Mick Reeves Gangster 63 Lite

[Nigel Heather]

6 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

This may he a dumb statement, but why is Nigel limited to 12" props? It's not built yet so maybe the undercarriage can be a little longer, and the wheels a little larger...........

It’s the tricycle undercarriage.  Of course, you could replace the legs with longer ones or convert to a tail dragger, but out of the box it is a trike and anything bigger than 12” will likely hit the ground when landing.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[GrumpyGnome]

I've seen a few models powered by 4-max recommended setups - all of them were more than adequately powered so I'd save money by not getting more powerful motors, new 5S batteries etc., and just get the recommended setup and a couple more 4S batteries.

 

And call Steve Webb for some suitable, reasonably priced servos.

 

Then enjoy.  

[Nigel Heather]

44 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

Nicely said Nigel!

 

What do you fly at the moment ? (You may well have said in this or another thread...)

 

I currently have two foamies - a battered AcroWot and a Max Thrust Ruckus to replace it.

 

Liked the AcroWot to begin with but the design for the motor mount is terrible and I soon started experiencing the wobbly thrust line.  Then I managed to put it into the ground trying something to adventurous - managed to stick it back together but doesn’t look pretty and has made the wobbly thrust line even worse.  I bought a Max Thrust Ruckus to replace it, more robust but doesn’t fly as nice as the AcroWot.

 

Over the years I have had plenty of planes, Yamamoto high wing trainer, Precedent Fun Fly, Chipmunk, Panic, Limbo Dancer, Wot4, AcroWot (balsa one), Puppeteer, Zagi.

 

I was much more accomplished and confident in my younger years, used to fly with a friend so was often at the field and would egg each other on.  I then moved to a different part of the country and although I flew at clubs it became a more solitary affair.  My interest then switched to helicopters, had a Raptor 50 that I was progressing slowly with.  Then children happened and later a long work assignment that had me away from home and as a result the hobby got paused for about 15 years.

 

When I came back, I was much older had lost my confidence, my daring and my fine control - it wasn’t  starting totally afresh but it was like I was a beginner again.  Plus in the time I had been away everything had changed - electric power had taken over, light foam planes were everywhere, all the companies I knew and loved had disappeared or were on their last legs.

 

So I see myself now as a beginner at A Certificate level.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[GrumpyGnome]

A familuar tale of interrupted hobbies!

 

Gangster seems a good choice given your history..... probably more 'precise' than the foamy AW and Ruckus, but still in the sport category.  And you'll have the enjoyment of building it too.

 

 

[Nigel Heather]

40 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

A familuar tale of interrupted hobbies!

 

Gangster seems a good choice given your history..... probably more 'precise' than the foamy AW and Ruckus, but still in the sport category.  And you'll have the enjoyment of building it too.

 

 

What is frustrating is whenever I have asked questions about electric setups I’ve been told - look at 4-Max, speak to George, look at their recommended setups, you can’t go wrong, they know their stuff.

 

So when I found the Gangster in their recommended setups I thought I had a clear specification to work with - but now I’m being told that 4-Max are wrong so I don’t know what to think.  The hobby was so much easier 20 years ago when we just had glow engines.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Then more you ask, the more opinions you'll get Nigel adding more ah buts. Looks to me like you wanted something a bit tidier than your foamies to fly, and to do some sports flying with it, have some fun, 136W lb will give you that. Get it built n trust 4Max's advice.

[leccyflyer]

The Gangster is a bonny model - a real classic and likely ideal for what you are looking for. In your position I'd start off by using the 4-Max recommendation and see how you get on with that.

 

As regards it being so much easier 20 years ago with glow engines, IMO it really wasn't - the field in those days in my experience was frequently inhabited with modellers trying, often unsuccessfully, to get cheap, poor quality two strokes to run reliably enough to manage an entire flight without conking out. The pilots who had no issues with their engines had come up through the ranks, learned to tune their engines and then, most importantly,  leave them alone. They enjoyed success and all the benefits of experience. They also tended to go for the rather better quality engines from OS, Enya, Irvine etc.  Those who were not successful would spend ages trying to tune their engines, offering the nose of the model to the sky gods, then take off and half a circuit later, the desparate call "Deadstick" would rent the air.

 

These days you are virtually guaranteed plug and play success with off the shelf power trains that just work. All the work has been done.

[Nigel Heather]

2 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

The Gangster is a bonny model - a real classic and likely ideal for what you are looking for. In your position I'd start off by using the 4-Max recommendation and see how you get on with that.

 

As regards it being so much easier 20 years ago with glow engines, IMO it really wasn't - the field in those days in my experience was frequently inhabited with modellers trying, often unsuccessfully, to get cheap, poor quality two strokes to run reliably enough to manage an entire flight without conking out. The pilots who had no issues with their engines had come up through the ranks, learned to tune their engines and then, most importantly,  leave them alone. They enjoyed success and all the benefits of experience. They also tended to go for the rather better quality engines from OS, Enya, Irvine etc.  Those who were not successful would spend ages trying to tune their engines, offering the nose of the model to the sky gods, then take off and half a circuit later, the desparate call "Deadstick" would rent the air.

 

These days you are virtually guaranteed plug and play success with off the shelf power trains that just work. All the work has been done.

Agree with the faffing about with the engines - I was really referring to the fact that each kit/model came with instructions on what size engine to fit and then it was just a case of do I risk going cheap with MDS, go mid-range with Irvine or go expensive with OS.

 

Funny enough with the ever present threat and occurrence of dead stick I became quite adept in gliding the rest of the circuit and landing nicely first time.  Now with the undying reliability of electric it sometimes takes me two or more attempts to complete a landing. I guess necessity focuses the mind.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[Andy Gates]

I do not normally get involved with stuff like this as it normally leads to more confusion but this time I will.

 

Normally I fly my stuff light - I have a Ripmax WOT Trainer which I stripped the covering off of, built a new mainly balsa fuselage and recovered the whole thing with laminating film. It went from 6lbs to 4lbs - so worth the effort for me and is now in heavy use as our club trainer. Flies really slowly & is very predictable - with flaps it can stop in mid air and go backwards in a breeze.

 

However I acquired a Cub from another club member which is obviously an IC based machine.

I have electrified it to suit my purposes.

 

Now the bit you will be interested in...

 

70" wingspan

7lb in weight including battery - for me - heavy.

I run this on a 4S pack (I use 5000mAH packs as it needs loads of nose weight otherwise).

Prop APC 12x6 E

Motor Thumper 4250/06 800Kv

 

This plane is no slouch and I am using it to practice and work towards my B test.

Unlimited verticals? I don't know as I have no need for them.

Loops & bunts from straight & level flight - no issues.

Stall turns & spins - no issues.

Handles rough weather easily.

 

What is not to like?

[John Muir]

There's a picture of a Gangster 63 made by somebody in New Zealand on the Mick Reeves website with the electric power train details underneath:

 

Moto 35-48,900kv
815 watt on 12 x6 prop.80amp ESC
4s 4200 lipo.

 

The chap doesn't say how it flies but you'd have to assume he was happy with it or he wouldn't have sent a picture.

[Nigel Heather]

For those that have built one, what's your view on undercarriage - stick with trike or modify for tail dragger.

 

I'm going electric which means I would probably fix the nosewheel on a trike because difficult to route control arm through battery compartment.

[Nigel R]

I like trikes, so I would stick with that.

 

Flexi cables can sneak around all sorts of obstacles if you did want to retain steering.

 

But. A fixed nosewheel is never really a problem - I can't remember the last time I had steering, either nose gear or tail wheel, and don't really miss it, after all, "build it to fly". That said I fly from grass fields. YMMV, etc.

 

 

[Graham Bowers]

1 hour ago, Nigel Heather said:

For those that have built one, what's your view on undercarriage - stick with trike or modify for tail dragger.

 

I'm going electric which means I would probably fix the nosewheel on a trike because difficult to route control arm through battery compartment.

I've flown and seen both. The rougher the strip, the more likely I'd be to choose tail dragger. Or fly something else when the strip dictates.

 

Choice of prop is a factor of course. With electric, choosing a motor that can swing a bigger prop is a possibility, and that may lead to lack of clearance with a trike.

[Nigel Heather]

13 minutes ago, Graham Bowers said:

I've flown and seen both. The rougher the strip, the more likely I'd be to choose tail dragger. Or fly something else when the strip dictates.

 

Choice of prop is a factor of course. With electric, choosing a motor that can swing a bigger prop is a possibility, and that may lead to lack of clearance with a trike.

Thanks, I've sized my setup using the eCalc PropCalc.  Gone with a slightly bigger motor but running with a 12" prop (can't remember the pitch off the top of my head).

 

What I found with the 3548 motor is that it would run but PropCalc was giving motor can temperature warnings.  So I've gone with a 4250 but pretty much running as a 3548 but a lot cooler.  The extra weight up front will probably be useful too.

 

The 12" prop should be okay with the trike.

 

When I tried a 13" prop in the sim it threw up over temperature and over current warnings.  Had to reduce the potch to get rid of these which defeated the purpose as the thrust was the same as with the 12".

Edited October 17, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[Peter Jenkins]

The other useful tools to play games with are different kv for the equivalent power motors and prop pitch.  A higher kv will allow you to use a smaller diameter prop with a higher pitch to get the same power.  It is quite common for an electric prop to use a higher pitch than you would for an IC solution.

 

As an example, I bought a second hand 70 size aerobatic aircraft that had a Hacker motor with a 425 kv.  It was intended for a 6S pack.  I wanted to use 5S packs and ended up putting a 17x12 prop on that gave the performance I needed.  However, changing to a motor with a 580 kv allowed me to bring the prop diameter down so a 16x10 prop gave the required performance as it was turning faster.  It also gave me an extra 1/2 inch of ground clearance that made all the difference in preventing the grass being cut on take off!  The aircraft is a tail dragger though.

[Nigel Heather]

42 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

The other useful tools to play games with are different kv for the equivalent power motors and prop pitch.  A higher kv will allow you to use a smaller diameter prop with a higher pitch to get the same power.  It is quite common for an electric prop to use a higher pitch than you would for an IC solution.

 

As an example, I bought a second hand 70 size aerobatic aircraft that had a Hacker motor with a 425 kv.  It was intended for a 6S pack.  I wanted to use 5S packs and ended up putting a 17x12 prop on that gave the performance I needed.  However, changing to a motor with a 580 kv allowed me to bring the prop diameter down so a 16x10 prop gave the required performance as it was turning faster.  It also gave me an extra 1/2 inch of ground clearance that made all the difference in preventing the grass being cut on take off!  The aircraft is a tail dragger though.

 

 

Agreed, I tried a few KV options in the simulator and the 4250-900 with a 12" prop came out as a best option.  I did try a 13" prop with different pitches and KVs and although their were so.e combinations that would work, the 4260-900 with 12" seemed to be the best compromise - according to the simulator.

 

Also, if I stick with the trike, which is my preference, then the 12" prop is pretty much the limit unless I change the legs for longer ones.

[Peter Jenkins]

What pitch with the 12 inch prop did you use Nigel?

[Nigel Heather]

6 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

What pitch with the 12 inch prop did you use Nigel?

 

Sorry, had to wait till I got home to check the calcs.

 

This is according to the eCalc PropCalc software.

 

The motor is a 4250-800, not 900 as I had stated earlier.

 

With a 13" prop I can go to 6" pitch, if I increase to 7" then the current exceeds that rated for the motor.  The 13x6 gives a thrust to weight ratio of 1.67

With a 12" prop I can go to 8" pitch.  The 12x8 gives a thrust to weight ratio of 1.77.

 

The often recommended 3548-900 on a 12x6 gives a thrust to weight ratio of 1.51 but there is a overheat warning on the motor case.

 

I'll probably start it on a 12x7 and see how it behaves.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

Edited October 17, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[Peter Jenkins]

👍  you could also try an 11x8 if more prop clearance is needed.

[Outrunner]

1 hour ago, Nigel Heather said:

 

Sorry, had to wait till I got home to check the calcs.

 

This is according to the eCalc PropCalc software.

 

The motor is a 4250-800, not 900 as I had stated earlier.

 

With a 13" prop I can go to 6" pitch, if I increase to 7" then the current exceeds that rated for the motor.  The 13x6 gives a thrust to weight ratio of 1.67

With a 12" prop I can go to 8" pitch.  The 12x8 gives a thrust to weight ratio of 1.77.

 

The often recommended 3548-900 on a 12x6 gives a thrust to weight ratio of 1.51 but there is a overheat warning on the motor case.

 

I'll probably start it on a 12x7 and see how it behaves.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

 

The best thing to do is put the smallest prop on and use your Wattmeter to check the Amps, if it's within specification try the bigger props to make sure none of them overload the motor. If all ok then go and fly trying the different props that you have in the knowledge none will overload the motor.

[Andy Stephenson]

I have a 12 x6 prop on my G63 which allows adequate clearance on a well tended patch.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Andy Stephenson

[Nigel Heather]

35 minutes ago, Andy Stephenson said:

I have a 12 x6 prop on my G63 which allows adequate clearance on a well tended patch.

 

 

 

Yep, I think 12" will be fine, my concern with ground clearance was going bigger than that.  Nice finish on your Gangster.

[Peter Jenkins]

Hi Nigel, if you have the time, you might find my build blog on the Gangster 75 that shows how I decorated it and also my experiences when flying it.  I increased the size of both the elevator and rudder and wish I had increased the size of the ailerons as well.  The blog is here.

[Jonathan M]

My thoughts...

 

Undercarriage:  Definitely keep it trike, fit slightly bigger diameter wheels like I did if you need more prop clearance, especially for slightly rougher patches like mine.  I retained a steerable nose-wheel (others consider it unnecessary) but it took quite some modification to ensure it was robust enough for the job.

 

4-Max specs:  I think George tends to slightly underspec his powertrain recommendations and always assumes the lightest possible build.  This opinion is based on an electric balsa Wot4 ARTF I once had, which went through several conversions, all weighing around the 5.25lb mark:

• 4-Max 3547, 4s Lipo, 12x6 prop, 650W = 124W/lb (a bit feeble)
• Overlander 4250, 4s, 14x7, 907W = 173W/lb (more than enough)
• SC 40 two-stroke, forgotten what prop but published output 920W = 175W/lb (again more than enough)

From this data, it was clear that my Gangster 63 Lite would, if I went electric (4s), be completely underpowered on the 4-Max 3547 on a 12x6  (130W/lb), but good with the Overlander 4250 on a 13x10 (180W/lb).

 

In the event I went IC, with two variants, the model weighing 5.5lbs all up.  My first engine was the Irvine 46 (160W/lb, output based on published figures) which produced a lovely model with enough power for all the usuals, and which I could easily have lived with.  But when I retrofitted an Irvine 53 that came up on eBay, with a slightly larger prop (glad I'd fitted larger diameter wheels) it became absolutely perfect, with almost unlimited verticals.  I don't have the actual data on the larger Irvine, but assuming a say 20% increase in max output to suggest 175W/lb, you can see that the model really needs a properly powerful motor or electric powertrain for its weight!

 

If you can build your's super-light (circa 4lb from memory, which is the weight that I think 4-Max bases its recommendation on) then go for the puny setup, but I think this very unlikely.

 

Also bear in mind that, even if beefed up to be heavier (mine was 5.5lbs, Andy Stephenson's 5.3lbs), the Gangster's wing area still gives it a very low wing loading compared say to the Wot4:  Gangster has 25% more wing area for the same flying weight.

 

 

[GrumpyGnome]

3 hours ago, Jonathan M said:

4-Max specs:  I think George tends to slightly underspec his powertrain recommendations and always assumes the lightest possible build. 

I've seen 4 planes in our small club that have 4-max recommended setups: a vintage plane, 2 low wing sports models, and a small warbird. All were more thsn adequately powered, and none were real lightweights.

 

So, I suppose ones mans 'underpowered', is another mans 'adequate', is another mans 'overpowered'. Ideally, get it built and covered so you can tell George as many parameters as possible - plus your expectations for how it needs to fly.