Hi Boy Precedent

[Pete B]

Hi Peter, Welcome to the forum!

I've edited out your contact info to avoid forum-searching bots and other undesirables harvesting your details. Any member can contact you for those details using the 'Message Member' button below each post

Pete

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Hi Boy is not a difficult build Peter, you could be helped through the build on here if you don't get instructions.

[Pete B]

Peter, It's a complete mystery but your original post on this thread has disappeared for reasons unknown to us. It was definitely there after I edited and JS has seen it too so it's not just me

Could I ask you you re-post your question in this thread, please?

Pete

[David Davis]

Posted by john stones 1 on 26/06/2018 21:26:10:

Hi Boy is not a difficult build Peter, you could be helped through the build on here if you don't get instructions.

Not at all difficult to build, flying one however as a total novice...

[Robin Etherton]

Learnt to fly on one of these, way back in the 70’s .

Built like a tank and no matter how many times you crashed it and repaired it, it still flew, like a brick but still flew.

Fond memories.

[David Davis]

Posted by Robin Etherton on 27/06/2018 09:07:35:

Learnt to fly on one of these, way back in the 70’s .

Built like a tank and no matter how many times you crashed it and repaired it, it still flew, like a brick but still flew.

Fond memories.

In other words you learnt to fly despite its flying characteristics!

[Cuban8]

I don't agree with the negative comments surrounding the Hi-Boy's flying characteristics. In the mid 80's, I'd been flying gliders (thermal and slope) for several years and I converted to power flying with a Hi-Boy that I'd built and flown without assistance. I honestly don't recall any poor flying attributes with the model, the wing was veneered foam, quite thick, parallel chord and with a good aerofoil that gave a fairly wide speed range compared to some other trainers around then with flat bottomed sections (for easy building) but not a wide performance range.

The model had a good speed range and would get away from you if allowed to, but it did teach good throttle management, correct trimming and needed a good approach and landing. The Hi-Boy was a proper trainer IMHO, not intrinsically difficult to fly, but needed to be handled correctly and thus actually taught you something. I've flown modern light trainers and after giving the newcomer the very basics of control and orientation, IMHO they fall down when it comes to presenting a challenge later on.

I kept the model for several years and used it as a training hack for new flyers, albeit with a buddy box, it never crashed and I eventually sold it on to a club mate.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Cuban8 on 27/06/2018 11:08:41:

I don't agree with the negative comments surrounding the Hi-Boy's flying characteristics. In the mid 80's, I'd been flying gliders (thermal and slope) for several years and I converted to power flying with a Hi-Boy that I'd built and flown without assistance. I honestly don't recall any poor flying attributes with the model, the wing was veneered foam, quite thick, parallel chord and with a good aerofoil that gave a fairly wide speed range compared to some other trainers around then with flat bottomed sections (for easy building) but not a wide performance range.

The model had a good speed range and would get away from you if allowed to, but it did teach good throttle management, correct trimming and needed a good approach and landing. The Hi-Boy was a proper trainer IMHO, not intrinsically difficult to fly, but needed to be handled correctly and thus actually taught you something. I've flown modern light trainers and after giving the newcomer the very basics of control and orientation, IMHO they fall down when it comes to presenting a challenge later on.

I kept the model for several years and used it as a training hack for new flyers, albeit with a buddy box, it never crashed and I eventually sold it on to a club mate.

Yep I reckon they were o.k

[JOHN MOSLEY 2]

I had a Hi Boy did not like it, but others in the club build rudder elevator versions only seemed to fly really well.

 

Edited By JOHN MOSLEY 2 on 27/06/2018 12:50:17

[Robin Etherton]

David yes.

Or in other words if you could fly this you could probably fly anything.

[Don Fry]

I saw a load of badly built ones. And they flew badly. Big hinge gaps were common. One I saw had painted hinges, so stiff that the poor sevoes nearly centred. Wings not at the same angle, with the ailerons holding the poor thing in a permanent crow brake, screwing as the speed varied. Oh the laughs they had flying them.

One maidened by a bloke who flew a heavy overpowered CAP 232. Looked at his beast when he got the trainer back on the ground and said the CAP is easier to fly.

Properly built, it was a nice aircraft. And tough as old boots.

[Ben B]

I love my Precedent hiboy. It's still in my loft in one piece 26 years after I built it. It was difficult to build it wrong and it was as strong as a Panzer tank. Issues were from lack of power (I flew mine initially on an OS35FP and it was underpowered and take off runs were very long).

I still like the way it flies- responds to commands, tolerates wind well, no adverse yaw etc, suitable for bank+yank to begin with, will roll and loop etc. When I want to tutor someone I bring it out.

The only issues I had with mine were from the motor. As said it was underpowered and the remote needle extension (OS offical part) gave me no end of jip with the motor going deadsticks. A TT40GP with the same extension had similar problems so was not an improvement!!! But then learning how to land deadsticks is part of the "fun".

Main issues were long take-offs and poor ground control (no steerable nosewheel) and the need to touch down gently as the undercarriage would splay. I concur to a degree with the suggestion- if you can fly this you can fly anything but I'd phrase it differently- it taught you to fly properly!!

If they still made them I'd buy another and that's more than I can say of some of the planes that followed....

[Cuban8]

I do agree about powering them adequately. My Hiboy originally had a tired Merco 35 and did take an inordinate amount of the strip to get airborne. Luckily, as the patch was at the top of a hill and the southern side gently dropped away, you got a kind of ski-jump assisted take off when the wind was in the right direction. Eventually fitted a decent OS, and she'd get away with no trouble.

[Robin Colbourne]

The early Hiboys with the long ply tank hatch and the short,steep windscreen had the undercarriage to far back. The later ones with the balsa tanmk hatch and longer, more raked windscreen, wer much better in this respect.

As Ben said, it would have benefited from a steerable nosewheel. A fibreglass or carbon fibre undercarriage would have helped, as the piano wire legs get bent back, resulting in even more difficulty acheiving a decent takeoff run.

I had one Hiboy fitted with an OS40FSR, which had been converted to taildragger configuration with a long, hard alloy main undercarriage and a steerable tailwheel. It was a joy to take off and land, and thanks to the power, great fun too.