RE: Tuning with your snoot up in the air
Hate to break the news Vicman, but tuning a Q40 or Quickie motor is like riding a tricycle with training wheels. Try running a old F1 engine on 65% NITRO and keep that running through the day as temperature, humidity and atmospheric density is changing. Then 10 laps is a challenge.
Posted on: 5/20/2013 7:03 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11517725

RE: Tuning with your snoot up in the air
Model 4 strokes sound bad at any rpm.
Posted on: 5/17/2013 6:47 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11514772

RE: Tuning with your snoot up in the air
One convert at a time. Electrics will take care of the rest!
Posted on: 5/15/2013 9:21 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11512819

RE: Tuning with your snoot up in the air
Wow, how time flies. Seven years ago I was excoriated on this very web site for suggesting that the pinch test was a valid method of setting an engine. Let me suggest another little nugget - if you have an engine that is very hard to set to a flight setting, you have too much prop. Drop the pitch or diameter (perhaps both) and you will find that the high speed needle adjustment range will open up. I'll check back in 2020.
Posted on: 5/15/2013 7:56 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11512747

RE: landing bounce
[quote]his flying technique. I mentioned in post #5 that he tends to land long, usually in the last third of the runway. Our runway is 600+ feet with the pilot stations at mid point. The plane thus glides past his position and is going away from him. He can see that he is running out of runway and therefore may be anxious and forces the plane down which may cause the bounces[/quote] Well for normal sport flying he should just throttle up and go around for another attempt. I used to race Formula One which were heavy, low drag tai- dragger models that you landed dead stick so there was only one shot at landing. Coming down from 175 mph to landing speeds (25-30 mph) took about 1/4 to 3/8ths a mile to lose speed, often after a minute of high adrenaline flight. So landings were usually tense when the runway was under 600 feet. The technique that worked well was to get the wheels on the ground regardless of speed. If slow enough, just wait out for the tail to drop. But on those hot landing that were going way too fast and long, we found that shoving down elevator would lift the tail so that the wing would scrub off the energy while gluing the wheels to the runway. After losing the speed, you go back to normal control inputs.
Posted on: 9/16/2012 7:53 AM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11229955

RE: landing bounce
Over and over in this thread the CG is mentioned. But in reality, all the posters are talking about the balance point when indeed, they should be concerned with the CG. The CG has a vertical component, not just a longitudinal aspect. The height of the CG does effect how an airplane reacts with the wheels make contact with the runway. The original poster did not mention if he was landing on pavement or grass. Models that land well on grass often have the gear too far forward to perform as well on pavement. Since most fields in the west tend to be paved, while Sig stuff was most likely developed on grass strips, I am not surprised.
Posted on: 9/14/2012 5:06 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11228754

RE: NOTAM from Hell
It used to be so much easier with the old radios before 2.4G. The noise jammers would start up a couple hours before a Presidential arrival and you would quit flying due to glitches.
Posted on: 9/10/2012 6:07 AM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11223554

RE: Making a Good Landing
The best advise is practice. After the first 10,000 touch and go landings, the next 20,000 or so were because I enjoy the process. On days with zero wind with no other airplanes in the air, I like to do to stall turns at each end of the runway with a touch and go in the middle. Easy to do 6 to 8 landings a minute doing this, but the pucker factor can be very high. Done right, and you are on the verge of a stall as you pull out of the dive and flair for the landing, and the stall turn is done low enough ( 50-75 feet) so you don't pick up too much speed to land. Of course, you have to have a plane that you know quite well. The second thing necessary for great landings is an airplane that is properly set up in terms of balance and decalage, including engine thrust. Nose heavy airplanes arrive at the ground, where a balanced airplane is able to flair gently. Not having the engine thrust line correct makes it difficult to smoothly add or subtract power to extend an approach. Making repeatable landings has a lot to do with minimizing the pilot's workload, and it all depends on how well you have trammed the airplane. Learn how to fly on the "backside of the curve". Google the term if you have never heard of it. The reason I mention it is that airplanes have a speed and power curve that results in level flight. At the bottom of the curve is the minimum power that an airplane can maintain level flight. Normally people land at a power and speed to the right side of this point. So if you add power, you speed up and climb, or if you add more elevator, you also climb. Where people get in trouble is that sometimes they enter the left side of the curve, the so-call backside of the curve. Over there, the airplane starts acting strange. Up elevator causes the airplane to loose altitude and you are very close to a stall. You can not flair from the backside with the elevator, and if you have used up all your altitude before getting out of this condition there is only one option that will prevent a crash landing and that is adding power and decreasing the elevator. If you enter this condition while dead stick, you have to release back pressure on the elevator while you have altitude and gain some airspeed. So the backside of the curve is evil, right? Well it does have it's place in energy management during a dead stick landing. If you are high over the field it's best to just circle around for a landing, with maybe a couple of "S" turns to burn off excess energy on the approach. But what if you are too low to complete a circle qne will go long? Slowing down to the back side will allow you to make a much steeper approach to the runway without picking up speed and is easier than doing a slide slip or forward slip. Just remember to release the elevator to pick up speed at the bottom so you can flair for the landing. The final thing is to learn how to adjust for wind conditions. If flying on a gusty day, land with a bit faster airspeed. If you are deadstick, you glide a greater distance with a higher airspeed. If you are unsure of your fuel supply or engine reliability, fly upwind, stay up wind. Get downwind, and you may end up in a corn field instead of the airfield. And practice. Both normal landing and dead stick.
Posted on: 9/8/2012 9:47 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11222415

RE: Are Pattern Planes Good 2nd Planes?
The Pulse flies very well with no bad habits. But it very lightly constructed, so it will be short lived if you don't land on the wheels on the runway. Of course the same could be said about most of the ARF's built from lite-ply. The Sportster flys well too, though it has a bit heavier feel (higher wing loading). I've always thought of the Sportster as a overweight clone of some of the old Andrews designs, like the Trainermaster or Sportmaster. They were excellent designs from the mid-60's that had great aerodynamics and a rugged balsa construction that could survive incredible abuse. Radios were not so reliable back then and a lot heavier, so tough light airframes were a good thing. Now for the good thing. The Pulse flies almost as good as the Andrews designs do with modern light radios.
Posted on: 9/8/2012 8:42 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11222369

RE: Top Flite Mini-Contender
The problem really is that the Contender was just not that good of a design as designed for Top Flight by Dave Platt. But no doubt it met the design goals of being a quick build and easy to fly for the average modeler back in the day. Since about half of RC fliers never use the rudder once off the ground, it performs well for them. The swept up tips was a recent bandage, that would not be necessary if the wing had dihedral. But that would have required a more complex wing design and build. Another option would have been moving the wing up in the fuselage. Most designs have slight problems in either aerodynamics or structural design. Even with a great design, there are many ways to screw it up with problems with decalage and equipment set-up.
Posted on: 9/8/2012 8:21 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11222347

RE: Tip-stall prone Cub
It is possible to twist a sheeted foam wing. But the method is not for the timid! You have to slice though the sheeting on the underside of the wing, on a diagonal direction, from the leading edge at the root to the trailing edge at the tip (this is the direction to add wash-out). Twist the amount and glue with lightweight glass cloth across the seam. Since this takes time, you need to jig up the wing to hold the twist in while the epoxy sets.
Posted on: 9/8/2012 7:58 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Crash & Rebuild"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11222329

RE: Vertical tails
It should be a fairly mild flying airplane if the CG is well forward. I built something about like it almost 40 years ago from a control line combat kit called the "Guillotine" that was an old 60's design before the high aspect designs took over. It had a wingspan of around 38 inches, twin booms that I added fixed vertical stabilizers to, and no fixed horizontal surface, only a moveable elevator about 4 inches back. Very stable easy to fly airplane on a .19 engine that only had aileron and elevator control. Good luck with your design.
Posted on: 9/5/2012 7:08 AM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218196

RE: Top Flite Mini-Contender
I think the reason that you don't get adverse roll with rudder input is due to the wingtip design, not the design of the rudder. When the wingtip sweeps up from the bottom and the top is flat, or the tip sweeps upward, you get effective dihedral from the wing.
Posted on: 9/4/2012 3:50 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11217519

RE: What's the proper method of a barrel roll?
Axial rolls are easiest, also the most boring. Trying to perfect barrel rolls has kept me entertained for over 4 decades. You have to fly the model though them, there is no other way. Every airplane design needs slightly different inputs and timing. On airplanes that are more neutral with little cross coupling between the rudder and aileron inputs (a plane that can yaw without rolling), I find that right rudder while rolling left with a bit of up elevator works well.
Posted on: 9/2/2012 7:41 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11215122

RE: Vintage Control Line Plane & Engine
Stanzel introduced the monoline in 1950.
Posted on: 8/13/2012 6:15 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11192326

RE: Vintage RC planes that did not fly well ?
[quote]High Plains - Where did you fly in Wichita in '69, possibly Beech Field?[/quote] Sid, It was at the old Beech field in the summer of 1970. I flew there again in 1973 in an open pylon race. I survived that contest due to engine problems.
Posted on: 8/8/2012 9:32 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11186479

RE: Rudder on takeoff help
I suspect that you need slightly more right thrust on the engine. Often one has to take off with a cross wind. To to that well requires the coordinated use of ailerons along with the other primary flight controls. Don't cheat by crossing the runway into the wind. Actually learn how to master the airplane.
Posted on: 7/10/2012 9:52 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11150929

RE: Typical rpm of a propellor?
Really difficult to say what the RPM would be, since most set-ups unload in the air to higher RPM than what a ground reading would be. But 11,000 to 13,000 would be pretty close. But you also have to include the actual path of the blade though the air which adds in the effects from the forward motion of the aircraft.
Posted on: 6/26/2012 4:47 AM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11132139

RE: Jetco Mooney Mite
The full size Mite was also available as a plans built homebuilt for a time. Known as the M-18X.
Posted on: 5/25/2012 8:29 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11094946

RE: 1962 Hustler Delta views
[quote]Hard to believe a model of this size was originally powered by a Veco 19 ???[/quote] Back in the early pylon racing days, before the modern events, engine size was tied to wing area. Events were run that way from the late '50's to early 60's. In 1958 or so, the winning speed was an average of about 30 mph. Towards the end, about 75 mph. This was a period where radios went from a regerative design (no crystal) to superhet, so racing was against the clock.
Posted on: 5/6/2012 5:24 AM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11070137

RE: How much tail wheel weight?
Once again, hang the airplane upside down by the main wheels, and the angle that the airplane hangs will give you where the CG is relative to the wheel placement. Check empty and with a full tank.
Posted on: 5/6/2012 5:11 AM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11070127

RE: Flyn Asrbird Raceh Fast Wa
You should be able to edit the header.
Posted on: 4/19/2012 6:21 AM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "General Racing Discussion"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11048341

RE: Electric Starters~Do You Use One?
I think that the sense of this thread is that you need to develop a feel for how engines react to various levels of priming. While an experienced modeler may have 50 years of starting these little beasts to draw from, there is no reason the newer hobbyists can't benefit from that pool of knowledge. While I feel it is best for the new guys to use a starter, it pains me to see how little they know how to best use it. Far to often I see them throwing the prop and spinner off the front of the model because they over-prime then attack the airplane with the starter in hand. While a too dry engine will not readily start, the signs of a too wet engine is having the prop come loose when you put the starter to it. All of these problems go away if you just develop a bit of feel for the engine and installation. Not every engine is the same, nor do they like the same thing. But generally, once you find out what a particular engine likes and you do the same routine, then they will reward you with easy starts. You know, where you can fuel up, go to the flight line, and get a one flip start. The backwards snap start or backwards bump takes a slightly wetter prime to work. It is also the right direction to use if your prop is slightly loose, since when it fires it also tightens the prop nut. You will know when this happens, because your prop will be in a different position relative to closing on compression than it was before you start. If the prop has moved, then check to see that you still have clearance on the spinner cutout to the prop. You do not want the spinner to contact prop. I however prefer to flip the prop, unless I am using a sharp edged prop like the APC. Wood props work best for this, since they are fairly dull on the edges. So I will fuel up, open the throttle and choke the carb while pulling the engine over two or three times. Then I flip the engine a couple of times before putting on the glow plug igniter. When you put on the plug driver, you want the engine to be out of the compression zone where the prop turns freely. Anyway, at this point grasp the prop and slowly turn the engine over through the compression cycle. If primed well, it should give you a bump as the piston reaches top dead center. Turn it over again, and if it bumps again, then the engine is over primed, so continue to turn it over by hand slowly. When the engine gives a bump on one rotation, then no bump on the next it is ready to start. At this point either use the starter or flip it by hand because it has the right amount of fuel to start. Either way, it will not toss the prop.
Posted on: 4/16/2012 5:19 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11044817

RE: Wow 130 X !
I've been waiting for this machine. Same size and weight as the Blade SR120, which I found to be a great beginner ship. It took a beating and survived with little damage for 75 flights, which I attribute to the 3.75 oz weight. I expect the same from the 130. I not a helo guy, never expect to be one either, but they do fly nice in the local gym.
Posted on: 4/14/2012 7:31 AM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "E-Flite Helicopters"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11041438

RE: Sundowner 36 + Sport JETT .50 or.60LX FIRE
+15 g's is not a very big load. Say that the airplane can fly 140 mph (not really very fast, but somewhat typical). As soon as the radius of the turn is 87 feet, you have added 15 g's to the wing loading, ignoring the contribution of normal gravity.
Posted on: 4/12/2012 6:17 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11039629

RE: Nelson q40 or 500 on 30%
I thought the heading on this thread was running on "high nitro". 30% is mild sport fuel, so just adding a shim or two under the head and opening the needle valve a half turn should do it.
Posted on: 4/11/2012 6:14 AM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11037343

RE: Nelson q40 or 500 on 30%
I used to race F1 running 65% nitro in K&B, ST X-40, and finally Nelson engines, all RIRE engines. Break in was done using 15% fuel before tipping the nitro, with the engines set up for 65%. Generally would see about 800-1000 RPM difference between the fuels as well as 3 oz per minute for 65% and only 2 oz per minute with 15% which required the needle valve open a full turn more. The 65% used a plug each flight if the run was good, a piston/sleeve and new head if it went lean. If you shut down the engine quickly, you might prevent total loss of the top end, but when 4 airplanes were all together at the far end of a course you might know that someone went lean without knowing who. By the time the 3 or 4 seconds elapsed to get the plane close enough to tell which airplane, it was too late if it was your airplane. If you can fly solo, then you can get quite a number of runs on high nitro, maybe 100. The cost of glow plugs and fuel will bring the cost to operate to about $10 each flight for a couple minutes in the air. Tank position is very important, as it is better to be too high than too low. You determine the height by what the engine does in the turns. You have to fly very smooth with high nitro, because a slight bobble can kill the plug due to a quick change in loading. All in all, I would suggest that you experiment with nothing above 40% fuel, and would try 25 or 30% first. Unless you have a huge number of spare parts.
Posted on: 4/10/2012 5:57 AM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Extreme Speed Prop Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11035800

RE: OS .15 Steel Fin?
8x4 or 7x5 is the general range of props that will work.
Posted on: 4/9/2012 5:57 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11035209

RE: Maximum altitude??
[quote]Pretty sure Maynard Hill cracked the problem on this. I know he set an official altitude record with an IC engine that was around 8k feet and made flights over 10k ft.[/quote] Actually Maynard Hill set a record altitude of 26,919 feet 42 years ago. It was that project that he invented the electrostatic wing leveler that he also used to maintain a fixed climb angle through the flight. That system measured the voltage of both wingtips, and used the difference in voltage to level the wings. Another sensor mounted to the tail was used to control pitch. The technology was going to be sold by World Engines, was advertised once and never mentioned again. Turns out that the US government thought it would be too easy to weaponize into cheap drones. The sensor exploited the fact that there is a voltage gradient of about 100 Volts per meter of altitude. However to detect it you must first ionize the air and use a very high input impedance amplifier to sense it. This is easily done with a small amount of radioactive isotopes, in fact you most likely have 3 or 4 in your home right now. They look like smoke detectors and sell for ten bucks at Walmart.
Posted on: 4/5/2012 5:43 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11030015

RE: Rossi 40
Depends, there were several Webra engines that were used in quickie. Early on most just flew K&B engines, but then people wanted to start flying Schnuerle ported engines since they figured that if not used for racing they would be better for sport models than the weak K&B. So we entered the "engine of the month" club, which meant that people spent a lot of money chasing which motor that seemed to go well at the previous contest. ST, Como, HB, Webra, OS, Fox, and maybe a couple that I have forgotten all came and went. It got very expensive. The really hot Webra was just introduced too late. So they may be somewhat rare, since nobody was looking for one after the Nelson came out, and I don't remember if they were much different in design from the earlier effort. One plus is that they are quite a bit lighter than the Rossi. So I would put on a test prop that let's them turn up to16-18K and see which one runs better.
Posted on: 4/4/2012 9:38 PM by Author "HighPlains" in the forum "General Racing Discussion"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11028844