RE: FABULOUS FRONT YARD FIGHTER FLYING FUN REPORT
PTBs, powers that be. [X(] Look up Stan Myers.
Posted on: 11/14/2009 1:32 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Park Flyers & Backyard Flyers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9252567

RE: Struggling with Single Rotor basics
Damn, this is a long thread. OK, I'm not a totally dedicated rotor freak but I started a l-o-o-o-o-ng time ago. They don't call me gramps but I'ma gittin there. I built the DuBro WhirlyBird http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb2Cj3epamA&feature=player_embedded when it first came out. For you yunguns, this one had the engine mounted on top of the rotor with the prop spinning one way and the rotor spinning t'other from torque reaction. It had a crude swashplate that input the main blades which were just flat paddles of sorts. The crazy thing worked and I learned to hover and do simple circuits. Hey, this was in the day before gyros so that was really something. The inventor was hired by DuBro and many could not master the crazy thing. I remember an article by the same dude where he was invited to a heli contest in Europe. It turned out to be not a contest but a hijacking of sorts where they challenged him to prove that the thing could fly at all. It could, and he did and it COULD be flown but it was not a good, ground effect machine. It was unstable near the ground but that's where most folks kept it out of fear of breaking it if it got too high and they lost it. Next was the DuBro, Hughes 300 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW77m-ZBjhY&feature=player_embedded and that was a large, HEAVY platform that was also quite stable if you got it high enough, out of ground effect. Then there was the GMP Competitor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLrnYJmEomE&feature=player_embedded# It was full collective, still no gyro and was pretty stable and responsive. The kit though, was atrocious, huge slop in many parts, a delicate tail rotor gear system with a 1/16th piano wire drive that I converted to a brass tube drive with homemade, U-Joints at both ends. Fast forward MANY years later to the LiteMachines heli. Mechanical gyro and lots of fun, smack it into the ground, pick it up, sometimes not even needing to restart the engine and go again. So winter comes and I get the Walkera 4#3B,,,, the most unstable, unpredictable piece of *^&%$ I've ever flown. One second of hover and ZIP, it's off, willy nilly in any and all directions. What the? The thread on this one is long and confusing and frustrating. No amount of trimming, tweaking and upgrading even comes close. Hell, for the money I spent aftermarket, I coulda got a T-Rex or sumpin". But I needed an indoor bird for to fly in the living room like I could with the neat little PiccoZ. Amazingly stable with just throttle and tail control. Noted was the orientation of the flybar, radically offset from the usual 90 degrees. That appears to be the trick to stability without a swashplate. Sure enough, the Blade MSR comes out and there it is, the offset flybar. And this little bird is ROCK solid in a hover. Crazy,,,, hands off hover for 5 - 10 seconds and more, at a time. Give her some tail input and she just neatly circles the room,,, in either direction. NO fighting any cross control with the swash. WOW, what a freakin' difference from the Walkera. And most other helis. In addition to the offset swashplate, the MSR has 120 degree swashplate. Plus, some things never seen before in a heli. Give her left cyclic and the forward responds a hair. Give her forward and the roll cyclic responds in like manner. Give her some tail input and the throttle goes up a bit. LOTS of automatic, mixing going on without having to program it in. Plus, if you have one, the main shaft is tilted to the right related to the frame. Hey, I read years ago that full size machines, some of them, had this feature. WOW again, the blade folks REALLY put some incredible amount of work and engineering into this baby. I was always afraid of nose in hover but not with this little gem. The reason? Built so light and durable that when you smack her, she doesn't break. Nothing breaks even with the most aggressive accidents. Table legs, chair, curtains, ceiling, house plant, lamp, you name it. Just pick her up and go again. When she ends up on her side, I just jab the throttle and the rotor eventually jogs her back on her legs, good for another round. I was going to get a simulator to better learn what I don't know so that I can fly my new Blade CP pro with more confidence. But this little machine is superior to a Sim. Far, far superior, it's real world practice at less cost and far more, well, it IS real flying, unlike a Sim. So if you haven't tried the Blade MSR get down to the shop that has one for demo and you'll be amazed, no matter you skill level. And if all this has been mentioned, sorry for the repeat, just way too many posts for these aging eyes. [8|]
Posted on: 10/29/2009 7:20 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "E-Flite Helicopters"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9211624

RE: Best
[quote]ORIGINAL: millerhill Man...those plans are monstrous. Any ideas about how I would go about copying them? I don't have the time to scan and tile. Steve [/quote] Our local UPS store has a big scanner that'll take some pretty large plans. I've used them to scan .40 sized plans down to 1/2A size. The price was pretty fair but I don't remember how much that was. I'd bet that if you did scan them and built the plane from the plans, selling this vintage kit would more than pay for the trouble. That is one rare kit. Berkley was one of the best kit makers. I'm curious though, what's the span, wing area and projected flying weight? What radio do they illustrate? They show options such as rubber power. That would mean the structure is designed to be fairly light. with todays modern equipment and a light and powerful engine like the .074, I'd bet you'd have quiet an exceptional airplane. Side mount with a Pitts style muffler, you could completely enclose the engine. And if cooling was a concern, you could use a LiteMachines heat sink, see the video. http://www.youtube.com/user/hopeso#p/u/44/RiLitPGYmdM This was to see if too much cooling caused problems and that was not the case. If the head was too large you could still saw off a few fins.
Posted on: 10/28/2009 5:48 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9210143

RE: Best
You're welcome. Note that a good ski design will work on soft snow. Hard pack not required. And hey, soft snow is easier on your airplane when you smack it. [X(] BTW, your choice of engine is excellent. The Norvel .074 is one of the best throttling engine out there. Diesels are notorious for being hard to start under the best of conditions and many don't throttle well. The Norvel does all of that perfectly. I'd sure love to get a copy of those plans. Anything you need?
Posted on: 10/28/2009 4:16 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9209800

RE: Best
Here's my ski design. Flying from snow is a blast. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-666705683941330773&ei=c27IScK7JJDw-wG_2fypBA&q=skis+winter+minisport# Flying in the cold does have some advantages. The thicker air provides a bit more lift. Also, more oxygen to the engine means you need to richen up the needle, and that means more combustibles in the engine giving you more power. Best weather is just at freezing, give or take, with sun and no wind. For the hands, a tight fitting pair of cotton gloves works well. That gives you some warmth without compromising feel on the sticks. Steal them from the better half. Sometimes starting in the cold can be a hassle though. Make sure you get a good glow on your plug. A little more nitro can help. Also, you can bring a torch to warm up the cylinder for easy starts. Take care though, the flame is impossible to see in bright daylight. Ask me how I know. In the video above, though, I'm running diesel and had no problems at all.
Posted on: 10/28/2009 4:00 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9209749

RE: Dieselized, TD .010
Relative to the crank, that pin looks pretty robust. No danger of anything breaking there. Looks like that's part of the problem too,,, the Cox crank is too lightly built for diesel. Maybe I WILL have a go at making a crank and make it similar to the AE crank. Thanks Greg.
Posted on: 10/27/2009 4:05 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9206614

RE: Dieselized, TD .010
That appears to be the problem, then. No bounce or compression hold at TDC for any length of time. And this is on a nearly new piston and cylinder set. But there may be a way to cinch up the fit and at the same time, impart some taper. Will try and work on that this week. Temps 10C above zero for a few days at least. [8D] Greg, You have an .006 diesel engine? So I did a search. http://modelenginenews.org/cardfile/ae.html Looks ideal for some of the small electrics out there.
Posted on: 10/27/2009 3:54 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9206581

RE: Dieselized, TD .010
Meanhwile I found a thread from Rocketrob about Schlosser diesels, one of them a .25cc. That's small and looks like a crank that could be made to fit. But the engine itself is some 250 dollars, virtually hand made. So I'm sure that a crank from one of these gems would be nearly a hundred bucks. [:o]
Posted on: 10/27/2009 11:49 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205893

RE: Dieselized, TD .010
About Cox compression seal again. I have a piston/cylinder set that I made by honing out an .049 cylinder to fit an .051 piston. This one has lots of taper in the cylinder and a bit on the piston. This one behaves much like a new Norvel. It snags at or near TDC if you don't flip it over smartly. But it does flip over easily and starts by hand and runs as strongly as any other set I have. That polished look on the piston is there and with that tight fit, I'm speculating that this set will last a long time. Unfortunately, I can't do this with the .010,,,, or can I? I have an idea that may work. Need to test it on one of my less precious .049s first. If it works I'll post the results.
Posted on: 10/27/2009 11:45 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205880

RE: Dieselized, TD .010
With a Viton O-Ring. The fit was such that even though I used a spring to load the compression screw, it wasn't needed to hold a setting. It certainly wasn't leaking, I made sure of that.
Posted on: 10/27/2009 11:25 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205818

RE: Glider coverings
I'm the kind of guy who loves anything that flys and have tried just about all there is in the hobby. This includes gliders of various types including free-flight HLGs of the all balsa variety. When I was a kid, we had available at any corner store, Guillows and other, chuck gliders. When we went to fly them, a good toss always had them looping sharply and hitting us on the back of the head. Later in life, I discovered HLGs and noted that they were simply thrown as hard as you could in hopes of catching a thermal. But how was that done, given our childhood experience? Finally, the answer came with an article I read that stipulated zero angle of incidence with the CG set at 50% or so. Now it made sense . So maybe a variation on this theme is something to play with? Less incidence with a rearward CG?
Posted on: 10/27/2009 8:39 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "RC Gliders, Sailplanes and Slope Soaring"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205489

RE: Dieselized, TD .010
Hi Greg, I believe I was the first to stumble on that idea a few years ago here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VA1R2SfswA&feature=player_profilepage and I did try that trick and it did, in fact, make a start possible when nothing else worked. Especially in light of the ambient temperature at the time,, raining and only 5C above. It was under these conditions that I originally used the heat gun and found, just as with several prime runs, heat would make the engine much easier to start especially with a no ether fuel. In retrospect, maybe I should have tried something like a 50% ether formula. This is SUCH a tiny engine. The other issue, I'm convinced, is that like most Cox engines for the last ten, maybe twenty years, they've been set up with such a just so fit, no need for any break in of any sort, that the compression seal isn't what it should be. Both my PAW and MP Jets diesels needed a measure of break in and both exhibit that nicely polished piston you get with a nicely broken in engine. Many of my Cox engines, on the other hand, show a brown stain on the piston indicating significant blow by and loss of compression seal. This could be why the .010 required a very wet prime to even light off.
Posted on: 10/27/2009 8:09 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205448

RE: Dieselized, TD .010
Well, I do have a lathe and I guess I could try. I've heard that there is a bolt grade that works well for cranks.
Posted on: 10/27/2009 3:26 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205203

RE: Ship Came In
Wow, out of my price range, for sure. No income, all outcome, I'm afraid. Pension doesn't kick in till this december,,, maybe then. [:o]
Posted on: 10/27/2009 3:25 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205202

RE: Ship Came In
I just posted my misadventures with trying to dieselize the TD .010 and broke two cranks in the process. So I asked if there was a small diesel out there that had a crank that i could stuff in. Looks like I found it. How does one go about getting these Schlosser engines?
Posted on: 10/27/2009 12:38 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205041

Dieselized, TD .010
When it became clear that Cox was not going to make any, any more, the problem of a shortage of glow plugs came up. With the .049 size, it was fairly straight forward to adapt a burned out head to take turbo plugs. I also tried this on the .020 size but couldn't get a good result. A logical solution would be to dieselize and eliminate the glow plug entirely. I don't have any pics to show for the moment but I gave that a try on the TD .010. There was no problem making a head but when it came to starting the little jewel is where I ran into trouble. I stuck with my 39/39/20/2 formula to start. I used the spring starter all the way and had a very hard time getting the engine to run. I went to an all ether prime with 40% oil but this didn't help much. In the process, I damaged two of those precious, little cranks. On one, the crank web bent at the pin. On the other, the pin broke off along with a bit of web material. Getting the precise compression to light off the prime was the problem. It was too easy to be undercompressed with no start and just as easy to be overcompressed. So much so that once she lit off, only 1 second or so, and the crank broke. At first I blamed the crank for not being strong enough. Now I'm thinking that the use of a 2/56 compression screw was the problem. The threads are just not fine enough to get a precise setting. Especially with a spring loaded compression screw. I'm now down to ONE complete engine and two broken cranks. And lots of .010 bits and pieces. I won't be trying this again until I find more cranks. Anyone have any trashed .010s they want to get rid of? Or, I'll bet there's a tiny diesel out there with a stronger crank that might fit with a little fiddling. Any ideas, guys?
Posted on: 10/27/2009 12:24 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205022

RE: OS 10FSR conversion to diesel?
Kostas, Here's a video of the OS .10 with a .15 piston and liner installed and converted to diesel with my own design head. It hasn't been flown, but extensivley bench run. Never had a problem with the rod. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJpit-eWP-I&feature=channel_page
Posted on: 10/27/2009 12:08 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9099830

RE: Has anyone dieselized a 26cc thru 50cc gas engine yet?
I tried this on a Tanaka. I had trouble getting it going and finally gave it a shot of straight ether from the can. Pictured is the result. It lit off with a BANG. I trimmed too much material off the case. I have the head and a brand new Tanaka engine to try again. The idea was to run it as diesel without any ether or even added oil. Just because kerosene had lubricating qualities all its own and when some oils allow a 100 to 1 ratio, maybe there's enough lubrifying characteristics in plain kerosene to do the trick. After that, I was going to try Bio diesel. It was not too much trouble to dieselize the Tanaka because it's a four bolt design all around. The soild head was sawn off and the new, diesel head was held down, along with the cylinder with extra long bolts. I also made a head to take a stock, glow plug and that worked well. No problem breaking anything because on glow, the compression ratio was a lot less. Finally, I also added a reed assembly to carry an Enya .60 throttle. This was too small and an OS 1.08 unit worked better.
Posted on: 10/26/2009 6:56 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Everything Diesel"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9204061

RE: Glider coverings
I have a feeling that you're both right. I now recall having a 500 mAh pack in the nose but it was a real bear to get it in there. So I used a 250 pack and bored a hole in the nose to take a lead plug. I now also recall that I didn't get the CG exactly where indicated,, a bit too far back maybe. Next sunny day I'm going to add some lead to the nose and give it a go. Gotta wait till the snow melts though. And what about winter flying? Take a sunny day with no wind. Are thermals possible?
Posted on: 10/24/2009 11:03 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "RC Gliders, Sailplanes and Slope Soaring"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9198265

RE: Norvel Engine FAQ
Lawrence, I'm glad to hear that the mods are working for you. Sorry for the late reply but RCU sometimes doesn't inform me of new posts to which I've participated in. Probably, this has something to do with my AVG firewall or virus defense. I'd rather have it too sensitive than otherwise. In any case, I had been trying to get Norvel to include an adjustable airbleed from the day their first engine hit the market. That was when their carb resembled the current, Wasp carb. But just to be clear, Wasp stole the design from Norvel. But that carb had no slot and it was far easier to install the very necessary, adjustable airbleed. When I heard that Norvel was coming out with a new throttle design, imagine my frustration when, not only did they not offer an adjustable airbleed, instead of an airbleed HOLE, (non-adjustable) they come out with this *&%$#^ slot. I posted near that time that slots have no useful purpose in this universe nor in any other. I did manage to get an adjusting screw to intercept the slot but that took three tries with two, ruined carb bodies. THEN, in response to the fact that Norvels wouldn't hold their idle, they went and did something to prevent the engine from idling below 8K. Most planes, even heavy ones, won't land at that RPM. Aaaaaargh. [:@] How they did that was not easy to spot but eventually, I saw that they made the lower hole in the carb body, significantly smaller than the top hole. So when you close your throttle, it LOOKS like the barrel is still open, (from the top) but in fact, the bottom hole gets closed off sooner than normal and that shuts off the engine. The first step is to open up the bottom hole to match the top hole. Getting around that miserable slot had me try a few other ideas and they worked but were a real pain in the keester. One day I came across a Philtech carb made in Australia, as pictured. Nicely made but they had the adjustable airbleed in an odd location. At first I was convinced that it wouldn't work but a closer look revealed the genius in the design. It's clear that the Philtech folks know their engines and know how our model carbs work. If you've never heard of them, I give you a teaser from their website. ================================================ Philtech is in the process of changing to a more compact and lighter design of V-Engine. This is so that we can have an engine with 12 cylinders and still fit into a 63" wing span spitfire (IE.1/7 scale). The engine also incorporates a reduction gearbox on the output shaft so that scale propellers can be used and the engine can be mounted without inverting it. This engine will be a more authentic to the WW2 aircraft enthusiast and deliver a better power to weight ratio than our V6 engine. We have also decided to replace the multiple carby system with electronic fuel injection system. This will be easier to operate and more reliable with respect to tuning. ================================================ You're not seeing things, a V-12 in a 63" span Spitfire. My old, Sterling Spit was that size and a Webra Blackhead .60 flew it. Imagine the sound a V-12 will put out. In any case, the adjustable airbleed on their carb works because while it's on the backside of the throttle, it's also at the bottom and that amounts to the same thing as the conventional location. Doing it this way is a cinch and the only place you need anything special in the way of tools is a drill press for equalizing the holes in the carb body. And BTW, the useless slot in this carb wasn't altered in any way. [:)] Did I mention that I hate slots? [:'(]
Posted on: 10/24/2009 2:28 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9197774

RE: Twin .020 Jr Skylark build thread
The Littlest Stik also flew well on a TD .010 and that's half the displacement of the PeeWee. One thing to try is another PeeWee on the nose. A trimotor,, why not? That would help the balance with some useful weight and I imagine three would make quite a song. [:)]
Posted on: 10/23/2009 2:48 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9196363

RE: Twin .020 Jr Skylark build thread
One thing that I learned very early in this game. My mentor, who learned to fly free-flight JUST when engines were replacing rubber as a motive force for model airplanes, always said. Most sluggish airplanes don't need a bigger engine. Most sluggish airplanes need a lighter plane. It's all in the wing loading. If it's 1/2A size, you can build a 15 ounce plane and that sounds good. But not if the wing area is 150 square inches. That works, of course, if it's hell bent for leather, fast flying you want. But if it's sport, with some easy aerobatics you want,,,, Make the same plane with 250 square inches but retain the same weight of 15 ounces, now you have a plane that a Bee can fly right smartly. Same as with a twin. It's a bit harder to do with a twin because now you have two firewalls, two tanks, tubing, links to the throttles if any and an extra servo if one just won't cut it in terms of installation. But now we can make the fuse far lighter because it's not subjected to the vibration of one large engine in the nose. The wing will dampen the vibrations from even two, smaller engines. As this plane is over 20 ounces and has 250 square inches, power IS part of the problem. However, if this plane could be reduced to 15 ounces, the results may be surprising. These days, you can get 2 gram Rxs. And 3.5 gram servos ought to be plenty strong enough. Many Rxs and servos are now designed to run on one LiPo. A 250 mAh LiPo would save a lot of weight. A little late in this case, but lightening holes in all the flat, sheeted areas would help. Wood selection can also be a large factor. An ounce here, an ounce there, it all subtracts down. More power, plus a lighter plane. [:D]
Posted on: 10/21/2009 9:22 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9188563

RE: Carb seal on Norvel .074?
Mr Cox, Some guys would kill for a reliable idle at 4500. Especially considering that the later runs of the .06 would stop if you tried to idle below 8000. The .074 never had a problem with idle or transition. Just one of those magic combination of elements that serendipity bestowed on us small airplane lovers. [:D]
Posted on: 10/19/2009 8:55 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9186536

RE: Exotic surestart
Sorry, for not being clear. I meant power loss with the muffler.
Posted on: 10/19/2009 8:07 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9186390

RE: Carb seal on Norvel .074?
I've never seen this effect in any of mine. Theoretically, I don't see how minor leakage here could matter much in the long run. You can substitute the split, lock washers with small brass washers and this should solve the problem. Or, there are fibre washers available. I have small, brass washers and may even have some fibre types. PM me with your address and I'll fire off to you whatever I can dig up. About the glow inserts. They decided to make them so that the head clamp from one series wouldn't fit the glow insert from the other. BTW, no apologies necessary. The 1/2A moniker for this forum is meant to cover small aircraft and engines up to .10 or .12 or even .15. The majority of modelers consider anything less than a .40 as SMALL. [b]S[/b][color=#330099][/color]mall [b]M[/b][color=#330099][/color]odel [b]A[/b][color=#330099][/color]irplane [b]L[/b][color=#330099][/color]overs [b]L[/b][color=#330099][/color]eague
Posted on: 10/19/2009 1:34 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9185458

RE: Exotic surestart
Is there a power loss?
Posted on: 10/19/2009 12:45 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9185334

RE: Glider coverings
Thanks CBM, In fact, this one turned out pretty light as a result of using the LiteSpan. Meanwhile, the electric guys have film coverings that are less than half the weight of the usual films but are not fuel proof. No need and of course we don't need that in a glider. I think I'll bite the bullet and just recover it in one of those films and see what happens. Can't make it any worse and as you suggest, maybe that much lighter will help. I ran across the same thing you did with foam wings. Film or paint really made a difference, that's why I thought we had that issue, to a degree here. Thanks again.
Posted on: 10/18/2009 8:27 PM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "RC Gliders, Sailplanes and Slope Soaring"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9183724

RE: Twin .020 Jr Skylark build thread
Two PAW .033 diesels would be ideal, I think. These are real sleepers. They have very good power to weight and the throttling is very good according to all reports. Don't be afraid of diesel, you can use an electric starter on diesel engines or even a spring starter from Cox. Spring starter on a dieselized, Norvel .074 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af4dQNa60_w&NR=1 Same engine, using a homemade, electric starter. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2299068698823721638&ei=qWvISfy5L5Dq-wGKjr3ECQ&q=norvel+diesel+skis+winter+minisport#
Posted on: 10/18/2009 7:55 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9182211

RE: Twin .020 Jr Skylark build thread
Pictured is thrust/hp calc. for .049 and .020. Adjusting for the extra cubes in the single, compared to the twin engines, the single comes out at .75 lbs thrust against the 2x.30=.60lbs thrust. Or, 12 ounces for the single and 9.6 for the twin. I too was led to believe that twins were more efficient. So I made up a pair of VA .049s with one counter-rotating. This was done by stuffing a regular, TD .049 crank into one VA and a Cox, TD reverse crank into the other. I flew the pair in a high wing, sport model that flew well on a Norvel .074. But as here, the twins didn't live up to expectations. Twins don't scale down as well as we thought. [&o]
Posted on: 10/18/2009 2:24 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9179786

RE: Stuck Carbs
Sounds like the oil has turned to varnish. A heat gun may help to soften the solidified oil. I had a badly stuck .049 that had run castor based fuel and was put away wet for 5 years. I freed it up by literally boiling it in oil. Not recommended really, hot oil can be dangerous but on the other hand, no more dangerous than making a batch of french fries.
Posted on: 10/18/2009 12:00 AM by Author "AndyW" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9181805