RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
I wouldn't say a 50 is massive overkill. I've had two engines on it,; a BME 50 that never ran right (because it came equipped with a too small carburetor, and I didn't know enough about gassers at the time to notice), and a slightly larger 3.2 Brison now. Vertical uplines are definitely smoother and more authoritative with the Brison (due to a one-inch larger prop); but then, now that the BME 50 has the proper carb in place, it might do equally well. I have a Patty kit on the floor of the shop waiting for it, though... The H9 27% Extra is a solid, dependable airframe. I've had to tighten the UltraCote a few times, and patch a few holes; the cowl is beginning to show some spider cracks, and I've had to repair the bottom of the wheel pants a couple of times. All minor "battle damage" you get from using a model, as opposed to admiring it...;) It does have a major flaw; the supplied "carbon fiber" landing gear is cheaply done and will begin delaminating, if it doesn't crack first on a hard landing. Horizon has steadfastly refused to acknowledge this; after I sent mine back the third time, the tech "suggested" that perhaps I needed to work on my landing techniques. I really had to bite my tongue with that clown, because, properly balanced, this is the EASIEST landing model I've ever flown; and I've been in the hobby since 1986. The supplied tail wheel isn't long for this world, either; I replaced the mains with a heavy-duty aluminum one from TNT (one reason mine is heavier than normal) and the tail wheel with an Ohio Superstar unit. Both have been exemplary. Its a good model; the glue joints are still holding (although I did do the obligatory hit-everything-you-can-reach-with-medium-CA thing when I assembled it), and while its starting to look a bit rough (well, a LOT rough[:D] ), it has plenty of life left in it. I think I first flew it in late 2005. The canopy doesn't fit so hot on the top hatch, either; take your time there.
Posted on: 2/24/2009 8:27 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8514718

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
-type aerobatics) on it, and the servos are doing fine. I asked Steve Helms himself whether
Posted on: 2/24/2009 6:50 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8514276

RE: Super Skybolt ARF
[quote]ORIGINAL: dgrant .. one is about the elevator set-up.. with the 2 pushrods collared together.. I totally understand the set-up, and wonder if anyone's using it.. or honestly if anybody thinks it's as cheesy as I do.. [/quote] Oh, its cheesy, all right. It also works. What I did on my Chapman Cap was fly the plane and BE sure I didn't have any elevator differential issues; then I JB Welded those pushrods together. It held up for quite a few flights, and is still flying AFAIK (I sold the model last year). What I'm wrestling with right now is engine choice. I have a not-so-used 91 Surpass (an older one with the silver rocker cover), and a Laser 150. The Laser is too big/heavy for the Bolt, but I cannot help but think that the 91 Surpass isn't quite enough. No, I don't do 3F (Flip-Flop Flying). If I want to fly something like a helicopter, I'll get a helicopter...[8|] It didn't used to be this difficult to decide on what new model to get after a lay-off. But many of the "tweeners" that are perfect for the Laser 150 have disappeared.....[&o] .
Posted on: 2/24/2009 6:40 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8514229

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
More than likely, Ralph. However, he's telling me that a ten pound aerobatic model needs servos that are twice as strong as what I've been using, on fifteen pound airplanes with 50cc gas engines. Sorry, but that goes against everything I've seen/heard in the five years I've been doing the larger models. Not to mention the Goldberg Sukhoi, which is almost identical in size to this model and about two pounds heavier. IT never had any flutter problems with 9252s; at least the one I had didn't. Anyway... its his product, he knows it best. So I'll take him at his word. And I don't see the need to buy any more servos when I have six near-new 9252s on hand. So, I'll find something a bit smaller...[;)] .
Posted on: 2/24/2009 5:33 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8513980

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Thanks, Dick, but I cancelled the model just now. In one of his few posts here, Dennis stated that one needs 140 oz/in servos to avoid flutter. That raised an eyebrow; I've been flying a much larger, much heavier airplane with Futaba 9252 servos (about 70 oz/in) for over three years, with no issues. Of course, like you, I don't fly my airplanes like a helicopter, either. I called him this morning. He flat told me that any damage resulting from control surface issues, if I was using less than 140 oz/in servos, would void the warranty. He was courteous and professional about it, but his meaning was clear. Fair enough. I don't buy into some of what he was telling me, so I decided to cancel the order and look elsewhere. Too bad; that looks like a nice model. Glad you are liking yours. Thanks for the response... .
Posted on: 2/24/2009 12:48 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8513064

RE: U-can-do 46 or 60
I put a .91 Surpass on the .46 size; took a lot of finessing, especially the throttle linkage. Got it ready to balance... and lost intereset. First time that has ever happened to me; got a new, unflown model almost ready to go, and I have ZERO interest in flying it. The servos are coming out today, for a new project. .
Posted on: 2/24/2009 11:19 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8512795

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
I ordered one of these airplanes yesterday. I have been "away" from the hobby for a while, and am ready to get back flying again; but the only thing I had even close to airworthy was Grandson #1's Sig Kougar that I built for him some years back. He's living in Virginia now, and I don't want to risk pranging it while he's away; plus, I want something bigger, and quick to do while I finish up Grandson #2's trainer. I am interested in hearing from those who have moderate power plants on this model. Dick Smith seems to be happy with his OS 1.20AX, although I'd rather not have to add any nose weight. Most everyone else seems to have a gasser or big Saito four stroke. I am NOT interested in "more power", since I don't fly my airplanes like helicopters. I have 50cc gassers, and have had the big Saito four-bangers. They use too much fuel for my tastes; especially the 1.80. I have read the last 30 pages of this thread. The quality of the kit appears to be excellent. So I dropped the plastic. Anyone with a moderate glow power plant on this airplane, please advise your experiences. .
Posted on: 2/24/2009 11:12 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8512769

RE: Reliable mid-range 2.4Ghz radio options
Russ, I've been debating this move myself. I have two 9Zs, totally love them, and don't want to give them up. And we just don't have any interference problems at our club, which is way out in the boonies. About the only danger I face is somebody turning on my freq while I'm up. And we're a small enough club that this simply has not been an issue. In fact, the only other guy who had a radio on my freq hasn't been around in a long time. Two buddies who fly IMAC, using Futaba 12 channel radios, swear that the 2.4 system is noticeably more responsive and precise than their old 72mHz systems. But there are still enough problems noted that give me pause. I realize that a lot of this is caused by guys not paying attention, not reading the instructions, and the myriad other indicators of a short attention span that plague many people in our hobby. But not all of it... So, I'm going to sit back a while. In fact, I plan to fly these 9Zs as long as I can. I've got to send the older one back to Futaba for a back-up battery replacement, come to think of it. I know I'll have to go 2.4 eventually. By the time that comes around, I'm confident that ALL of the bugs will be worked out... [:D] Good luck on your quest. I've always thought AirTronics was good stuff; I'll be watching to see how it works out for you. .
Posted on: 10/30/2008 7:39 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8098262

RE: ExtremeFlight 58" Extra
I'm not going to use this airplane for a trainer; I have a trainer for the kid. This model will be for ME to fly, since I cannot get my gasser Extra and his trainer both in the truck. .
Posted on: 10/30/2008 7:19 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8098239

RE: ExtremeFlight 58" Extra
[quote]ORIGINAL: jsenicka 91 Surpass is way heavy for this bird. It is a 5 pounder. [/quote] Yeah, that and some other issues have made me decide to pass. I'm about to start grandson #2's training, and my gasser and his trainer won't both fit in my truck at the same time. So I need a smaller model for me; but I want something nice. On a whim, I bought a UCD 46 at the LHS, put it together, and was "buttoning it up" the other day when I realized I simply didn't WANT the thing. I would prefer something that looks like a real airplane; and I'm not into flip-flopping around either. The new Aero-Works QB Extra 60 looks nice; I pre-ordered one. I don't usually volunteer to be an unpaid beta-tester for a new model, but what the heck... .
Posted on: 10/29/2008 1:58 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8095985

ExtremeFlight 58" Extra
Any threads here on this plane? A search turned up info on the big ones and the little one, but not the 58" version. I would like to hear from anyone who has it. I'm looking to put a 91 Surpass in one. .
Posted on: 10/28/2008 6:38 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8091899

RE: Sig Kougar or Top Flite Contender
Here's a pic of my Kougar. It doesn't get flown these days, since #1 grandson moved away. I built it for him. The pics I have of my Contender were pre-digital camera days, and I have no scanner...
Posted on: 10/22/2008 4:39 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8074559

RE: Sig Kougar or Top Flite Contender
I've built both. The adverse rudder coupling on the Contender is easy to fix, by making the wing tips sort of a reverse Hoerner (upswept) configuration. This is covered in detail in the Gold Edition (most recent production) kit manual. The Kougar is BY FAR the easier to build; the Contender was somewhat of a PITA, especially if you do the nose like it is supposed to be done. Both fly beautifully. However, I think the Contender, with the wing tip mod, is a more versatile model; particularly if you incorporate the ventral flap. You can drag it along on the prop, making like a carrier pilot... or swoop and zoom. The Kougar is just an honest "aileron trainer". It is very responsive, but not as agile at low speeds, IMO. The Contender is a bit larger, and has a LOT more wing area. A .55 would be WAY overkill for the Kougar, but just right for the Contender. My Kougar has an OS .40 SF and is a rocket when you gap it open. My Contender had a 70 Surpass four stroke, and was a really delightful model. I killed it when the battery came loose and jammed the elevator pushrod...[:(] . If you enjoy building, get the Contender. If not, the Kougar
Posted on: 10/22/2008 4:37 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8074547

RE: So where did Lanier go??
[quote]ORIGINAL: mimoore67 I remember that Goldberg got bought by Lanier and then Lanier sold to Hobbico! [/quote] Yup. I got a CG Ultimate ARF right after the "sale" (although I didn't know it at the time). Mine came with the usual CG professionally-done manual, a Klett tail wheel assembly, excellent overall quality etc. A friend bought the same kit some months later. His manual was Xeroxed (on what appeared to be the prototype Xerox machine- it was that bad), stapled pages, the tail wheel was some morphodite cheap arrangement, and the overall kit quality was pretty abysmal. Judging from the actual Lanier kits/ARFs I've examined, I can only surmise that those who praise Lanier on these R/C boards are those who enjoy re-engineering and tweaking their models. I'm a firm believer in conspiracy theories where The Empire is concerned; but in this case, I think the company just killed themselves by failing to even get close to the ever-improving quality of Asian ARFs. Of course, the last few CG BIY kits I looked at before Lanier bought the company weren't the greatest, either. The wood was absolutely horrible. One hopes that The Empire has (or will) remedy that; as has been stated, CG has some of the best designs out there, that build relatively easy and fly great. Where did Lanier go? IMO, who cares? .
Posted on: 10/22/2008 4:13 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8074470

RE: GP Patty Wagstaff - Building & Flying
[quote]ORIGINAL: Super08 Steve I changed my mind because the construction does not give alot for the hinge points much to grab on to. The only part of the hinge that would be in the wood would be the smooth part close to the hinge. The barbed part would be in the open air apace between the ribs as the wood is not thick enough for them to hold on to anything. It would be better off with the older
Posted on: 10/22/2008 3:55 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8074408

RE: GP Patty Wagstaff - Building & Flying
Why did you change your mind? I bought Robarts for mine; just curious as to why you back-tracked. .
Posted on: 9/26/2008 7:33 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7994119

RE: GP Patty Wagstaff - Building & Flying
[quote]ORIGINAL: Bobby Folsom No, they canceled the contest. [/quote] Good call; it was pretty bad yesterday. .
Posted on: 9/14/2008 8:32 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7952514

RE: GP Patty Wagstaff - Building & Flying
Its worse than that now; and will be a lot worse by tomorrow. .
Posted on: 9/11/2008 6:05 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7944406

RE: GP Patty Wagstaff - Building & Flying
[quote]ORIGINAL: Yeah, the BME 50 will pull that Patty very well. Andy and his partner will get it running right - if they haven't already. [/quote] According to Tom(?), my BME 50 had the wrong carburetor on it! He fitted a new one, said he went through the engine, and it ran fine, etc. I certainly hope so, for $130...[&o] He did send back the old carb, though; it is definitely different (and smaller) from what's on there now. Anyway, I'll take a chance and put it on the Patty. Gustav kicked our butts pretty good; haven't done any airplane stuff in almost three weeks. And I need a new roof. But now I'm ready to get back on the two slimer projects; should finish them up just in time to make the Patty a "winter build" project. You coming to the IMAC event here this week-end? I guess its still on, with Ike having shifted westward. The wind is going to be something else, though. Tobe and I were going to fly in it, but events decreed otherwise; neither of us have cranked a model in over a month. Let me know if you're coming; it will be extra impetus to run out there Saturday. .
Posted on: 9/11/2008 1:41 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7943635

RE: Carl Goldberg Kits
I have built several CG kits. The first ones I did, circa late 80s/early 90s (Sky Tiger, Ultimate, Chipmunk), were quality items. Wood quality was okay. The last two were just prior to the sale of the company to Lanier, and the wood in both was simply atrocious. I didn't finish either kit (a Chipmunk and an Eagle). I have heard things have not improved at all; this thread would seem to confirm that. Hopefully, The Empire will turn things around. In the meantime, if I were going to buy a new-production kit today, Sig would top the list. Actually, Sig and Great planes are about all that's left of "mainstream" kit producers, since MidWest went away. .
Posted on: 8/24/2008 10:51 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7879693

RE: UCANDO 3D 46.. What Four Stroke for it?
Well, I got the 91 Surpass shoe-horned in there. Had to rig a morphodite throttle linkage, do some surgery on the cowl nose ring, and add some cowl mount blocks; but everything is lined up properly and buttoned down just right. I went ahead and used the kit tank; still had to relieve the top of the former a bit before it would slide in. Now that the front end is squared away, the rest should be easy... .
Posted on: 8/19/2008 7:33 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "3D Flying!"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7864188

RE: Patty Wagstaff Bust for pilot in Model Planes
[quote]ORIGINAL: jgunpilot So, the busts weren't busty enough? [/quote] Nah... the nose wasn't red enough, and they didn't get the crow's feet just right...[:D] .
Posted on: 8/19/2008 7:26 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7864159

RE: Older EZ Dago Red 45 size
The problem I had with those EZ retracts was that the wire for the gear legs was dead soft, and bent back every landing; no matter how smooth a "greaser" it might be. If I forgot to bend them forward before the next take-off, the wheels wouldn't go into the wells, binding up the servo and sucking the battery down big-time. I looked into making new legs out of properly heat-treated wire, but couldn't find any way to make just ONE "loop", any more coils in the loop and they wouldn't fit when retracted. So I sold it. I was new to the hobby then, didn't know about the K&S wire bender. My plane had a nice fiberglass after-market cowl and an inverted 70 Surpass with on-board glow It was a really neat plane. Oh, well... that was almost 20 years ago, and I haven't had another model with retracts since. I just remembered; the name of the company was "OK Models", in Japan. Tried that? .
Posted on: 8/19/2008 6:39 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7861947

RE: Older EZ Dago Red 45 size
The original factory burned down some years back. It has been rebuilt, but the only North American distributor is in Canada, I think. MRC had the line for a while, but I think no longer. The Dago Red was not "brought back", AFAIK. They do have a P-51, called the VooDoo, and I would be surprised if it isn't the same airframe. Wrong color, though...[;)] I had one of those original Dago Reds. GREAT flying model, hampered by sucky retracts. .
Posted on: 8/18/2008 7:31 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7860396

RE: New Hanger 9 p-51 mustang **Trainer?!?**
[quote]ORIGINAL: smooreace Hey... does anyone here run full synthetic fuel? Ime finally breaking into my first gallon. Just looking for a heads up on possible surprises. [/quote] If you're religious about burning out residual fuel before putting the model away, you shouldn't have any problems. By this, I mean you defuel the model, then keep flipping the prop until it won't fire any more. You will be very surprised at how much fuel remains in the engine after shutting it down by closing the throttle. What this residual fuel does is attack your bearings. The methanol will eventually evaporate, leaving a certain quantity of water. Castor oil will leave a protective film on the metal parts; the synthetic oil most assuredly does not, regardless of what claims may be made. I have been running Cool Power 15% all-synthetic fuel since 1991. Up until 1995, I ran it "straight", and had no problems. Then, on a routine tear-down, I noted some rust on the bearing cages in one of my heli engines. A quick look at my other engines showed various quantities of bearing rust. Not much, but enough to be concerned about. I began adding an ounce of pure Baker's AAAA castor to each gallon of Cool Power after that, and have not had any rust issues at all. Anyway, that's my .02. You will get all sorts of opinions. If you are running the Chinese engine that came with your P-51 PTS, it will probably wear out a rod or liner before any significant rust issues crop up. Reader's Digest version... all-synthetic fuel runs fine. You might have to tweak your mixture just a bit, though... .
Posted on: 8/17/2008 6:20 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7856349

RE: GP Patty Wagstaff - Building & Flying
[quote]ORIGINAL: Super08 Steve if you need any detail pics or anything during your build fire off a PM to me and I should be able to help out as I have alot of pictures of it on file. [/quote] Thanks; I might take you up on that. I do have a "reference book" I made, by printing out pertinent pages of this thread, etc. I definitely wanted a bigger model, but am stuck with these "
Posted on: 8/17/2008 9:21 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7854905

RE: GP Patty Wagstaff - Building & Flying
[quote]ORIGINAL: Bobby Folsom Hey Steve, it has been a long time! You will really like the plane as it flys well and will probably fit in your truck very nicely. Are you going to put a DA or DL 50 in it? Bobby [/quote] I finally got that H9 Extra "right", by virtue of putting Tobe's old Brison 3.2 in it. I heard not long ago that two guys bought Keith's BME engine operation
Posted on: 8/17/2008 9:14 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7854889

RE: Great Planes 27% Edge 540 ARF - build thread
[quote]ORIGINAL: masonman I'm sorta worried about the 27% 540. The reason being is wing area (1088sq) on an 78 inch wing span. I have the 27%Extra 260 H9. It has 1134sq on a 78 inch wing, an with a Fox 40cc engine at 15lb it can be a hand full. You have to land it a little on the hot side.To much elevator will make it jump right everytime. [/quote] Move your CG forward a bit. I have a Brison 3.2 on that airplane; every bit of 16 pounds (it was my first gasser- I knew nothing), yet she floats in very lady-like at a walking pace. It is one of the most "honest" models I've ever flown. All these aerobatic models have very powerful elevator response. If they're tail heavy, they can be quite "pitchy". .
Posted on: 8/16/2008 9:14 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7851842

RE: GP Patty Wagstaff - Building & Flying
Well, after looking at this model for almost two years, I finally got one today. There are two other projects ahead of it, but I've already begun plotting out the goodies I want/need for it. Looking forward to the "build"... .
Posted on: 8/15/2008 11:14 PM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7850939

RE: Engine For P51 Mustang PTS ARF
Jiver, I wanted to put a 52 Surpass four-banger in my grandson's P-51 PTS; but after looking at the options for a while, I decided the work needed to do it wasn't worth the effort. An inverted installation is definitely the way to go with a four stroke on this model, IMO. Some folks have good luck with these; not me. I've always needed to use on-board glow heat, at low throttle settings, to have any success with an inverted four stroke engine. Some have said that's because I run my engines too rich. Could be; it is what it is. Anyway, I settled on an old OS .46SF with a Pitts muffler. Any good .46-.50 or so two-stroke, or slightly larger displacement four stroke, is plenty of power for this model. The main problem I saw with a side-mount four stroke was the throttle linkage; I would have to get very creative there, due to the tank size and location. YMMV...[;)] .
Posted on: 8/15/2008 7:28 AM by Author "Steve Campbell" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7848099