RE: Out of trim trainer
I'm kind of astounded that no one has mentioned incidence yet. My trainer was a Laniar explorer 40. It had the nasty habbit of not just climbing when the throttle was above trim speed, but trying to loop. The oposite on throttle below trim speed, it nosed over and dropped like a rock. I finally ended up with a stack of popsicle sticks under the TE of the wing, four sticks thick, and it really tamed the beast. It would climb at throttle, and it would sink if the throttle was cut. However none of the attempted loops or nose dives from before. The "Give it more down thrust" doesn't make much sense to me. A little, 1 or 2 degrees is OK, some scale planes fly like that, but when a plane has so much down and right thrust that it looks like the nose was broke off and glued back on without much thought about alignment, something is just wrong. If you go out to the local airport and look at the down thrust of the real planes, it's really hard if not impossible to find one that looks like it has any down thrust. Why should our models be any different? Don
Posted on: 11/20/2009 11:11 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9269046

RE: Post pic of your runway from Google Earth
I mentioned in my post about our field being owned by Cal Poly, but our club built it an maintained it. This article was in our newspaper this morning. The photo was taken in the pit area at our field. The helicopter is the one I mentioned. Seems shorter than I remembered, but sill an impressive size. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/928085.html Don
Posted on: 11/20/2009 1:22 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9267735

RE: Hitec.....Never again
Most of the 2.4 issues that have popped up at the field have been antenna related. And, I'm going to say it, you should have done a proper range check. Receiver antenna placement is something that requires close attention. I haven't read Hitech's instructions, but they will usually say to keep them away from metal and carbon fiber, metal landing gears, etc. If it is a two antenna receiver, they need to antenna ends need to be at a 90 degree angle to eacy other. Remember, the antenna is the little stub sticking out of the coax, not the whole coax We had a guy that would get hits on area of the field. You could hear him,"OH NO, a hit in the same place" Turned out that at that point in his flying pattern, the antenna that hadn't broken off the receiver was in a dead zone, and all radio was lost. If the plane happened to be in a condition to survive the brownout, he would get it back, It even survived, sort of, a crash and after that one was when we found the broken at the PC board antena and the other broke off in our hand was we were inspecting the plane. Some 2.4 are slow to boot up, so an under voltage "hit", or monentary loss of signal can cause the receiver to go though a boot up and loose control while it is doning it. Some respond faster than others. Last, on your battery, I was flying with a newer Futab 6V pack (72mhz). One day, my plane went nuts on take off, and I lost all control, I chopped throttle and nothing, It is in a nose down atatude cutting grass and heading for the barbed wire fence. Suddenly, it answered both up elevator and throttle cut and went dead stick and got enough air to clear the fence and make it to the wrong edge of the pond. When I got it back to the pits, and turned it back on, the volt watch was showing an almost dead battery and it had come off the charger about an hour before. I got it home and cleaned things and checked the battery again and now it is showing a full charge. I replaced the switch, pulled the skin off the battery and checked the weld joints, put thing back and cycled it a number of times and couldn't find a thing wrong. It took me a wyile to get the wing repaird, and when I did, I put the same battery back in. After a couple weeks of flying, one day, it just quit answering the raido. It was in a gentle left hand turn at mid throttle and it just kept on turning and flying for what seemed like a half hour until it finally lost enough altitude that it hit a bush. I checked the battery and 0V. I pulled the new skin off and I ended up with a pack in three pieces in my hand, two of the weld joints had let go. My first check must have pulled them back in place, but the welds were bad. I soldered the tabs to the cels and am still filying that battery. The point it that even though your battery checked with the load, and you can't find another acceptable casue for loss of signal, it may be a good idea to skin the battery and to a really good inspection of the tab welds. Good luck. For what it's worth, I sent a reciver into Futaba a month back and the comunications from them were less than adiquate also. It could be that end of hte season, guy are sending in a lot of stuff for checkup in prep for next season. I'll give them a pass for now as it 's the first less than satsifactory experiece with there service department. Don
Posted on: 11/19/2009 10:30 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9266555

RE: Four Star Sixty on Floats Finished
Mike, good looking plane I wouldn't sweat the 10oz. I've built two 4*60s and both required around 8oz and the Magnum 91 extended about an inch, and this was on wheels. I was really thinking about triming the wings one bay as it just didn't want to settle onto the runway, and if I did touch down a little fast, it would jump right back in the air as soon as the tail dropped. You should be fine with the balance as you have it. Don
Posted on: 11/19/2009 12:25 AM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9264361

RE: I can fly, now I want to build...
Good on you The Sig 4*60 is a very good kit. Modern Laser cut parts and a well engineered design, in addition to being a very fun plane to fly. It's just about impossible to screw it up if you follow the instructions exactly. They even warn about building two left sides or two right wings, which you can do if you are not carefull. Anyway, the kit will give you a well built kit, and require you to just about everything you would do in building more complex kits. The next step would ba a scratch, or build from plans. A lot of the plans avaiable are old school designs, but taking what you learned from building the 4*60, it is easy to translate the old designs to a more modern and much lighter plane. Jump into the pond, the waters great. Don
Posted on: 11/18/2009 4:00 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9263283

RE: Throttle Servo Setup
Mike, you mention, but the drawings don't point out that the 90 degrees is to the push rod, not necessarly the servo case. I bought a used plane and the guy had the pushrod coming across the fuselage at a 45 degrees to the servo case. He set up the arm for 90 to the case and of course, things didn't work as you would have liked. I think the imporant point of this thread is thay you really have to mechanicaly set things up correctly, Even with a computer radio. The throttle is the hardest servo to set up in the whole plane in my view. Don
Posted on: 11/18/2009 1:53 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9262993

RE: ASM P-61 kit Build
My wife is of a like persuasion, maybe we could send them off together for the day. Don
Posted on: 11/16/2009 10:04 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9259111

RE: Sig Seniorita
Great job. I've got one that was handed down to me and it was really bashed. I put it back together as best I could and I''ll tell you, it is a great flying plane. My bigest problem was stearing on the ground, I was used to flying a tail drager and pulling full up elevator to get some tail wheel athority. Didn't work with the nose wheel . In the air, it was fun to fly, still is, but it's been a while since I had it to the field. Again, great job and really nice covering you did. Don
Posted on: 11/15/2009 11:38 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9256745

RE: 2-56 vs 4-40
[quote]ORIGINAL: goirish Hey Chemie is the middle of MI (Midland) [/quote] Clare is my bet. Or Standish. Ignoring the UP though. OK, I admit it, I'm a recovering Michagander. Don
Posted on: 11/15/2009 10:48 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9256623

RE: 2-56 vs 4-40
I bought a built but unflown 33% Laser 200. The plans called for 2-56 rods in a pull pull arrangement on the rudder and 4-40 rods in a push pull arrangement on each elevator half. The servos were within about 8 " of the control horns. The guy that built it reversed them. The point though is that when pulling, the #2 rods are quite adequate for very large planes. It's the push part that gets them in over their heads. Length brings in another factor. Servo setup is another. IE is the servo arm and control horn moving in the same plane. If they are and the rod is short, a #2 would work OK for some larger size planes. If the rod is over about 3 or 4 inches in length, then other options should be looked at. In addition to the rod size, the clevis on the end, and the method of attachment to the servo horn also come into the equation. My preferred setup for ailerons is a #2 captured ball joint on the servo arm and Robart ball link horns on the controls. I like a small diameter carbon fiber rod between the servo ball and the horn clevis. Very light weight and very stiff. I first tried the solder on brass threaded adaptors and found that they bent very easily. The whole package is what you need to consider. The old school 1/4" dowel with a #2-56 threaded end rod laced and wound with thread and glued in place on each end gives a very strong push rod setup. It's not light, and it will fowl a former and hang up if you are not careful, but they work very well. As CGr stated, the golden rods or other tube in a tube work well, but the support of the outer sheath need careful consideration. It doesn't have to be supported every couple inches, but a 10 or 12 inch length on an arc would need at least three hard points, one on each end and one mid way down. I use a lot of this setup and if it is supported OK, then it works well. The bottom line is that the answer to your question depend more on the setup of the plane and routing of the control linkages than the size of the engine. Don
Posted on: 11/15/2009 9:45 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9256431

RE: ASM P-61 kit Build
"""My wife is going to react.""" Ahh, is that good news or should I worry???? In either case, look forward to seeing you out here some day. Our "regulars" days are Monday and Thursday. Those are the reitrred regulars. Saturdays and Sunday generally have some activity also. It just depends on the weather and how guys schedules are going.. Give me a call, my number is on the web site, and let me know when you might be in the area and I'll try my best to greet you. Don Rogers
Posted on: 11/15/2009 9:10 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9256313

RE: question about going from 4 chan to 3?
Jon, get some balsa, a little covering, a couple servos and extensions or Y harness, some linkages and spend a few hours fixing this build error. From talking to guys who fly rudder, elevator only, the key is to make sure there is some dhideral, maybe a lot. Otherwise the rudder will not be efective at turning the plane. I have also found that most rudder only planes have the rudder on the Channel 1 so it feels a bit like an aileron plane. The guys who know how to fly rudder only, can do some amazing stuff with them. I've seen one of our guys with a rudder/elevator glider do a roll with it, an done purpose also. Don
Posted on: 11/14/2009 10:22 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254298

RE: General question on fitting props
I did notice quite a difference in heaft between the 20x10 APC and the 22x10 Zinger. I just weighted them up and the APC comes in at 203 gms vs 106 for the zinger. On a size for size comparison, the wood will be half the weight of the APC. That 3.4 oz difference that far forward will make a bit of a CG change, if nothing is changed but the prop. Lots more to consider I guess. Don
Posted on: 11/13/2009 8:04 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9251993

RE: ASM P-61 kit Build
[quote]ORIGINAL: Black Drape cdbtx I am running OS52 four strokes on mine and it is defenatly not over powered. I don,t think I have enough engine to turn four blade props. They may look good for display, but I wouldn't try to fly with them. Ron [/quote] Ron, I've got a pair, one NIB and the other with low hours Mag 70 fs. Do you think they would perform beter than the 52's, even with the additional 12 to 14 oz in weight? Don
Posted on: 11/13/2009 2:16 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9251228

RE: General question on fitting props
Thanks for the replys. I did some measurements yesterday and it appears that there is some distortion of the molded ring in the back of the 20" props I have. I have three of the 20" APC's and t found one to be DOA as it looked like the engine backfired on a chicken stick. The TE of one blade is cracked mid way to the tip. All the rings are out of round by as much as 0.005" One prop that I would like to salvage had had the center hole drilled 0.046" off center to the ring. I'm not concerned about the center hub being weakened by opening up the hole to the 1/2" required for the 300FT. The hub diameter is 1.750" so there is plenty of meat around the hole. The two props that were drilled, one being the damaged one, still have quite a bit of the center ring left. It's just that the holes are off centere visibally. I'm thinking though that the 1/2 Pilot "and" the six smaller screws in combination may not be a great idea. Truckracer, you have given me some good ideas. I like the bushing in the back of the prop. I handn't thought of going that route, My idea was to bush the entire depth of the prop. I think I like your idea better. Balancing the props that have been drilled is going to be interesting. The bushing in the back of the prop would be a way to center the prop that has been drilled for balanceing. Last question, Any tips on balancing a prop with the 1/2" pilot or even the 10mm hole for the Zenoah? Thanks again for your help. Lots and lots to learn. In fact, with the size of the two planes, and the dificulity in getting them to the field, I'm wondering is I might be better sticking to my 1.20 to 1.80 size planes. Maybe when I get one of these big guys up, I'll be hooked, so I've at least got to try it. Don
Posted on: 11/13/2009 12:31 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9251045

RE: Wire Source?
In your search, keep in mind that good servo wire has a very high individual wire count and is very flexable. String flexable. Some of the stranded wires have a very low wire cound, down to about 7 and this is only marginally better than solid wire. Viberation will cause you troubles with the stiff wire. Your best bet would be twisted sets. IE from the servo wire/end comunity. It only comes in three strand, but it would be an easy task to strip a signal wire out and wrap in into the other three. Your wire will end up cousting you twice as much per ft doing that, but you will also have a bunch of long battery leads when you are done. The only other option would be to get some computer flat cable, and strip off the excess number of wires. Again though, this us usually stiff wire and is seldom 22ga. Don
Posted on: 11/4/2009 3:19 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9228019

RE: Fuse mod questions ?
Sorta missed the link didn't I? http://www.geistware.com/rcmodeling/calculators.htm On the left side, find "Aircraft Balance Calc" Don
Posted on: 11/2/2009 7:02 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9223460

RE: Fuse mod questions ?
Starfire, take a look at this site and chose the balance caculator. Good info there. It will help you figure the effect of your additional 6" length in flight balance of the plane. Post some photos when you can. Don
Posted on: 11/2/2009 6:27 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9223367

RE: Fuse mod questions ?
[quote]ORIGINAL: starfire73 [quote]ORIGINAL: ChuckW You might make it tail heavy by extending it so take care to keep it light in the rear. [/quote] Yes, I think I may throw a Magnum 70 Four Stroke, or maybe a Magnum 52 Two Stroke on it. With that in mind, I might end up light in the tail, so I'm considering putting the rudder servo near the tail. [/quote] The Magnum 70 four stroke is about 6oz heaver than the Mag 52 four stroke. That would help balance out the extra length, and weight of the extended tail and especially the serov in the rear. Personally, I would use a pull-pull on the ruder wht the servo in the radio compartment. It makes for a lighter setup and keeps the weight centered. Choice of motor mounts makes a difference also in the balance. Don
Posted on: 11/2/2009 12:59 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9222592

RE: bent engine needle valve
Our club president just went through a bent needle valve on an O.S four stroke. It wsn't badly bent, but you could feel it drag as it got near the sweet point. In theory this shouldn't be a problem but I was, What I think was happening was that as the interferrence maximized, it pushed sideways and the O ring lost some of it seal, if not all. I've got a few different O.S engines both four stroke and two stroke. Most of them would work in a pinch as the tread size and needle length were the same. What was different was the taper on fineness of the point. That would change the sensitivity of the adjustment. THe other difference was the extention on the outer end that let you attach a long extention to the needle valve, IE a hole for a wire and a set screw to hold it. Compaire a couple needles from other engines to see if they might not work. The Magnum engines use just one part number for almos their hole line of engines, even though the ones orginally in the engnie may be different from the Replacement part. IE the Mag 52 has a stubbyer taper compaired to the replacemnt needle, or one from a Mag 61 two stroke. The replacement works better for fine tuning the engine. Don
Posted on: 11/2/2009 12:29 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9222517

RE: engine mounting
[quote]ORIGINAL: landeck A couple of points. First, I never use either sheet or wood screws on any engine bigger than .15 displacement. I have had them break. If you do use a screw, use a sheet metal screw because they are straight and have deeper threads than a wood screw which is tapered. Sheet metal screws are just not as strong as machine bolts. Second a 1/32 inch space between the side of the hole and the edge of the beam on the engine side will not be a problem. I have had that much space on a number of installations and never had a problem with the mount breaking. I mount my engines to both plastic and metal mounts by using the largest allen head bolt that will fit the engines mounting holes and then drill and tap the engine mount for those bolts. I use a lock washer between the head of the bolt and the engines mounting holes. I have never in 40 years of doing this had an engine come loose or a mount break (except in a nose first crash[:D]). On some mounts I have used a bolt with lock nut but because of the taper of many mounts, this is not aways pratical. Bruce [/quote] Yea Bruce. I think you covered most of the reasons for drilling and tapping and the ones not to use wood screws, sheet metal screws etc. Those screws have a much smaller body diameter in the thread area. They are also brittle. The threads will eat into the aluminum of the engine. Take a look at the second photo of Chemie's last phost and notice that the engine lug has been drilled, and the bottom of the hole is oblong from that. Guys, I've crashed more planes than I like to admit. i"ve yet to break a motor mount lug because I always drill and tap, using a drill press to make sure it is straight and square, and on target. I mounted a Mag 91 on the stock plastic mounts for a 4*60 and used Stainless steel #8 socket head cap scrws. Full tthrottle lawn dart into the ground, well dried adobe clay. The motor mount broke, the stainless steel cap screws bent, but the engine wasn't damaged. I've seen lugs broken off when using thru drilled holes, stove bolts, a size or two to small because the holes were drilled off pattern, well you name it. The motor mount is probably the most stressed part of your plane. Not mounting your engine firmly, and accuratly is asking for trouble. This photo shows how a properly mounted engine can survive a crash, well at least the lugs didn't break and the mount is usable in another plane. The rocker cover was first contact with the ground. It used to be an O.S 52 four stroke. Don
Posted on: 11/1/2009 1:30 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9220243

RE: engine mounting
If you fit a proper size machine screw, cap screw perfered to the stock holes in the engine lugs, your mount will not have to little "meat" for the screw to be threaded into it. All bets are off though if someone has re-drilled the holes in the engine beams. You want screw that fits snug in the hole in the engine beams. You want the hole square in both directions to the mount. My preference is to drill and tap the mounts. Use a drill press to do this to keep the holes straight. This gives as strong a mount as you can expect. The hole being square to the mount prevent any twisting on the beams which will result in a broken crank case in a crash. Look at the bottom of the engine. With the mount almost touching it, you will have more than enough meat for a fully tapped screw hole, less for a screw and nut arangement. Don
Posted on: 11/1/2009 12:17 AM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9219063

RE: Four Star 60 on floats questions
Like gary said, they usually build tail heavy and 8 Oz on up of nose weight is necessary. One issue is landing the 4* as it just doesn't want to touch down and when it does and the tail wheel drops, it want's to go airborne again. A lot of guys clip the wings one bay to help this. I would think the floats whit their added lift (I think) would be a great combo Full size wings though. Don
Posted on: 10/31/2009 10:26 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9218817

RE: Two lessons learned today
[quote]ORIGINAL: ro347 Every time I take anything apart on my planes...i treat it as its the first time out. Its better to be safe than sorry. The money we spend on these planes can be just as painful as the time spent building or repairing, so why leave it to chance. [/quote] No doubt thats the right way to do it. I got complaciant and it really bit me. Back to my check off list. Don
Posted on: 10/30/2009 7:56 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9216200

RE: Two lessons learned today
The hinges seemed to be installed correctly, it's just that the center pulled out of the fuzzy outside. I had never seen it before. I would send you a photo, but the thash man just left with the parts. Don
Posted on: 10/30/2009 1:44 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9215264

RE: Two lessons learned today
[quote]ORIGINAL: Alex7403 Why is it delaminating was it wet? [/quote] Just bad ply. On one laywer let loose and I couldn't see any evidence of residual glue. THe skin layer is only about 0.010" thick, No strength at all. The skins probably accounted for a bout 15% to 20% of the total thickness, All the strength is across the surface grain. This is one of my pet peves about ARF's. Even the Sig 4*60 had fuselage sides that had little strength in the ply. At least it was full 1/8" though, this stuff is probably 2mm. It's lite all right, but no strength. Don
Posted on: 10/30/2009 1:29 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9215226

RE: Two lessons learned today
Alex, I spent almost a week looking over this one and a couple others I bought. This one was the throw away one, but other than looking awful, it wasn't that bad, so I decided to fly it. I had a list of stuff to make it "look good" but I had this little grimlin on my shoulder saying "wait till you fly it and then order the stuff". For once, he kept me from blowing some money. Next from the sale is the Twist 150. I don't think it was ever flown. The engine, a Saito 180 had some maintance issues that would have prevented it from being able to fly the plane, and the tires had never seen the runway. The only issue with this one other than the engine (which I've fixed) is that some of the lite ply is delaminating. I spent some time yesterday using a hot glue gun and my coveing iron to "re-laminate" what I cold get at to fix. Pull up the surface layer and squirt some hot glue under it, then use the iron to push it into place. Sure screwed up my sock, but I think it is going to hold things together OK. Monday I find out. Don
Posted on: 10/30/2009 12:34 AM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9214205

RE: Two lessons learned today
Alex, not much discomfort. I thought that I may have saved it from the trash bin and I figured the servos were worth the $25. I didn't realize I was gong to sent it to the bin so quick. All I need is another project, but a good 3D wing. and tail feathers, all I need is a fuselage. HUMmmm how about a "Hots" type fuse with the stuff I have left. Should be fun. Lets see, that would be about #20 on my list of gonados. I'll mull it over for a while before assigning it a spot closer to the top. The red face bothers me more than anything. I kind of pride myself for paying attention to details, and to miss one like this one is a great embarsment. but a lesson to be shared. Don
Posted on: 10/29/2009 10:35 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9213897

Two lessons learned today
I aquired a well used U-Can-Do 60 from a club sale. I rebuilt a Saito 91 that I got in the same sale and installed it. The plane was kind of rough looking, but it looked airworthy. The cowl was crunched and cut beyond repair, and the landing gear mount had been broken out an patched with three or four oz of Epoxy. I pulled all the servos, checked them and put them back. Re-did the throttle linkage. Took it to the field Monday and had an awful time getting the engine to run, but once it started, and was tuned, it was great. I still had some bench trim to do on the controls, and I called it a day. Back out today and finished checking that every thing looked right, a little sub tirm on the elevator halfs, a little on the ailerons, Ready to go. One leason I learned today was that the hinges with the plastic center and CA cloth out side don't hold up well. Three of the four on an alieron pulled right out of the wing, One still had some of the ca cloth on it with a very small amount of wood, but it fell off as soon as I touched it. Lesson #1, Don't use CA hinges, especailly this type unless you pin both sides. Maybe this was really lesson #2 On take off, just as it lifted, it started a slow roll to the left. Nothing would stop it and it got all of about three feet up before rolling in, and busting the fuselage in half at the front of the wings. What went wrong. My buddy's first question, "Did you check the throws". OF course I did. Pick up pieces and take the mess home to prepair it for the trash man tomorrow. Just as I got home, I realized, I hadn't done a range check, and it was a new receiver. Dumb, dumb dumb. Prior to stripping parts, my post crash ritual is to hook every thing back up and see what works and what doesn't. Humm Everything worked, but I found that my inability to correct the roll left was because the ailerons were reversed. The harder I tried to roll right the harder it rolled left. Lesson #1 prefilght a new/repaired plane like you would for the kid that showed up at the field for the first time with his plane that he built. No matter how long you've been flying. Check everything on the pre-flight check list CAREFULLY. I got complacent and screwed up. I was lucky, do damage other than a broken fuselage and a broken porp. The whole plane less engine and receiver cost me $25, and I still have the servos, wing, tail, landing gear, motor mounts, etc. And a red face Don
Posted on: 10/29/2009 10:23 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9213700

RE: TWM Nemesis .52 as 2nd plane?
[quote]ORIGINAL: HighPlains [quote]This ARF is a long ways from scale though[/quote] You are comparing two different airplanes, both flown by Jon Sharp. [/quote] Yep, you are right, The orginal was a mid wing as the model is. I had forgoten about it. The Nemesis that in in my photo is the Rentless. Kevin Eldredge who owns Slo Ari here in San Luis Obispo was the owner and pilot of #42. He was selling the kits two year back, but now Slo Air is selling the Sbach 300 and 342 planes. I'll have to find out what is going on, there are a couple guys in the our club that are tied in perty close with the Reno Air raching guys. Last I heard, there was some major redesign on the tail of the NXT. Don
Posted on: 10/29/2009 4:59 PM by Author "Campgems" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9212942