero dynamic and flyable. but this thing looks like a toy which could be dangerous if you don't correct some things on it first. anyway, my thoughts only.
blackacefighter, the bottom of the wing is completely flat from leading to trailing edge, so that is not the problem. And this basic plane design works on planes like the Hobbico SkyFly. I think the problem here is the width of the fuselage. It is almost double the width of the SkyFly's. And the tailboom is much bigger and fatter as well.
From what I can see, the fuse is too big, the tail boom is too fat. If I am unlucky enuf to own this plane, I would put a bigger battery and cut off the tail boom. Find CF tube to replace it. Then it may fly well. Else it would look cute hanging on a wall :)
Here is the first guy (out of 6 I have seen on YouTube) who has been able to make this plane fly half decent. He put a big Busy Bee vertical stabilizer on it. I think the original vert stab is just too small and the fuselage too big. When it's traveling through the air the big body wind deflection doesn't allow the small tail to work properly. Problem is, more tail weight means you need more nose weight as well, further increasing an already porky plane.
You are not paying for the actual weight of the plane, but for the volume of the box. It doesnt matter if they remove parts as long as the box remains the same size. They would have to cut the plane in to smaller pieces if they should get the volum weight below the actual weight of the plane.
Yes, with a little cutting. First cut the front two strips of foam that raise the battery about 5-6mm up off the fuselage (cut only battery width). Don't cut the third, rear-most strip that will help keep the battery in place, unless you plan to hold the lipo in place by other means. Then cut an outline of the battery in the front part of the battery housing and push the foam forward strongly (crushing it) to give an extra 6-8mm of space. This will allow for a perfect snug fit of a 2200 lipo. And, depending on the weight of your lipo, you might want to take out he two nuts (28g) that are in the secret compartment under the battery housing.