RE: NEW DLE30!
I've noticed a couple of people mentioning a Walbro carb, and I thought mine was going to come with one but instead it came with a Tillotson carb. Is that normal?
Posted on: 10/30/2009 12:11 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9214151

RE: NEW DLE30!
I can't express how disgusted I am reading all of this. If I had started to check into this engine two weeks after I did, it would have been about the time all of this crapola started and would have definitely bypassed this engine. Whatever it is, it is obviously a manufacturer defect that is relatively easy to replicate. The issue of puddling would seem to have to impact virtually every DLE-30 at one time or another regardless of the engine mounting orientation. I can only conclude it's another example of the manufacturer using the end user as a beta tester which happens way too often, and leaves the end user scrambling for a solution. So unless I miraculously don't have this issue, and have no reason to believe that I won't, I'm left with an engine that I won't trust in a plane (which I have already spent several hours converting over) and is nothing more than a paperweight to me. I bought mine from TBM so I don't really know what to expect from them if I also have this issue. But more than likely it's going to become a wait and see if DL acknowledges the issue and offers a fix or try one of the homemade fixes that will probably void the warranty. The more I think about it the angrier I get. At least I didn't buy a Saito FG-20 as you should see the problems those guys are having. Beta testers should get paid or receive a significant discount off the engine price for finding these issues and determining solutions. [:@] rant over
Posted on: 10/28/2009 11:38 PM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9211227

RE: NEW DLE30!
In three weeks the feedback on this engine has gone from pretty much fantastic to they all seem to have some built-in low idle/tilt/flooding issue that you have to use some kind of workaround or modification to overcome. [:@] I really don't know much about engines, but can someone explain why a pooling issue that requires some method to either induce draining of the pool or run the engine at a higher idle to prevent the pooling is not a carb issue? Do most engine manufactures create weeping channels to prevent such pooling that DLE overlooked? And why can't the carb be adjusted to prevent excess fuel from pooling in the first place?
Posted on: 10/26/2009 11:20 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9203030

RE: NEW DLE30!
I saw it somewhere, but can't seem to find it now. What is the correct spark plug gap for the CM6? And what is that three hole, fiberglass looking gasket item used for that came with the engine?
Posted on: 10/20/2009 8:30 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9187633

RE: NEW DLE30!
The DLE-30 is my first gasser that I'm trying to get going and I have a few questions if you all could help me out. 1) On rotating the carb 180, there is a gasket on the carb, a spacer, and a gasket on the engine side. The engine side gasket and rubber spacer are shaped for one orientation on the engine and to align with the small hole in the engine, not sure what that small hole is. The carb and gasket seem to have mirrored holes opposite of each other with one of the hole aligning with the hole in the engine and the other hole seeming to be blocked off. So when I rotated the carb, I kept the engine side gasket and rubber spacer in the same position and rotated the carb and carb side gasket 180. Is this all I have to do? 2) After rotating the carb, do I need to make any changes to the initial H/L needle settings before starting the engine? 3) This plane doesn't have an engine box and I may have to mount the ignition unit inside the cowl on the other side of the firewall. Any heat/cooling issues with this? Does the ignition unit need air passing over it for cooling purposes? 4) If I want to have 10-15 minute flight times plus the before and after ground running time and have about 20% fuel reserve, what size tank would be appropriate? I get the impression from reading other posts that a 10oz tank might be all I need. 5) Has anyone tried the J-Tec wrap around Pitts muffler they have listed on their website? 6) Does anyone know the ignition's full throttle current draw?
Posted on: 10/19/2009 12:23 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9184304

RE: NEW DLE30!
[quote]ORIGINAL: Ken Cz Has anyone used the Dubro pourous metal ( sintered -cast- metal) clunks and do they help reduce bubbles getting to the engine? See link below. http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/WTI0001P?I=LXD741&P=8 [/quote] I'm just getting into gas engines so I don't have any actual experience, but I did ask a knowledgable gas guy about this exact clunk. He said you can use it, but if you have any concerns about bubbles, it is not the best choice. He thinks the felt clunks are the best because they get saturated with fuel so if the tank gets low and starts coming out of the fuel, the saturated felt will help prevent bubbles. But with the metal sintered clunk, it doesn't get saturated like the felt and with its large surface area may even increase the chance of bubbles, so he thinks if a felt-like clunk was not going to be used, a standard clunk would be the next best choice.
Posted on: 10/17/2009 10:18 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9180155

RE: Minimum Specktrum Radio for Buddy Box
[quote]ORIGINAL: jollycub I have a DX7 transmitter and want to buy a used radio to buddy box with. What is the minimum radio I can buddy box with? Is it the DX6i, a DX5E or what? What was the transmitter that came with the Blade 400? Would that work? [/quote] The minimum standard JR buddybox to me was the S400, but that won't work with the Spektrum. They seen to only work with a digital/computer type radio as a buddybox. The lowest end radio I've seen work as a buddybox and it not being another Spektrum is a JR SX600, but JR doesn't make that anymore though there are some still for sale out there.
Posted on: 9/4/2009 3:55 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "JR Radio & Spektrum Radios"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9068857

RE: Aerovate Engines
[quote]ORIGINAL: Piston Hey Bob NO worries at all... We each confirmed each others positive actions!!! I was tickled that both of us were thinking along the EXACT same lines and providing the same valid advice. I know that I had the same problem of having mufflers loosen up and it was sage advice like this that saved me from going nuts trying to figure it out. Great minds......Now if only I could fly like you... [:D] Cheers Henry [/quote] You and Bob do seem to contradict on the red loctite part. Bob says to use it, but in your linked loctite article you say to NEVER use red loctite unless for a specific reason. Is this one of those times?
Posted on: 8/27/2009 9:02 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9049007

RE: Hangar 9 60 size corsair arf
[quote]ORIGINAL: leedees [quote]ORIGINAL: jim pettis Pit, I had my 1st pair set up exactly like you do now, however, I had maybe a 1/8-3/16'' gap between the retract and the strut. We have narrow grass runways, and generally my bends occured when I would go off into the taller stuff. (I know, I need to practice my landings...) Wasn't that big of a deal, as I had spare wires with me, and I was actually glad for the bend instead of a rip out. However, it would be nice if the retracts would accept 3/16 wire instead of the 5/32. I'm hoping the spring turn cuts down on the issue, as I'm getting worried that at some point I'm going to strip out the set screws on the retracts if I keep reefing on them to tighten down on the latest replacement wire. That last picture is actually one of my new set up in its unfinished stage.... [/quote] The Lado retracts are available (sort of available anyway) with a 3/16'' wire setup. I ordered some ten days ago and the website showed them in stock but nothing yet. On second thought I may be wrong about this as you have a Corsair and I plan to fit the 3/16 size to H9 P-47. [/quote] How did you order them? Are you talking about the 60-2 for the H9 Corsair? I've been checking almost everyday and they've always shown out of stock, and Doug Lado's email last week indicated they still weren't done filling the 60-2 back orders.
Posted on: 8/20/2009 3:54 PM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9031490

RE: Glow Powered Foam Flycat Build!
[quote]ORIGINAL: brett65 I read about a guy who put a glow engine on a parkzone trojan once, it was on rcgroups. [/quote] Here is one of our club members with his glow engine parkzone trojan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoD0mONqpV8
Posted on: 8/12/2009 12:58 PM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9010576

RE: New 81
[quote]ORIGINAL: kochj this thread is dying... anyone building one?? I will be clearing the bench soon for this one.. [/quote] Typically happens when they don't make the plane anymore, and that's going on almost a year and a half now. I've got more than 200 flight on mine (yep, I count my flights :)) with a 120 AX and have thoroughly enjoyed the plane.
Posted on: 8/12/2009 9:00 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9010076

RE: Saito FG-20
[quote]ORIGINAL: mike early But when speaking of gasoline quantities, does anyone ever use weights? Only volumes, right? [/quote] Typically yes, but if you are going to change tank sizes or move the tank around in relation to CG, then one might find it useful to think in weight. For example, if you buy a plane with a stock 22 fluid oz tank intended for glow fuel but want to convert the plane to a heavier gasser and go to an 11 fluid oz tank, one might think they would be reducing fuel weight by 11 oz. But 22 fl oz of methanol would weigh about 17.6 oz, and 11 oz of gasoline would weigh about 8.25 oz, so the saving in fuel weight is not 11 oz but more along 9.4 oz. So this all boils down to that a fluid oz and a weight oz are only equivalent when dealing with water.
Posted on: 8/4/2009 9:08 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8988764

RE: Saito FG-20
[quote]ORIGINAL: mike early I've been a little confused but didn't try to think about it. But I need to get this straight: We are talking about fluid ounces. 16 ounce fuel tank can hold 16 ounces of water but only 12 ounces of gasoline? By the very definition, when you fill that fuel tank up, you will have 16 ounces of gasoline. Now I realize that a weight ounce is an entirely different animal. One good thing about the metric system is milliliters is always milliliters.... 470 ml of water will fit inside and 470 ml of gas will fit inside. [/quote] Same situation whether it's metric or not. It comes down to density. It depends on the blend, but gasoline typically has a specific density of 0.7 which mean that for the same given volume, gasoline will only weigh 0.7 or 70% of what water would weigh. I'm rounding for simplicity, but a 16 fluid oz container will hold 16 fluid oz of water which will weigh 16oz, but that same container holding 16 fluid oz of gas will only weigh 11 oz. And in the metric system, a container that can hold 470 ml of water will weigh 470 grams, but if it held 470 ml of gas, it would only weigh 329 grams.
Posted on: 8/4/2009 8:22 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8988683

RE: RCGF Engines
[quote]ORIGINAL: Tseres [quote]ORIGINAL: RCHubbub [quote]ORIGINAL: Tseres Connery I have used grade 8 bolts with 60mm of thread. Used red locktite,tightened with a wrench and used a cutoff wheel on cutting the head off. I did this to be able to use the true turn aluminum spinners that I had laying around. I think that this will work for me. If I didn't already have some expensive spinners
Posted on: 7/24/2009 8:01 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8959895

RE: RCGF Engines
[quote]ORIGINAL: Tseres Connery I have used grade 8 bolts with 60mm of thread. Used red locktite,tightened with a wrench and used a cutoff wheel on cutting the head off. I did this to be able to use the true turn aluminum spinners that I had laying around. I think that this will work for me. If I didn't already have some expensive spinners laying around, I would not have dun this. Henry knows more then I do so head his advise. [/quote] Was that the 20cc? So not possible to use a true turn spinner without doing such a modification? Annoyingly stupid things like this are what can turn me off a product regardless of the other attributes.
Posted on: 7/23/2009 11:58 PM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8959399

RE: RCGF Engines
[quote]ORIGINAL: Mr.FiberOptic i'm wondering how much the flycamone2 cost in USdollars and the shipping to get it here. also which AUS dealer would ship it to the US. hmmm [/quote] http://www.hobby-lobby.com/video-camera.htm
Posted on: 3/12/2009 8:30 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8569719

RE: MythBusters Airplane Takeoff Myth
[quote]ORIGINAL: BMatthews Well again if you could restrain your airplane against the 150 mph tailwind and then release it even without the engine running the wind alone would push it forward to a pretty good speed. How fast? It would depend on the wheel bearing friction and the tire hysterisis loss in the rubber (tires produce drag by absorbing energy into the rubber and that energy warms the tires. This loss is tied to the hysterisis of the rubber and carcase design of the tire). It would also be tied into how much wind it would take to move the airplane if it was just sitting there and the wind came up. Lets say that a 20mph tailwind is enough to make the plane roll ahead and keep rolling and that it rolls at 5 mph. At that point you could technically reduce the tailwind to 15 mph and it would keep rolling... or maybe it would stop over time. But at 20 mph tailwind it'll still roll along at 5 mph. So that's a 15 mph "slippage". [/quote] Yep, I don't have any issues with your line of thinking. I don't think I'm so comfortable about drawing a conclusion about the pushing force of the tailwind nor the impact to the forward pitch speed of the spinning prop with such a strong tailwind other than it just might extend the takeoff even further.
Posted on: 2/25/2009 5:05 PM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8517813

RE: MythBusters Airplane Takeoff Myth
[quote]ORIGINAL: BMatthews [quote]ORIGINAL: RCHubbub Maybe I'm getting too far off the original question. ......But, if that tailwind does have an impact, then allowing the belt to pull the plane backwards 50 MPH is no different than a plane sitting on a runway trying to take-off with a 50 MPH tailwind. Right? [/quote] Yes you are. And yes it would be the same. [/quote] I did come late
Posted on: 2/25/2009 3:29 PM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8517453

RE: MythBusters Airplane Takeoff Myth
Maybe I'm getting too far off the original question. I agree with most of what is being said here under the constraint that the slippage between the belt and the plane is never given up. Meaning that the plane powers up pretty much the same time the belt does. In that case about the only impact from the belt, at any belt speed, is that the wheels would be rotating faster on take-off. My issue is when someone says that even if you let the plane be dragged backwards by the belt there is still no impact. We can make this belt pull the plane backwards. There’s no reason it would be impossible. You can either start the belt up slowly as there should be enough static friction to allow the plane to move with the belt, or just apply the wheel brakes. If the belt is allowed to get up to 50 MPH with the plane’s wheel brakes on, then when you power up and release the brakes, you would in essence be trying to take off with a 50 MPH tailwind. On a small plane this should have a significant impact. Now, I'm not a pilot, so if a pilot tells me that a small plane trying to take off with a 50 MPH tailwind is not impacted by that tailwind and does not require more prop thrust and engine power and a greater ground speed to take-off to overcome that 50 MPH tailwind, then that is my incorrect presumption because I thought it would. But, if that tailwind does have an impact, then allowing the belt to pull the plane backwards 50 MPH is no different than a plane sitting on a runway trying to take-off with a 50 MPH tailwind. Right? In the end, this is all about slippage between the unpowered wheels of a plane and a powered conveyer belt. If you don't give up that beneficial slippage then you can virtually negate any impact that belt has other than the impact of faster rotating wheels. But if you allow that slippage to be given up and allow that plane to be pulled backwards, then you have to deal with the created tailwind and its effect as the issue at hand is no longer between the plane and the belt but between the plane and the tailwind.
Posted on: 2/25/2009 8:43 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8516249

RE: MythBusters Airplane Takeoff Myth
Why does the plane have to be nailed to the belt? Conveyer belts are used throughout manufacturing, and I guarantee the items they are moving around are not nailed to them. There just has to be sufficient friction or traction if you prefer, for the belt to move them. If the wheels are the issue then apply the brakes. The weight of the plane just sitting on the conveyer belt would be enough. Could the belt be accelerated fast enough where the plane does not move? Sure, much as someone yanks a tablecloth fast enough to keep the dishes on it from moving. But one of my parameters specifically addressed that the conveyer belt would accelerate slowly enough not to do that, just as someone who yanks the table cloth too slowly takes all the dishes on it with it. So with the plane now moving backwards and creating a tailwind, doesn't the plane’s motion now have to counter that tailwind created by it being pulled backwards by the belt? I think it does as the plane is not going to achieve lift and remove its weight from the conveyer belt until sufficient air is passing in the correct direction over the wing. Bernoulli’s principle right? Until, sufficient air is passing over the wings, the plane is going to have to roll over the belt, and it’s going to have to roll over the belt with at least the speed of the belt pulling it backwards to just neutralize the tailwind and then continue on until it starts getting a positive airspeed over the wings. In taking more time in reading the treads, and viewing several YouTube videos including those trying to computer simulate it, I have a couple of issues on how they are carried out which allows for an incorrect conclusion primarily because these tests are creating a frictionless event. All these tests seem to power up the plane when the belt starts accelerating causing in essence a continuing slippage much like the fast moving tablecloth with dishes on it. In this situation, I agree that the belt would have a minimal effect on the plane's performance since forward motion is not achieved through wheel power acting on the ground but by prop thrust. In fact that is easy to see, and if the myth is trying to demonstrate the ease of creating such slippage between a plane and a conveyer belt to where the belt has no effect then I agree with the test and its conclusions. However, to me that is not the myth, and the only way to test the myth is to allow the plane to sit on the belt without power or at idle, let the belt accelerate which would create slippage at first (or apply the brakes to prevent such slippage), but let enough time to pass for the belt to achieve a constant speed to start to pull the plane backwards with it at a speed that creates a sufficient tailwind. With that achieved, now apply power to the plane, and I think the required additional power to start moving the plane down the belt, canceling the tailwind and continuing to move forward to create lift could be demonstrated. The Mythbusters test didn’t do this and none of the other test videos I saw did either. They even showed that when Adam was running on the belt with it being pulled slowly his foot was ripping the belt. So, if the belt is that fragile, then they obviously set up a frictionless/slippage event because if they allowed the plane to be pulled backwards with the belt without slippage, its weight would have torn up the belt where the wheels rested while being dragged on the concrete. So, can a test be setup between a plane and a conveyer belt that demonstrates that the conveyer belt would have no influence? Yes, and that’s been demonstrated. You just have to not loose that slippage between the two and the plane will take-off pretty much as normal. Can a test be setup where the conveyer belt can influence the amount of power the plane needs to take-off? I think so, based on the test parameters that I’ve defined. ...edited by moderator to remove quote of a deleted post.....
Posted on: 2/24/2009 6:49 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8511829

RE: MythBusters Airplane Takeoff Myth
[quote]ORIGINAL: HighPlains [/quote] Yes, I agree with everything you said, and I hope my posts didn't seen contradictory to what you're saying. I think the Mythbusters test and the others I've seen on YouTube are demonstrating the best case scenario of taking maximum advantage of the initial slippage between a plane's wheels (brakes off) and the initial acceleration of the belt to demonstrate the conveyer belt having minimal influence. My issue becomes when these tests are used to imply that the conveyer belt would/could never have any influence on the plane taking off, when in fact under different test conditions, the belt's effect could be significant if given the opportunity to drag the plane backwards through the air.
Posted on: 2/24/2009 1:57 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8511892

RE: MythBusters Airplane Takeoff Myth
[quote]ORIGINAL: BMatthews [/quote] I don't disagree with what you've said and is not new to me. But, explain how the tailwind is negated? If the belt is at even a reasonable speed (doesn't have to be at a hyper velocity) and a plane is set down on it with brakes off, then the inertia of the plane would sit still relative to the ground as the wheels spun on the belt. But, it's not going to stay that way. Friction, as I'm sure you know, is a non-conservative force and eventually the plane will start to be pulled in the direction of the belt relative to the ground, the wheels rotation relative to the belt will start to slow down until eventually the wheels stop and the plane is moving backwards at the same speed of the belt. Now, that you've given up the advantage that you had when you set the plane down and had an opportunity to apply power and fly off normally, you now have to overcome this backwards velocity and negative airflow over the wings.
Posted on: 2/24/2009 1:45 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8511871

RE: MythBusters Airplane Takeoff Myth
[quote]ORIGINAL: Flyin Beagle Did anyone see the Mythbusters last night. It may have been a re-run, but it was new to me. They tested the Myth that an airplane sitting on a conveyor belt moving at the same speed, but in the opposite direction of the thrust of the prop would just sit there. They tested it with a smal parkflyer, and a treadmill at first, then moved up to a fullscale plane. The part that really surprised me was when they tested it at full scale with a small experimental aircraft, the owner/pilot of that plane believed that he would just sit in place. To test it they connected a large peice of canvas about 12' wide by a couple hundred feet long to the back of a truck and drove in the opposite direction of the airplane. The plane took off normally. For a lot of people it is apparently very difficult to grasp the idea that the forward motion of an airplane is due to the thrust of the prop, and that the wheels of the airplane are free spinning, and that no matter how fast the surface under the plane is moving the plane will still move forward at the exact same speed as if it was taking off in a normal fashion. It was surprising to me how difficult it is for people to grasp this concept. [/quote] I'm late to the discussion and haven't read the other huge thread, but when I first saw that episode I was convincing myself both ways as to what would happen...and I have physics degree....so I was a bit annoyed that I couldn't resolve this intuitively in my mind. In the end, I didn't like the Mythbusters setup and felt like there were too many built-in red herrings in the experiment to distract what was really going which led to incorrect conclusions of what was observed. quote: For a lot of people it is apparently very difficult to grasp the idea that the forward motion of an airplane is due to the thrust of the prop, and that the wheels of the airplane are free spinning, and that no matter how fast the surface under the plane is moving the plane will still move forward at the exact same speed as if it was taking off in a normal fashion. For the wheels to only be free spinning with a moving conveyor belt under them means that something is holding the plane in place relative to the ground as the belt moves under it. It could be from the prop thrust or the plane being held in place by some stationary object. But otherwise, if the plane sits on the belt applying a force, the plane will be influenced by the movement of that belt (unless there was no friction involved but that's not the case). I could only think it out in my mind using this kind of setup: I've got a plane sitting on an infinitely long conveyor built with no discernable wind present. The plane's wheels have sufficient traction to hold the plane in place on the belt relative to the movement of the conveyor belt. Meaning that as I start up the belt, I do it slowly enough so that the plane will move and accelerate with the belt. The plane is facing towards the right. The belt starts and moves from the right to the left making the plane looking like it's going backwards to the observer stationary on the ground. Let's say the plane needs 30 mph of wind passing over its wings to achieve lift. I speed the belt up to 20 mph which produces a 20 mph wind over the wing from rear to front. I'll call this negative airspeed. And I have to ignore that this negative airspeed would probably do other real world events such as jostle and move the plane while on the belt requiring me to apply the wheel brakes to keep the plane stationary relative to the belt's movement. I start the plane's engine up, release the brakes, and begin to apply power where the traction of the wheels on the belt is overcome and the plane moves forward relative to the belt it sits on but still has a negative airspeed concerning the wind flowing over the wings and looks to the observer on the ground that it is still moving from right to left. To me, this plane will not take-off until I have produced enough air speed over the wings to first overcome the negative airspeed the belt has created by dragging the plane backward and then continue to increase speed while on the belt to get to an airspeed of 30 mph to achieve lift. When this happens, the speed relative to the belt is 50 mph (20mph to overcome the negative airspeed + 30 mph of positive airspeed to achieve lift), the speed relative to the ground is 30 mph, and airspeed is 30 mph since there was no discernable wind initially. In this hypothetical setup, it would be possible to achieve a belt speed that would be great enough to prevent the plane from rolling forward fast enough to gain enough wind speed over the wings to achieve lift. Because as long as the plane sits on the moving belt, just to maintain a neutral airspeed over the wings and not be dragged backwards, the plane’s engine and prop have to produce enough thrust to counteract the movement of the belt. So this situation would dictate that if the belt was moving at a velocity within 30 mph of the plane’s maximum possible speed, the plane would not have enough power to overcome the belt’s motion and be able to achieve lift. So in the end of this big experiment, all the conveyor belt achieved was producing a situation of an airplane trying to take off with the wind (negative airspeed) and whether or not the plane had sufficient power to do so.
Posted on: 2/23/2009 4:43 PM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8509879

RE: New 81" GP Super Chipmunk
Having some fun with my GP SCM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDxVMAT3OBw
Posted on: 2/21/2009 7:45 PM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8502923

RE: Where is the Electric-to-Glow Conversion Forum???
Converted miniUltra Stick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vtL0Q4bGQ
Posted on: 2/21/2009 7:42 PM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8502914

RE: Parkzone North American T-28 Trojan
[quote]ORIGINAL: GaGeeBees That's a mover! How much lead did you have to put in the tail to balance? [/quote] Sorry, but wasn't my plane so don't know what he had to do to balance it.
Posted on: 2/6/2009 9:20 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Park Flyers & Backyard Flyers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8444753

RE: Parkzone North American T-28 Trojan
I posted this a while back, but for those who haven't seen it before and are interested in a PZ Trojan with an engine. This was a Nelson 25. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoD0mONqpV8&feature=channel_page
Posted on: 2/5/2009 8:20 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "Park Flyers & Backyard Flyers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8440804

RE: Where is the Electric-to-Glow Conversion Forum???
[quote]ORIGINAL: minicrazy592 What would be a glow equivilent to a eflite 480? [/quote] The Parkzone Trojan is considered a 480 size electric, and like my video post showed above, it had a Nelson .25. One of our club members converted an eflite miniPulse XT 480 size to a 0.10 with nice success. I think power wise a 480 outrunner is closer to a 0.10 engine.
Posted on: 2/1/2009 8:28 PM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8427903

RE: Where is the Electric-to-Glow Conversion Forum???
I think it's a great idea also. Here is a Parkzone Trojan converted to a Nelson 25 by one of our club members. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoD0mONqpV8&feature=channel_page
Posted on: 1/30/2009 1:17 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8418298

RE: Hangar 9 60 size corsair arf
[quote]ORIGINAL: Garthwood [quote]ORIGINAL: grandad1 Garthwood if your bolt only goes in 2or 3 thread then it sounds like it may be the wrong treads.I would dubble check the tread. Hope it help and good luck. Joe [/quote] Hello Joe....................................No, it's the right metric thread. The head bolt threads in 1/4" quite easily. Here are some pictures. TT requested some pictures to help them out. Before I sent them the pics they suggest I cut off the bolt to fit the double jam nut. If that is the case then I wonder why would they include that size bolt with that product. I am not sure the 1/4" inside the double jam nut front is enough to keep the Hub in place, one can argue that 1/8" is enough as well. My point is that TT should know the length of the retaining Hub bolt for safety's sake. Guys, 1/4" is a border line and for me it's not safe. [/quote] There are too many combinations of engines and prop thicknesses to have a correct bolt length for every package. It is not uncommon to cut the down the bolt to the correct length. Keep in mind what this bolt does. It has nothing to do with retaining the prop, but only to hold the hub on securely to where it won't come off with the engine running and will not spin when you need to apply an electric starter. Following TT's instructions on not overtightening the hub bolt, it is easy to see that it doesn't need much pressure to properly keep the hub on and more than adequate when applying an electric starter. From my personal experiences, a 1/4" of thread for the hub retaining bolt is fine.
Posted on: 1/25/2009 11:10 AM by Author "RCHubbub" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8398801