|
RE: CMP F4U Corsair 50 Build Log
[size=2][color=#003399]Thanks for the info. Great looking plane, the right photo makes it look real. And yes, the silver marker added some great character. If I understand your description, you used four blocks, one behind each bolt on the engine mount, as opposed to one large block glued onto the firewall, then drilling four holes for the mount. This would allow access to your fuel lines without having to drill another large hole in the center of the block. Good idea!! And the 3/8" distance helped enough? I was looking for wood an inch thick or 3/4 at least. I expect I'll still have to add some lead, just not as much, which will also help to keep the weight down.[/color][/size]
Posted on: 10/25/2010 8:31 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10094060
RE: CMP F4U Corsair 50 Build Log
[size=3][size=4][color=#003399]I have more closely examined the Saito 82 on this plane, and the mount would have to be changed, and there actually would be considerably more cutting to the cowl than I originally could see. So I've decided NOT to use the Saito and instead have ordered the OS 55AX. I am also going to take your suggestion and add a piece of hardwood/plywood between the engine mount and the firewall, then check the CG. I did not get the photo you sent with your last post, and if it shows how you mounted this piece of wood, I've like to see it. Can you resend the photo?[/color][/size][/size]
Posted on: 10/24/2010 11:59 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10092143
RE: CMP F4U Corsair 50 Build Log
[image][/image]
Posted on: 10/24/2010 2:51 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10090792
RE: CMP F4U Corsair 50 Build Log
Thanks for your input. Sorry for the double posting, I thought the first one didn't make onto the forum. I just didn't go to the second page. Can you tell me if the plane should be balanced upright or inverted? My past experience says to do it inverted, but another pilot in our club said to try right side up as well, to compare. What worked for you? Also, I have a Saito 82 that I could install in place of the 46 AX. It's a little heavier than the 55AX, and I'm told will have about the same power. I checked it out, and it looks like the additional cutting to the cowl would be minimal, and the other openings will work as they already are. And I wouldn't have to buy another motor, since I'm motor heavy in the closet now as it is. Any thoughts on that? How did you mount the extra length on the firewall. Just epoxy and screw a chunk of ???? in that area for the mount, or did you cover the whole cowl area? And how did this affect the mounting for the cowl? I have some room to move it forward, but not sure if I have a full inch. However, I would think that even 3/4 inch would be an improvement.
Posted on: 10/24/2010 2:32 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10090745
RE: CMP F4U Corsair 50 Build Log
[color=#0033CC][/color][size=3][/size][font="Times New Roman"][/font] I have just completed building this plane and the last item before installing the battery was to check the CG. Wow!! What a surprise. It looks like I'll have to add 2 to 2 1/2 lbs of lead to the firewall to bring the tail up and balance to the recommended 80-85mm CG. How in the world could this be so far off and how can I get that much lead installed? I have installed 90 deg rotating mechanical retracts, that are working fine on the plane. I also installed an OS 46 AX motor. I did install the battery as far forward on the servo panel as I could, which of course, didn't make much difference. So, my questions are: 1. Is this really the right CG? The magazine build article I used confirmed it, and this thread seems to confirm it. I have inverted the plane on the CG Machine and left retracts in the up position. Should the plane be right side up, and should the retracts be down? I am wondering if the schematic plans, which were showing fixed landing gear, assumed that the CG would be checked with retracts down, as retracts are a option. 2. With that much weight added, is the 46 AX going to fly it very well? I can change to a 55AX without making any changes to mounting or cowl cutting, or throttle rod. So this is easy to do. But it will only add a couple ounces to the nose weight, still requiring lots of lead. If I go to the much greater expense of a larger 4 stroke engine, I will have to make much more changes to the mounting, but can add more weight. Is it worth it?
Posted on: 10/24/2010 12:13 AM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10089767
RE: CMP F4U Corsair 50 Build Log
[font="Verdana"][color=#003399][font="Times New Roman"][size=2]Have just found this thread and have questions that someone may be able to help me. I have completed the build on the CMP F4U Corsair 50 ARF, with the lousy builders schematic for a manual. I am very surprised that the plane is so tail heavy. It looks like I will need to add 2 to 2 1/2 lbs of lead to the firewall to bring the tail up and get the CG to the recommended 80-85 mm. I have installed retracts, an OS 46 AX engine with a pits muffleer and installed the battery as far forward as possible. How in the world do you get that much lead. I'm considering cutting up some old lead diving weights into pieces and screwing/siliconing them to the front firewall. But I'm also concerned that the motor size. I figured the 46 AX was adequate, but if I add that much weight, it may not be enough, even tho the manufacturer recommends a 40 to 50 size engine. Perhaps the 55AX would be a better choice now, and I wouldn't have to make any adjustments to the mount.[/color][font="Verdana"][/font][/font]
Posted on: 10/23/2010 1:41 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10088683
RE: E-Flite Mini Pulse XT Owner's Club
[quote]ORIGINAL: fishunter Yes its the same plane E-Flite Extra 260 3D with 480 . it was pretty windy for the flight . i had it set on low rates and it flew fine. i'm still new at this but it was as easy to fly as the Mini Pulse XT for me. as far as the build, it was pretty basic other than the spinner doesnt fit right . same way as the mini Pulse. fly it on low rates and it flies as nice as the pulse. [/quote] Great news...thanks fishunter. I've been flying the Mini Pulse on high rates the last 8-10 flights and am getting used to the added sensitivity of the controls. I'm feeling fairly comfortable with it. I will definately start out with low rates on the Extra 260, same as I would for any new plane. I'm hoping I can do a bit more with it once I get used to it. It's still on layaway, but hope to be ready to maiden this fall before the winter weather gets in the way. Good luck with the nice planes and thanks again for the info.
Posted on: 9/5/2007 12:44 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6330850
RE: E-Flite Mini Pulse XT Owner's Club
[quote]ORIGINAL: fishunter did the maiden on mine last week. one of the best planes i have flown . PNP version with 10x8 prop. flys as well as my MUS . did maiden on Extra 260 today.all fun planes [/quote] Hello Fishunter....I have the E-Flight Extra 260 3d 480 on layaway and hope it's a relatively small step up from the Mini Pulse I've been flying. Is the Extra 260 you flew the same model and if so, can you give me a comparison to their flight characteristics and build.
Posted on: 9/4/2007 3:36 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6326908
RE: E-Flite Mini Pulse XT Owner's Club
[quote]ORIGINAL: march Could you tell me please how are landings on this bird? Is it easy or am I aiming for touble. I've never landing anything with the exception of the stryker which is forgiving if you put it down hard. Last take offs, are they hard. I've only hand lanuched. [/quote] I agree with fliprob, that after flying the Styker, this could be a much more docile plane. I've had my eye on the Stryker for a year, and I don't think I'm ready for 80-100 mph flights. However, if you install the 480 brushless motor, as many have done, you will get much more action. Look back at some of the links from Doc Austin and review his videos. He puts it thru some incredible moves, although not as fast as the Stryker. As to take offs....I like to mimic full size planes, so try for a long roll out and gradual climb. This doesn't work too well on the Mini Pulse because I find it very hard to taxi and keep control. Some guys just punch it and get it in the air ASAP, but I like to give it a short roll out, about 10 feet, at fairly slow throttle, just to be sure I have a straight line on the runway, then quickly push to full throttle and I'm airborne in another 5 to 10 feet, even with the Park 450 motor I have installed. Regarding landings....I've tried it the way fliprob suggests, but have had too many stall outs, causing some damage. But what he says about the tendancy to want to stay in the air is very true. What works best for me is to cut the throttle to zero on the final turn, like fliprob suggests, but then after it has slowed and started to drop, I add a couple clicks of power back in to keep it in control, and allow it to drop slowly onto the runway. Then, at touchdown, cut power quickly, because, once again, it's hard to taxi. Then I slowly taxi it off the field and pull the wires. If you are thinking of buying this plane so you can learn take-offs and landings, but like extreme flight, go with the 480 brushless motor. But don't expect the same speed as the Stryker. This is a stable platform, but she will do a lot of aerobatics, and she's fun to fly. Once again, I refer you to Doc Austin's videos. Previous input on this thread will also suggest what set up to use, and what kind of problems have come up. But my impressions are that the vast majority of pilots love their Mini Pulses. Good luck.
Posted on: 7/12/2007 12:48 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6102397
RE: E-Flite Mini Pulse XT Owner's Club
I have used only the 10 x 4.5 SF, because that's what the LHS recommends for the plane, which he also put together for me. I have not tried any other prop, so can't give you a direct comparison. However, it takes off quickly, in about 10 to 15 feet, flies fast enough for me and does aerobatics well. It slows down for landings very well. So, I have no complaints about the choice he made for this motor, the 450 brushless.
Posted on: 6/18/2007 1:09 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6002340
Staudacher S-300D Help Needed
Several weeks ago, I took my newly completed Staudacher ARF to the field for its maiden flight. Being a lower intermediate pilot, I entrusted the club’s most experienced pilot, over 30 years flying, to flight test it. It did not fly well! It’s flying good at straight & level, climbing and diving, and does not try to stall when flying straight up. He tried to get it to stall, and it wouldn’t. But, when he banked the plane for a turn, it would start out banking fine, then suddenly the wing would dip and the plane would dive. He thought that the 50% rudder-to-aileron mix I gave it was causing problems. He barely landed it without damage. He also thought it was behaving like it is was tail heavy, but I had used a CG Machine to set it after construction, taking ten weights on the tail, but he double checked this after the first flight, and confirmed it was good, according to the measurements in the manual (110 mm from LE). Even though this seemed like a lot of balancing weight for an OS.46, we couldn't argue with the manufacturer's specs. We also checked the left-right balancing and it was level. So, I took the mix out, and we had a chance to refly it this weekend, same experienced pilot at the controls. But the problem was not resolved. He almost crashed it several times, but managed to get about three-mistakes high and flew it for a few minutes. Each time he banked, though, the plane did this again. Then, the engine died. Not out of gas, but possibly overloaded. On the dead-stick approach, he kept it in control until about 20 feet off the ground and in turning to land, the wing dipped, and it nose-dived. He managed to barely get it leveled so it didn’t go straight in, but the stalled, hard landing in the grass ripped out the landing gear and put a hole in the wing (from the wheel pant). Several of the other club members joined us in checking out the control surfaces and the servos, and they all look good, as they did before we took off. All the electronics were still functioning correctly after the crash. The batteries were all fully charged and I had it set for low rates, somewhere around 60% for each control. One of the club members said that tapered wings like the Staudacher tend to stall at the wing tips. Are we talking about a “tip stall� here? If that’s what it is, how do you correct it? This plane is not sufficiently controllable to be flown by ANYONE at this point. Is anyone in the RC Universe familiar with this plane and its flying characteristics? What is the problem and how do I fix it? What could we expect to happen if we moved the CG a little toward the nose (maybe 5 or 10 mm)? Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Posted on: 6/4/2007 11:27 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5945948
RE: Beware of Surprise engine start
[quote]ORIGINAL: Flyboy Dave I'm not buying the strories about model engines starting all by themselves without the glow igniter attached. Yeah, right. [8|] FBD. [:)] [/quote] FBD: You sure know how to bring a conversation to a screeching halt. I would have thought as a "moderator" that you would strive to encourage input, not stop it. Why don't you find other people's experiences real? It may never have happened to you, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened to someone else. Now, I'm no engineer, but it seems logical to me that the glow igniter is attached to the motor to create a spark and start the engine. Once the motor is warmed up, we pull the glow igniter OFF the motor, yet it still runs, I guess because there is enough heat in the engine to keep the glow plug igniting. No one leaves the igniter on the engine when they fly. So, if the engine is still hot enough from a previous flight, there's combustible vapors in the carb and compression in the motor rotation, it seems perfectly reasonable that the motor could start without the ignitor in place. Doesn't that make sense to you?
Posted on: 5/23/2007 7:50 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5893380
RE: Beware of Surprise engine start
from the prop. My guess Capt. is that the piston was part way up (or down) in the cylinder, and just the right
Posted on: 4/11/2007 2:18 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5699734
Beware of Surprise engine start
How can this happen, you ask. Well, I don't really understand it myself, but I know it can happen. Sunday, after one flight on a new plane, I refueled her and was getting ready to take her up again. It had been about twenty minutes since landing. I placed the igniter on the glow plug, took hold of my electric starter with my right hand, then reached to the front of the fus to hold the plane with my left hand. The motor started by itself, BEFORE I touched the starter to the spinner. It caught my thumb and cut me pretty bad. Fortunately, our club's president and most experienced pilot had the transmitter and shut it down, since it did not shut down by itself. This was NOT a compression spin on the prop, but an actual start of the motor. This has happened once before, on another plane, but did not cause bodily damage. I guess there was enough fuel or fuel vapor in the carb, plus heat remaining in the motor, that the igniter was all that was needed to start it. The cut took 11 stitches, and ran the full length of my thumb, and OMG how that first shot into the cut hurt. So, guys, take some advice....even when the motor is not running, reach AROUND the prop diameter to the fus when you start the plane. Or have someone else behind the motor hold the fus while you start the motor. This is supposed to be a fun sport, and being safe will keep it that way. WATCH THAT PROP ALL THE TIME!!
Posted on: 4/10/2007 12:27 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5693900
RE: Finding CG on Biplane
[quote]ORIGINAL: rcairflr I guess the reading side and interpreting graphics side of my brain did not mesh, somehow I missed that. Back to the topic though, according to the original post he is trying to figure out how to use a CG machine on this airplane, so I assume he knows what model airplane he has and probably has the manual, so with that information he knows where the CG should be. So why make it so difficult, stick 2 fingers under the wing at the points the manufacturer suggests and see if it balances OK. [/quote] Oh boy, look at all this information. Majortom, you are probably very accurate and a genius at this, but you are WAAAYY beyond me. RCAIRflr has the best interpretation for where I am. Yes, I do know what model it is, but didn't think that would be pertinant, since using the CG machine would be the same on any biwing, if it could be done at all. It's the 40 size, but has an OS Max .61 in the front, so it's nose heavy. I don't know how accurate the original owner had the CG configured, but I ran into several oddities while cleaning and checking out the plane, so I didn't trust it. I also had to buy and add the receiver and battery, and knew their placement would affect the CG, but didn't know where he had them installed. I DID pull the manual off the World Models Website and know the CG measurement. I have also used my fingers to hold it up, which I found to be very awkward, trying to look UNDER the wing for the measured dots and place fingers on either side of the fus. I'm not a teenaged contortionist, but a stiff boned 57 years old. I was therefore unsure of the accuracy of this method. However, it looks like this is the best method if I want to keep it simple, and I'll just have to check the flight once it's airborne and trim it out. Forget the CG machine on the biplane. Thanks for all your input, gentlemen.....it's way more than I expected, but very much appreciated.
Posted on: 4/3/2007 7:48 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Tips & Techniques"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5660954
RE: Engine for Funtana X50
Ralph, I had the same problem on mine, and I also have the same motor. It tipped right and scratched the bottom of my wing, in fact. When we got her down, we checked the horizontal balance, holding it by the spinner and the end of the fus. Sure enough, it tipped right. I screwed a 1/4 oz weight into one of the SFD screw holes at the end of the left wing and that balanced it....no more right side pull or trim needed in the air. You can just set the weights on the wing to see how much you need to balance it, if that's the problem. I have also been told that if one of the landing gear wheels is tight, the plane will pull to that side when taxiing due to the extra drag. You might check to be sure both wheels spin freely. Of course, this would not affect pulling while in flight. Some pull when taxiing is normal, just because of the prop spin, but in the air, this should stop.
Posted on: 4/2/2007 4:11 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "3D Flying!"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5654495
Finding CG on Biplane
I have an Utimate Biplane purchased from another pilot, already constructed. I have a CG Machine, but don't know how to utilize it with this plane. The only thing I could think of is to remove the bottom wing, rest the CG machine's arms on the underside of the top wing, then rest the unattached lower wing on top of the upper wing, so the weight is distributed reasonably close. Does anyone have a better idea on this? The instructions for the CG Machine do no address this, and maybe it's not designed to work on biplanes.[:(]
Posted on: 3/30/2007 7:00 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Tips & Techniques"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5641443
RE: E-Flite Mini Pulse XT Owner's Club
Grandus, I've been flying Real Flight for the last couple years, have upgraded to version 3.5. Unfortunately, the mini Pulse isn't in there, yet. But I have found an electric Cap 232 that seems pretty close, on low rates, although the high rates don't have that much difference. To get more practice on a highly responsive plane, I fly the Extra 300 on high rates. I had an Easy Sport until a few months ago and I still fly it on the sim for the practice. It's responsive, like the Pulse. Of course, set your low rates as recommended in the manual and fly awhile there until you feel confident enough for high rates. You could even increase your low rates after a few flights to give you a "Medium" rate (or lower the high rates, so you can flip from one to the other while in the air). High rates as recommended in the manual are a big difference and could catch you by surprise if you're not ready. And don't forget to unplug the battery as soon as you walk up to your plane after a flight.
Posted on: 3/26/2007 12:07 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5618631
RE: E-Flite Mini Pulse XT Owner's Club
Doc Austin and KarlK.....Yes, I can confirm E-Flite sells the fus. My LHS ordered one for me, along with a canopy and cowling, when I crashed my MP a few months ago. It came in clean and sweet and I rebuilt her good as new. I don't remember the price of the fus alone, but all three parts came to $59. The $40 sounds right. KarlK.....I am currently flying an APC 10x4.7 Slow fly, as recommended by my LHS, and it definately allows me to slow the plane down and stay in total control at very slow speeds. It will also fly plenty fast. I have my low rates also set as the manual recommends and it's pretty docile. I DID flip it to high rates for a few maneuvers, at high altitude, during my last flight, and it caused a little heart pounding. She definately turns into a different animal. I'm going to practice on the simulator on high rates a lot more and get that "touch" a bit more refined. Unfortunately, I've crashed more often than I like and have grown quite cautious. Good flying!!
Posted on: 3/21/2007 12:36 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5595333
RE: E-Flite Mini Pulse XT Owner's Club
Just a reminder for you electric Newbies, and I'm fairly new on electrics, too. I learned a lesson the hard way Sunday. After a very successful Mini Pulse flight and the best landing I've made yet, I turned off my radio and set the plane on a work bench while I prepared to fly my FuntanaX50. When I turned the transmitter on to change models, my wife hollered at me frantically. I turned around just in time to see the MP hit the ground and smash the engine compartment off the nose of the fus. OMG, it hit me like a tone of ThunderPower batteries. I forgot to unplug the battery on the plane when I picked it up after the flight. There was enough residual power that even tho I didn't touch the throttle, just turning the transmitter back on activated the motor. And I just rebuilt this from a crash a couple of months ago. As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon!!" So take a lesson, guys. What's the first thing you do with your nitro plane after you land and walk up to it? You turn the switch to "OFF". What's the first thing you do with your electric plane after a flight? You open the battery hatch and UNPLUG THE POWER SUPPLY !! Lesson learned, hard way.....knew better, but forgot = damaged plane.
Posted on: 3/19/2007 1:14 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5584401
RE: E-Flite Mini Pulse XT Owner's Club
[quote]ORIGINAL: mikec456 I just ordered the Mini Pulse PNP kit. Does the Pulse respond well to hand launches or is it better to take off the ground. [/quote] Well, maybe..... When I bought my mini Pulse, I had this same idea in mind. And I did run across one other pilot in this forum (I think it was this one) who hand launched it successfully. However, even though the mini Pulse can be airborn in less than 10 feet off a paved runway or short grass, it wasn't designed for hand launching. If it's not hand launched correctly and full powered immediately, it could hit the ground before it gets sufficient speed to stay in the air. I decided not to take a chance on damage, and tossed those thoughts right out of my head. This is not a foam park flyer that is designed for hand launching and belly landing. It's designed with a landing (and taking off) gear. If you decide to try it, let us all know what happens. I'm sure many of us would be curious.
Posted on: 3/14/2007 4:34 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5560911
RE: Engine for Funtana X50
[quote]ORIGINAL: rumpeden Hi I have just put my OS 61 FX on the Funtana, but I do not like to cut up the cowling too much. I have a "bisson style" silencer, but it does not fit. The original means cutting the cowl too[&o] Please post some pictures of your 2-stroke engine installation[:)] [/quote] I don't see any way you can avoid cutting into the cowl. Either engine will require it. And, even if you had some stange, miracle engine that fit perfectly, muffer and all, you'd still have to cut a hole for the throttle adjustment, and for airflow. You need air to flow THRU the cowl, so openings in the front need to be offset by openings in the rear. Otherwise, air flow, and therefore, cooling ability, is severly inhibited. Do you want to burn up your engine in flight? The openings in the rear of the cowl should be twice the size of the openings in the front, according to long time flyers in my club. Of course, summers in Denmark may not get as hot as summers in northern California, where we see lots of 100 degress plus weather, but the engine still gets hot. You might see what other local RC pilots do. I know, I hate to cut up a beautiful cowl, too. Sort of takes away from the look of the real plane. But I'm afraid it's a fact of life in flying RC planes. Gotta have AIR! Good luck!
Posted on: 3/13/2007 6:50 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "3D Flying!"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5556416
RE: What is a good beginners Sport plane?
It's been a few weeks since the last reply, are you still looking? Would you like some more thoughts on the subject or have you made a decision? When I crashed my trainor, I went to a Spacewalker II, which was a beautiful plane and was easy to handle. But I crashed it all too soon, as well. A 35 year experienced pilot in our club recommended an Easy Sport, because it will do aerobatics smoothly and help you learn control without being difficult to control. I gave it a try and I flew it like a trainor for a long time, and then moved into a lot of aerobatics. It looks a lot like a Tiger Shark, but more color. It's also flyable on G3, if you have the sim. I recommend putting at least a .46 in it. I have looked at the Dazzler and considered it. Good looking plane, but since I haven't flown it, I can't say how it handles. Doc Austin loves those Pulse XTs, and I will probably get one too, as I already have the Mini Pulse XT EP. It's a great flyer, but may be a little too responsive while you're still new to piloting. Whatever you get, you'll crash less if you take your time to get used to a new plane and learn new moves with experienced pilots to help you. Don't rush. You can fly your new plane longer. Good luck....would like to hear what you decided to buy and how you like it after you have flown it.
Posted on: 2/20/2007 7:48 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5449154
RE: E-Flite Mini Pulse XT Owner's Club
[quote]ORIGINAL: Ken Cz Hi Guys, Really enjoy all the info I've obtained on this thread. All the feedback was so positive I went out and bought a Mini Pulse XT. Gorgeous plane and well built however I have a problem since I am unfamilar with balsa/covering construction. Problem: The removable hatch cover (for electronics/battery) has major bubbles in the covering along it's length. I called Horizon Service and the Tech said just take your heat gun on low, keep it moving and make several passes to warm the covering until it shrinks and tightens up. I did this last night and it made it worse!! Additional 'air bubbles' have formed and it looks terrible. You can push down on the bubbles but the covering will not stick - tried it a bit with a sort rag while warm but this did not work either. I have an old covering iron someone gave me but I'm afraid to use it and possibly destroy the whole thing. I asked Horizon on getting a replacement and he said it was not a serviced part and that they are not readily available--- 'maybe we can find one laying around from a damaged kit' was what he said. He really did not seem to think they could help me - said the 'heat gun' fix will do it - WRONG! I was so thrilled to get my first 'real airplane' but this situation has already taken some of the joy out of it. Can anyone offer some tips on what I did wrong on my attempt to fix it? Anything I can do to get it looking good? Thanks in advance for all the help from the 'experienced flyers' !! Ken [/quote] Ken...I can help. First, I have been told by the experienced flyers in our club that if the bubble has too much air in it to smooth out with the heat gun, to put a pin hole on the edge. Then as it warms, move your covered hand (I use an old, soft sock) over the bubble and move the air out the hole. Then, as it continues to heat, the pin hole will seal on its own. It sounds like your coat got too hot.....I've done this too, on the same plane. The inside of the cockpit. But here's the real help!!! I crashed my plane a month or so ago and have rebuilt it. I ordered a new fus, but the battery cover on the first fus was fine. So.....I have an extra battery cover. If you can't get yours looking good, contact me via email and I'll send it to you. No one likes to show off their new plane when it doesn't look as good as it should. I had to smooth out some bubbles on this piece, too, but they beautifully and magically disappeared. Good luck!
Posted on: 2/14/2007 3:53 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5418842
RE: E-Flite Mini Pulse XT Owner's Club
[quote]ORIGINAL: karl k Well, I got mine all put together yesterday. She's a little nose heavy. I added some extra washers under the nuts that hold the stabilizer on. That almost got me balanced. What are the rest of you using for weight in the aft of the plane to balance it? I'm still nervous about taking this thing up. I think I will end up just flying the E-Starter for a while more until I am really sure I won't dork this thing into the ground. Has anyone made or modified a model in G3 that is really close to this plane? I wouldn't mind practicing a bunch before I take it out for the first time. Some of the members of the local club even made up a photofield for G3 of our flying field. I've got to get it put into G3 and try it out, but it should be kind of nice to practice on familiar territory. Thanks Karl [/quote] The closest G3 or G3.5 plane I have found is the Cap 232 electric, flown at low rates, although high rates aren't that much higher. The Cap is a little faster if you installed the recommended 450 Brushless motor. If you installed the 480, then the Pulse is likely faster. I'm flying the 450. I crashed mine after about 4 flights, but have it rebuilt and ready to go again when better weather presents itself. Have fun!
Posted on: 2/12/2007 7:42 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5409715
RE: Engine for Funtana X50
I second the opinion for the Saito 82. That's what I put in mine, and it'll go vertical till cloud 9. I don't ever need to run it at full throttle for sport flying, and expect that I'll be able to grow into some 3D moves with plenty of power. I can fly it like a trainor or 3d it. With power, I have options. With under power, you don't have options, just boredom after a few flights. If you are looking for a home for a .45 you already have, go with a smaller plane, maybe the Tribute will work (I don't know the plane). I am now building a Staudacher S300D, for a .40 size motor I already had. But several factors and opinions from other club members convinced me that I should put my Evolution .61 into it instead, another motor I had laying around. Better too much, and throttle back, than too little, and have nowhere to go. Good luck!
Posted on: 2/12/2007 7:33 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "3D Flying!"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5409652
RE: nitroplanes.com
Well, this thread has certainly been an eye opener about NitroPlanes. I bought a beautiful Staudacher S300 about 2 months ago and am in the process of slowly building it. One of our club members warned me that he had never heard anything good about them, but it was too late.....I had already ordered the plane. I have an extra motor and all electronics and this plane seemed like it would fit all of it, and at $99 (plus shipping), it was a good deal. The plane arrived in good shape and, so far, all the parts are there. The wing is fully wrapped with balsa, then coated, which is the first I've seen of this construction, and it is beautifully done. So far, I don't think I'm going to have to tighten the coating anywhere when it's done. The only disappointment I have had is in the build. First of all, there are only photos and diagrams on the manual, nothing written out to explain things in better detail, and advise the builder. This would not be good for a first time builder. And I'm not much beyond that. I have done only the first stages of the build on two earlier models, then turned them over to the LHS to finish mounting the motors and electronics. But with this one, I decided to do it all, take my time, and ask lots of questions of other club members. I figured it was time I learned to do this. And this brings me to my second observation. A lot of the little things that were already done precisely on my previous ARFs, were NOT DONE AT ALL on this model. Little things like drilling the holes in the wing for the mounting bolts, and predrilling the holes for the wing pegs so they were straight and level and matched up. I've made several small mistakes and hope they don't become critical, but being that this is my first attempt at completely building it, that's to be expected. And, trying to figure out how to do things right that were already done on other ARFs has proved to be more of a challenge that I was ready for. I am learning more, and that's good, as long as it'll still fly when I'm done. So, it seems to me, this is how they keep the prices so low. They ship them out with less work done by them, and more that you have to do. So, if you're prepared for that and have some building experience, you should be okay. So far, I have not had to contact customer service, and if I do, I hope the efforts they are making to improve the service is ongoing. It sure is a beautiful plane, and I'd hate to start hating it due to frustration with NitroPlanes. I do agree with the idea that my money is good, and companies I buy from should be just as good to me if they want me to buy from them again. That's only fair!!
Posted on: 2/8/2007 1:34 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5389268
RE: Inexpensive, sporty ARF for club formation flying
Roger and I talked about Great Planes Super Sportster 40 a few weeks ago. Anyone have an opinion on that plane? I like the looks, but how does it fly and is it a good intermediate plane that pilots with a wide variety of skill levels can enjoy? http://greatplanes.com/airplanes/gpma1042.html I also like the looks of the Lancair, but I don't hear much about them, so maybe there's a problem with them I don't know about.
Posted on: 1/31/2007 10:52 AM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5350502
RE: What is the best current ARF Sports Model?
[quote]ORIGINAL: bigedmustafa I noticed you all are too ashamed of your choices to post an image along with your response. You've all picked nice planes, but none compare to the Art Deco beauty of the Ace Cloud Dancer .60 ARF! You shold all just see the obviousness of the Cloud Dancer .60 and second my choice. Here's another shot of this amazingly beautiful plane: [image]http://www.thundertiger-europe.com/uploads/pics/4559-Cloud-Dancer-06.jpg[/image] How can anyone possibly not want one of these? [/quote] Wow....I have to agree with you, this is a beautiful plane[:)] I've never seen this model before, and I have an Evolution 61 looking for a home. This just moved up to the top spot. I'll be doing some more research. I'm now flying a Funana X50 which is also a beautiful plane, and it can be flown as a sport plane or you can grow with it into a 3D plane....pilot's choice. But this Cloud Dancer makes me drool!! Good choice, BigEd
Posted on: 1/19/2007 6:45 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5291594
RE: Engine for Funtana X50
[quote]ORIGINAL: 9757 My plane went home in more pieces than it came to the field in the other day....wife left me her car and took the van I came in.......... [/quote] Dude, you going to fill us in as to what happened?[:o] I've lost 4 nice planes before their time, makes me think that even tho I try to learn something from every flight, it's the crashes that teach me the BIG lessons. Maybe you have a good lesson we can all learn[sm=49_49.gif]??
Posted on: 1/19/2007 4:23 PM by Author "Capt. John"
in the forum "3D Flying!"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5290915
|
