RE: Is it hard to go mode 1 from mode 2?
[quote]ORIGINAL: planeirish  How difficult would it be to go from flying mode 2 to mode 1? Has anyone ever done it, and if so is there a large learning curve involved? Any input from someone who has done this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! [/quote] I fly both mode 1 and 2 though mode 1 is my primary mode for airplanes. Some years ago when I was a very active pylon racer, I had a partner who flew mode 2. We decided for several reasons but mostly so we could share spare equipment, he would learn to fly mode 1. He was 50 at the time and picked up the mode change quite easily. In the process of changing, he became a much better flyer. Move forward 20 years to the mid 90's and I decided to fly helis. Any available help was for mode 2 so I learned mode 2 and still fly helis on that mode. I have never been quite as comfortable on mode 2 as I am on mode 1 but couldn't imaging flying helis on mode 1, though I know this is common in some parts of the world. In short, get some help or get a good sim and it shouldn't be a problem changing modes. Quick question ....... why are you considering this change? Each mode has its advantages and disadvantages. Just curious what your reasons are.
Posted on: 5/21/2013 1:49 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11518515

RE: New Zenoah GT-80 misfire
And the standard question, are the needles set properly?
Posted on: 5/17/2013 1:37 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11514515

RE: Two Stroke Oils
[quote]ORIGINAL: Indiomike I'm curious if anyone knows. Does Stihl make their own oil or do they buy it from some major oil company and then rebrand it as their own. I'm not dissing Stihl as I use their Ultra at 40:1 in my engines once broken in. Perhaps they buy a base oil from a major supplier and then add whatever ingredients that they think is best. I think I read somewhere that Stihl oil is produced by Castrol. I do know that just because you read it somewhere (especially on the internet) doesn't make it true. [/quote] I don't know if this is true or not ....... On other forums (Chainsaw and Lawn Equip.), it has been stated that Stihl oil is packaged by at least two different companies depending on where in the world it is marketed. A published photo of a bottle of Stihl Ultra even had the Castrol logo on it. I guess the photo could have been edited but I doubt it. None of the bottles I have seen personally had the logo. I would find it very hard to believe that Stihl actually produces or even packages any of their oils. Why should they if they can get it produced and packaged to their specs.
Posted on: 5/16/2013 2:37 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11513515

RE: Radio Interference at our field
dirtybird, I have to plead ignorance regarding the bandwidth (resolution) of the spectrum analyzer I used. I simply don't remember and no longer have access to it for verification. I certainly don't remember how I had it set at the time. Regarding the sensitivity of commercial spread spectrum (and non- spread spectrum) equipment, that varies widely depending on the mfgr. of the equipment, the modulation scheme in use (often propriatory) and in some cases the throughput of the system. As systems have evolved to very high bandwidth (throughput) the receive sensitivities have gone up considerably with a minimum signal of -75 not being uncommon for max performance. I assumed the ag system was some kind of mesh system as there appeared to be multiple antenna locations in the field. This would account for what appeared to be a completely blanketed signal as they were probably on different segments of the band. I'm sure had I increased the resolution on the analyzer, it would have shown the gaps between the various transmitters. But for our purposes here, the signal was virtually solid across the band. I have no idea what the sensitivity of our RC receivers is as I have never seen these specs. published.
Posted on: 5/16/2013 12:23 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11513406

RE: Radio Interference at our field
[quote]ORIGINAL: DadsToysBG I think that the company blanking out 2.4 would be braking the law and the FCC would be interested. that may be why you've never seen it again. [/quote] Actually after spending most of my working life in the communications industry and working with microwave extensively, I'm pretty sure the equipment in use was in fact quite legal. In the unlicensed 2.4 band, there are regulations on effective radiated power (ERP) but few if any regulations on how much, or even if all of that spectrum can be occupied by one user. Further regulations clearly state that a user can't willingly cause interference to another but that a user has to accept (and usually work around) interference he may encounter. As a result, a sort of gentleman's agreement exists in the industry. If I wanted to install a new, 2.4 GHz. unlicensed microwave link in an area I would do spectrum analysis in the area, look for existing antennas, etc. As a result, I would try to use a frequency range that didn't interfere with another user. In most cases today with so many users on 2.4, I would probably recommend a completely different frequency range or perhaps a licensed system. How could this relate to the RC world? Well we are occasional and portable users of the spectrum. Likewise the ag company would be the same. Clearly they can do more damage to us than we could to them but they may set up their equipment when no RC activity is going on. Further they may have no knowledge we are on the same frequencies. It would be up to the RC club to visit with the ag company, determine the few days out of the year when their equipment would be in use and perhaps just not fly on those days. That would be the easiest resolution. They are using the 2.4 frequencies for the same reasons we are .... cheap, reliable, available without special license, etc. Working in a rural setting, they would very rarely interfere with other users.... unless they would happen to neighbor that very rare RC field. Another mile or so away from the RC field and they would probably be no problem at all. I repeat so as not be an alarmist .... our 2.4 GHz. equipment is very robust and reliable. In the very rare case that interference would ever be encountered, investigate it and try to come to a resolution with the other user.
Posted on: 5/16/2013 9:50 AM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11513264

RE: Radio Interference at our field
[quote]ORIGINAL: dirtybird [quote]ORIGINAL: DadsToysBG I agree, but the problem Truck found is still the first provable problem I have seen. Just like the OP. most are ''I heard'' comments never ''me''. And I did say most not all [/quote] Yes its probably the only actual 2.4 interference case. Spread spectrum was developed to reject jammers which is nothing more than man made interference. It proves that if you wipe out the entire band you can interfere with it. I sure would like to know what that AG company was using to wipe out the band. It had to develop a lot of power. [/quote] dirtybird, I have wanted to investigate the equipment the ag company was using but have never got around to doing it. I had heard of the same problem completely wiping out any WiFi or commercial spread spectrum operation in other areas so suspected this was the problem when it was reported to me .... but everyone wants to blame the "Cell towers". As a point of reference, when there was a gap between frequencies on the spectrum analyzer ..... and the gaps were rare, the noise floor was about a -60 or even a bit higher (meaning stronger for those who don't understand signal levels). The signals had the appearance of some kind of WiFi related signal, actually several of them all working at the same time, adjacent to each other and with a lot of thruput. WiFi signals are bursty by nature but these signals were fairly well saturated. Much easier to describe if you could see the scope. While I saw this happen, I certainly don't worry about interference on 2.4 when I'm flying. Most flying fields are somewhat remote by nature and distance from an offending signal is our best defense from interference if it would exist. But if the offender is on the ground right under your flight path, the results might not be pretty. Overall, the RF link on our systems is very robust and thats all most of us really need to know about them. Yes, they can be interfered with but its not likely under normal conditions. As others have said, a loose plug cap or a sloppy installation will crash far more planes than any interference source.
Posted on: 5/15/2013 6:49 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11512687

RE: O.S. 60GT
Strange how they have migrated towards the more conventional gasser layout with a separate plated cylinder and rear intake. Even the cylinder fin spacing is more typical of gas engines. I suspect the intake port layout w/o boost port won't be a problem if the ports are well done. This should be a much cheaper engine for them to produce and it wouldn't surprise me if the cylinder actually comes out of China!
Posted on: 9/16/2012 10:27 AM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11230059

RE: engine sugestion for 110
[quote]ORIGINAL: nextofkin I have a 110'' wing span Cub, it weights 18 lb. right not it has a 26cc Homelite in it but you have to fly it wide open. It looks like it is struggling until it picks up a little speed witch is not much. What would be a good gas engine in cc? I have a 30cc, a 38cc, and a 40cc to pick from but am leaning to the 40cc. Thanks nextofkin [/quote] Its not such a matter of the size of the engine you use but the performance level of the engine. A strong 26 - 30 cc engine (such as a Zenoah 26 or DLE 30) should jerk an 18 pound CUB around like a rag doll .... not 3D performance by any means, but very good performance that is much stronger than what would be considered scale. Your Homelite must be lacking in performance for its size so I would suggest running the remaining engines you have and use the strongest one that still fits in the cowl without adding unnecessary weight.
Posted on: 9/12/2012 7:32 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11226782

RE: Dual Switch
[quote]ORIGINAL: K-Bob Unless they have improved their design, miracles switches (the bling ones) are neither reliable or durable. [/quote] Agree 100% with K-bob ..... I don't recommend the miracle switches! They are low reliability, pressure contact toggle switches and the wires are poorly supported and prone to break solder connections ..... unless they redesigned them.
Posted on: 9/11/2012 5:40 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11225566

RE: O.S. announces the new GT22 Gasoline Engine !
My main complaint about the OS gassers is their incredibly high parts prices.
Posted on: 9/11/2012 10:55 AM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11225178

RE: DLE Long term reliability ?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Kelly Models I've had several DLE engines. A few 55's and a 111 in my 35% Carden Cap. Both have had connecting rod bearing failure. The latest was in the 111. It's been running on Red Line oil 40:1 for two years and was running strong with a 27B Vess prop. I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced this problem. I'm hesitant to rebuild it if it's only going to fail again. Valley View RC has told me my engine is one of the early versions and some parts have been changed. [/quote] I can't speak for other people's engines but my (3) DLE engines are so far as reliable as any engines I have owned. They may fail tomorrow and I certainly can't predict that! The DLE-55 compared to my DA-50, with about the same amount of run time, my DA had been sent in once and they replaced the crank and bearings. So far my DLE 55 runs great and shows no signs of wear, fatigue or failure of any kind. Add to that it runs better than my DA ever did and frankly, I really enjoyed that DA until I got the DLE which has more power and smoother running characteristics throughout the whole throttle range. Now as far as rebuild costs .... even if the DLE was crap, it is cheap to rebuild. If a guy gets just two strong seasons out of the engine and rebuilds it just because he thinks it needs it, it is still a cheaper powerplant to own and operate than the high priced engines. I'll keep mine until proven otherwise.
Posted on: 9/9/2012 7:04 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11223225

RE: Engine suggestion for 1/4 Cub
Thanks SunDevil, Very nice, neat installation!
Posted on: 9/8/2012 12:04 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11221913

RE: Engine suggestion for 1/4 Cub
SunDevilPilot, I don't want to hijack the OP's thread but I do have a couple of questions regarding your electric CUB. Where do you mount the batteries and how do you get them in and out between flights. Photo's would be appreciated if you have them. Also, what cowl did you use for your Super Cub conversions ... I know there are several available. How about all up weight? Back to the gas version, I can't disagree with anyones recommendation for any of the Zenoah's. The 20, 23 or 26 would all be a good choice. As far as power goes, one of our local guys has the SIG CUB with a DLE20 and it has plenty of power .... flies with authority. I still like my 30 though!
Posted on: 9/8/2012 10:36 AM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11221829

RE: Warbird for Da100
It takes a pretty large plane (cowl) to clear an engine that is over 11" plug to plug.
Posted on: 9/7/2012 6:02 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11221239

RE: Engine suggestion for 1/4 Cub
[quote]ORIGINAL: s3nfo Contemplating the same thing right now for my BUSA 1/4 scale L-4. Last weekend I got to fly both a DLE 30 powered 1/4 scale Cub and a Zenoah 23 powered 1/4 scale Cub (Thanks Tom and Paul). The DLE 30 powered Cub flys way too fast and even at half throttle has so much air moving over the tail surfaces that it flits around and looks very un-scale, even unnatural. The Zenoah powered Cub flew very scale and was not lacking for power. I'm going with a DLE 20 in my L-4, but may break down and put a Bowman ring in it before I install it. [/quote] If you prop the 30 with something like a 19-6, you can fly very scale like ... the main thing is keeping the pitch low. Yes, there is plenty of power on reserve though! While I use a 19-8 on a 30 in a small YAK, I don't care for that prop at all on the CUB. I prefer the DLE 30 over the DLE 20 simply for the way the 30 runs and mounts compared to the 20. I am considering a Mintor 22 in a smaller Great Planes CUB though. Just no great fan of the DLE 20 here.
Posted on: 9/7/2012 12:24 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11220914

RE: Engine suggestion for 1/4 Cub
I like the DLE30 with a wrap around Pitts muffler in a CUB and fly one regularly. Yes, you will probably have to move the firewall back some as the SIG 1/4 CUB is becoming a dated design and needs the firewall moved anyway! They sure fly well though! You could also use a 20 or 22 size engine (DLE or otherwise) but I lean towards the 30 as I prefer the standoff mounting over the beam mounting on the smaller engines.
Posted on: 9/6/2012 9:47 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11220338

RE: IMAX B6 confusing me, I need to measure amps
OK, lets try this. Recharge the battery @ 1.8A .... even if you just charged it. If fully charged, the charger will quickly turn off. Then reconfigure the charger to LiPo, 3.0V / cell discharge mode .....not cycle mode! The 2.0 A discharge current is OK for this test. Discharge the battery and record the reading on the charger when the discharge cycle terminates. It would be very handy if you had a voltmeter to confirm the charger readings during this test. After completing the discharge, reconfigure the charger back to normal LiPo charge mode at the 1.8A rate. Note the MAh reading when the charge completes. The discharge / charge readings should be fairly close to each other and should indicate the battery capacity. If the reading is low I would suspect the following ..... a bad battery, an improperly calibrated charger voltmeter, or ... improper discharge current reading. As stated earlier, the clock will almost always be accurate. The voltage and current can be checked with a quality DVM but be sure the meter has a high current scale capable of at least a 10A reading or the meter insertion loss will make the readings meaningless. If you suspect the battery, try the test again with another known good battery.
Posted on: 9/6/2012 8:42 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Batteries & Chargers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11220288

RE: IMAX B6 confusing me, I need to measure amps
[quote]ORIGINAL: Scota4570 Really??? I paid for a 1800 MAH battery. I fully charged it. I discharged it down to the low voltage limit, 9V. I then fully charged it. The charger says that the battery has a capacity of 726 MAH That is only slightly more than an old NiCD AA. Really????????? [/quote] Maybe I can help here .... one question at a time. Given a fully charged battery, did you put the charger in the "discharge" mode? If so, did you record the capacity reading after that discharge cycle? A 2A discharge rate if just fine for this test. Then, did you change the mode of the charger to "LiPo" charge? If so @ what charge rate and is this when you get the 726 MAH reading?
Posted on: 9/6/2012 7:49 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Batteries & Chargers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11220236

RE: looking for a metal double servo arm for futaba bls172
Yes, as mentioned Futaba makes some fairly HD metal servo arms that I have used on several occasions. Such as .... http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXFVJ9&P=7 Of course there is always the clamp on SWB arms that can be cut down or redrilled for smaller applications.
Posted on: 9/5/2012 10:07 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11219122

RE: Gas Engine interference
Twisting looks nice! I guess that is a purpose.
Posted on: 9/5/2012 2:56 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218658

RE: Gas Engine interference
Good post Speedracer! I was thinking it but was too lazy to type it! I have seen individual servos be affected by ignition noise in the past. In some cases just moving your hand around the plane while it was running would make the interference come and go. And before I get the lecture from someone, yes I know 2.4 GHz. isn't supposed to get interference and I agree it won't from the antenna port. But ignition noise can sure get into the decoder and other slow speed electronics through the back door ..... servo and battery ports. I would suspect even some servos would be affected directly. If it were mine, I'd still replace the ignition even if it didn't produce interference. The engine will run better and total $ spent will probably be less than what the value of the time and $$ spent will be jacking around with a substandard ignition.
Posted on: 9/4/2012 8:51 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11217826

RE: Gas Engine interference
Its not unusual at all for ignition noise to just affect one function. The problem could certainly be mechanical in nature though.
Posted on: 9/4/2012 11:42 AM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11217164

RE: Gas Engine interference
I wouldn't worry so much that you only have the problem on the ailerons as much as the fact that you have the problem at all. Mechanical problems and connections aside ( I'll assume they have been checked) I suspect the Ridge ignition and especially that coupled with the Rcexl opto-kill as the source of the problem. As others have said, try removing the kill switch and see if there is a change. From there, I'd replace the Ridge ignition in a heartbeat ... the engine will run better anyway as you'll gain an advance curve in the process. You'll have more power and a smoother idle! Of course I assume the obvious things have been checked such as a resistor plug is being used? Any shielding and grounds are connected properly, etc.
Posted on: 9/4/2012 11:40 AM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11217160

RE: Throttle Spring vs Servo Current
[quote]ORIGINAL: acerc That may be, but what returns the throttle to idle. I think the principal is still the same, no? [/quote] You are 100% correct my friend .... you feel the throttle spring when you pull on the trigger. I think one of my very old Mac's has an additional spring but I'd have to look for sure.
Posted on: 9/2/2012 7:09 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11215081

RE: Throttle Spring vs Servo Current
[quote]ORIGINAL: acerc Yes I use push rod's, that was my point. The gas carb's were not designed for push rod's, cable pull-spring return. [/quote] Ace, you know most of the time I agree with you but not this time .... every chain saw I have ever owned in the last many years has had a solid pushrod link between the trigger throttle and the carb. Not unlike our RC throttles actually. They use as cheap and simple of a linkage as possible... even on some of the more expensive ones such as Stihl, etc. Now weed whackers are another matter and mine have a small cable arrangement.
Posted on: 9/2/2012 6:51 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11215058

RE: Throttle Spring vs Servo Current
[quote]ORIGINAL: airraptor Guys like to argue on here. i will always cut my spring from the arm unless the instruction included with the engine say not to. Why put a big strong servo to operate the throttle and spring lol to me that is just plain going against the grain per say. its not needed so i am cutting it. Do as you wish. [/quote] I agree, everyone should do as they wish regarding the spring. But, the whole point of this thread and the chart is to point out that "a big strong servo" is not needed to overcome the spring pressure. Any standard sized servo has more than enough torque to overcome the spring and not be worked even a small portion of what it is capable of. Many will choose a stronger servo or one with more precision and that is understandable given the many styles of flight. The whole point here is be informed and make a decision based on real information and not just the old wives tales that are so prevalent in our RC hobby! But given that, I do not disagree with anyone's choice regarding the spring thing ....it is their airplane.
Posted on: 9/2/2012 6:46 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11215054

RE: Throttle Spring vs Servo Current
[quote]ORIGINAL: OliverJacob Interesting to know how little the difference really is. Do we have to thank Obama for that now? [/quote] Thanking Obama is optional. I'm sure he will do a good enough job thanking himself.
Posted on: 9/2/2012 8:42 AM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11214440

RE: Throttle Spring vs Servo Current
[quote]ORIGINAL: dirtybird A servo at rest should draw only the current required to run its electronics. There is no voltage sent to the motor. A spring on the throttle is probably light enough load that it will not overcome the friction in the servo gears so the servo does not send any voltage to its motor. I just wonder why that spring is so important to argue about. [/quote] No argument from me, just observation due to curiosity. The spring on the larger carbs is fairly large and strong so it certainly creates work for the servo. The readings show the servos easily overcome this load though. Regarding no voltage being sent to the motor while the servo is at rest with a load in place, only the Hitec 7985 drops back to idle current from time to time, the others all had a fairly constant current draw under load.
Posted on: 9/2/2012 8:41 AM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11214438

RE: Throttle Spring vs Servo Current
I'm not sure how the 1258 gear play compares to the JR 8611a but it is on par with some other JR servos I've owned. I would be curious how your new 1258's are. I've heard they have improved and if so, I will send mine back for gear replacement. I'd call mine borderline excessive. I have every confidence they will resolve the problem though.
Posted on: 9/1/2012 8:25 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11214061

RE: Throttle Spring vs Servo Current
[quote]ORIGINAL: speedracerntrixie Great info. I wonder why the Savox servo took more current. It's funny, here we are looking into how much power it takes to operate a throttle while a different thread has guys telling someone that Futaba 148 servos will work on his 1/3 scale Weeks Special. Only on RCU  LOL [/quote] Wow, regarding the 148s. OK in their day but certainly not for that application. I'm not sure why the Savox servo drew more current than the others other then it just seems very active. Seems to be working all the time even without a load connected..... very tight deadband. Any small load resulted in quite a bit of current draw. Seems like a very good servo though so it must just be its nature. A bit more gear play than I would prefer though.
Posted on: 9/1/2012 7:34 PM by Author "Truckracer" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11214012