RE: How to handle a difficult pilot!
I have tried to stay away from responding to the vitriole in this thread. Many posts earlier the OP said what he was going to do, and apparently walked away from this out of control thread. Kudos to him. Some posters here have tried to debate that being on public land, the OP had no authority to enforce rules. Although stated as fact, this is simply an assumption. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. He was going to work with the local authorities to ensure the responsiblity and authority of the club to enforce the safety rules at the field was clarified. More Kudos to him. An issue not discussed in any of the posts is that FCMG was promoting behavior that might be encouraging other people to not post their cards. This behavior could be seen as inviting people that did not have an AMA membership to take a chance and fly at the field without getting challenged. If everybody plays by the same rules, everybody expects to see an AMA card posted. Further, if everybody challenges those that don't post their card, they have a much better chance of ensuring they don't lose the field. I post this because there may be others having similar issues at publicly owned fields that have been entrusted to an AMA club. I know of several. I hope that those that are facing similar issues will be proactive with their local authorities to ensure their authority is clearly delineated in a land use agreement. Brad
Posted on: 11/17/2009 5:46 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9259657

RE: Rant about getting started
I have also had similar poor experiences with students. Typically a young student will be brought to the field by a parent or grandparent for an initial lesson. Trying to schedule subsequent lessons becomes next to impossible because they have camping trips, boy scouts, soccer practice, family vacations, etc. When things finally slow down around November, they wonder why they can't get training time scheduled. If you want to learn to fly, make the committment and get to the field when the instructor can make it. We have jobs that will take precedence. Pay attention, work with the instructor and a simulator together, and you should be flying in a few lessons. Brad
Posted on: 11/14/2009 8:31 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254074

RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
There are many reasons an airplane crashes, model or full scale. The full scale industry has a full process to go through for airframe certification, pilot certification, required inspections, etc. We as model flyers don't have the same level of rigor, and we have a correspondingly higher level of failure. Can those failures be anticipated and reduced? Yes. Are we willing to do the things that reduce those failures? There's the rub. I have experienced in-flight failures that could not have been anticipated or identified as part of the preflight inspection. That doesn't mean those failurs cannot be engineered out of the system. A failure that cannot be determined by inspection is known in the engineering world as a hidden failure. If the failure cannot be identified prior to failure, and the results of the failure are unacceptable, then it needs to be designed out of the system. Everyday we make choices about how we set up our planes. We decide if failure of the system is acceptable or unacceptable. The more you invest in the plane, the less likely you'll consider the failure acceptable. Do we put redundant batteries, switches, and recievers, along with power boxes, buffered inputs, etc, into the typical 40-120 sized planes? Yet those are exactly the things that will prevent a single point reciever or switch failure. Those items can and have failed in-flight. By not designing in the redundancy, we essentially decide that the consequence of failure is acceptable. For the GS flyers, these things are much more common, reflecting the greater investment. Now the argument will be made that if we select components with a very high reliability, then the failure is less likely. True, but the failure is still possible. The discussion at this point is one of risk. Risk is defined as the probablity of failure multiplied by the consequences of failure (probability x consequence). Since probability can never be 0, the only way to eliminate risk, is to eliminate the consequence. I think the article does a good job of starting the discussion, but there is a long way to go toward discussing each individual failure, and how the risk can be eliminated or reduced. Brad
Posted on: 11/1/2009 7:25 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9219562

RE: Plane power system for engineering project
Building as a Pizza Box flyer with a 34 inch square with a total weight of 5 lbs gets you into the 10 oz/sq ft wing loading area, which should be very managable. Keeping the wing loading that light can help you use as smaller power system. But control will be harder, as this style has very little inherent stability.
Posted on: 10/28/2009 1:07 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9208354

RE: FPV Problems
You cannot use it because it will cause interference - that is true. But what I was trying to point out is that we currently operate our radio control systems under Part 15 of the FCC regulations, which restricts what the manaufacturers can do, power output, etc. By meeting that requirement, we as the enduser do not require an FCC license to operate the systems. Integrating the video down link on the 2.4 ghz band will go beyond the current restrictions in that band, and would require the enduser to be licensed by the FCC. Consequently, manufacturers do not currently see a big market in that area. Now if the FCC amends part 15, then the door would be opened to permit integrating the video downlink into the 2.4 ghz control system, and eliminate the interference problem. There are 900 mhz systems and 5.8 ghz systems available for the video downlink, and those won't cause interference with the 2.4 ghz radio control, but don't expect to get one cheap. Brad
Posted on: 10/18/2009 4:58 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9183244

RE: FPV Problems
The issue isn't the manufacturers. Its the FCC Licensing requirements. Recognize that any of the systems being sold as aerial video systems are not actually licensed by the FCC as such. If you read the regulations, they're being sold under part 15 of the FCC regulations. There is probably a disclaimer somewhere in the package that the consumer is responsible for complying with the appropriate FCC regulations. These systems are really manufactured for use as home security systems and are being picked up by other sellers. What we really need is for someone to integrate the video downlink with the reciever into a fully duplexed transciever. Unfortunately, that system is going to be EXPENSIVE and no one will buy it, and it will require an FCC licensed technician or operator. Brad
Posted on: 10/17/2009 10:08 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9180136

RE: Who builds high quality ARFs
I have two ARFs in my hanger - a Fliton Edge 540 Freestyle and a new Pilot RC 30% Yak 54. From a quality standpoint, both planes are well constructed, although the Fliton took some reinforcing around the engine mount to handle a glow engine. In the long term I've been dissappointed with the covering. It looked great out of the box, but has proven somewhat fragile. The fiber glass landing gear are a real weak spot in this plane, and started delaminating after only a few flights. I love the plane - its very light, and flies extremely well. The Pilot RC Yak hasn't flown yet, but putting it together has been impressive. Its built for a 50CC gasser. Every bolt hole lined up well, the structure of the engine box and landing gear are strong. The instructions left a lot to be desired, but new instructions were recently published and downloaded. This plane is also built light, with a lot of 1/8" lite-ply, but I'm very optimistic of the flight characteristics based on other reports. Bottom line, if you're looking for quality ARFs, don't discount Fliton or Pilot RC. I purchased the Yak from Troy Built Models, and I think they have a pretty good line of quality ARFs. Remember, you get what you pay for. You either pay someone else well, or you spend a lot of elbow grease. Brad
Posted on: 10/17/2009 10:00 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9180125

RE: Question regarding dies
You're trying to cut threads. The typical threads on control rods are a rolled thread, which allows the maker to use a smaller diameter wire. The rolling process causes the threads to raise up to the proper diameter. Unless you're starting with the wire recommended by K&S, you'll not get a good result.
Posted on: 10/16/2009 11:20 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9177889

RE: Is there more to AMA than paying your money and flying your model airplane?
If you read the AMA rules carefully, you'll find that any AMA member can provide a one-time introductory flight to a non-AMA member using the AMA members equipment and a buddy box, and still be covered by the AMA insurance. In addition, a registered Introductory Pilot can also provide instruction and introductory flights to non-AMA members. Our club uses these provisions to provide demonstrations to Boy Scouts, Community Fairs, and open houses at the club. The best thing we can do to promote the hobby is give people a chance to try it, and we do. Brad
Posted on: 10/14/2009 9:49 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9174047

RE: ASP .46 rusty bearing
You'll hear lots of different opinions on ARO, but of the choices, I think WD-40 is probably one of the least desirable. I know people that won't even allow it in their shops because while it does displace water, it also can get gummy, and is liable to shorten the glowplug life. If you have access to Morgan Fuels (cool power, omega), they actually claim you don't need ARO, as the fuel has corrosion inhibitors already added. I use Omega exclusively, and don't bother with ARO. The only time I've had corrosion related failures was a used engine picked up on-line, or with an engine that was submerged in a lake several times. But to each his own. Brad
Posted on: 10/9/2009 10:26 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9158946

RE: ASP .46 rusty bearing
Based on the picture, there is nothing wrong with the rear bearing. Exhaust from internal combustion engines is by its very nature acidic. Put that in a hot environment and there will be some corrosion. What I see in the picture is a combination of corrosion and varnish from the oil. If you look at the balls and the retainer, there doesn't appear to be any corrosion there. If the engine feels smooth when it turns, don't worry about it. And stop taking your engines apart if there's no reason for it. You're just introducing opportunities to break things. Indicators I've seen of bearings going bad include a grinding feel when hand cranking, high pitched squeal, and immediate glow plug failure of a brand new plug. If you're not experiencing any of these conditions, you're good to go. Brad
Posted on: 10/9/2009 7:40 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9158659

RE: AMA and what does it do for you??
[quote]ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy BK- You say that one has to be in AMA or start another organization to promote the hobby. [/quote] Read it again. I did not say that one[b] has [/b]to be in AMA or start another organization to promote the hobby. If an individual wants to promote the hobby, how they do it is their own business. A group is usually more effective than the sum if the individuals. The bigger the group, the greater the overall effort will be. I personally think I can do it better with the AMA than without. And I think the dues provided to the AMA accomplish that task more effectively than if I try to do it alone. Brad
Posted on: 10/7/2009 2:45 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9154207

RE: AMA and what does it do for you??
I think the question being asked is wrong. To paraphrase, ask not what the AMA can do for you, ask rather what you can do for the AMA? In other words, perhaps we should be thinking of our dues as a means of contributing to the overall promotion of model aviaion. What the AMA does for me is provide a structure wherein I can act personally to promote model aviation. I'm the president of my local club, we maintain two adequate flying sites, have 4 registered AMA Introductory Pilots, provide flight demonstrations to community groups and fairs (Boy Scouts, Summer Camps), provide free flight lessons, and have fun. If you don't want to promote model aviation, then don't bother sending $ to the AMA. If you do want to promote model aviation, either use the AMA or start a group to compete with the AMA that does a better job. I'm satisfied with the AMA, but that's just my opinion Its unlikely my opinion will sway anyone elses opinion. Brad
Posted on: 10/7/2009 9:55 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9153548

RE: Membership Numbers 2009 closeout, ETC>
I hope that by deciding to join a local club, you will recognize that club membership confers more than just a good place to safely fly. The real benefit is in the social aspect of this hobby. The guys I fly with on a regular basis are my best friends. Its nice to be able to go out to the field, hang out for a couple of hours, do some flying, share some stories, and get ideas for my next project. I travel a lot for my job. Since joining the AMA several years ago, I take my AMA card with me when I travel. If I can drive, I take a plane. In my spare time, I'll seek out the local flying field. I have never been to a site where at least one person didn't offer me a chance to either fly their plane, or let me fly my plane if I had it. I have met some of the friendliest people, and always had a great time. I truly feel sorry for those that do this as strictly a solo activity. They're missing out on a lot. And for the record, you'll spend less money buying a cheap $200 trainer and getting instruction than you will crashing all the time. Been there, done that. Brad
Posted on: 10/3/2009 8:32 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9143080

RE: AMA competitor launches! Sportfliers.com $20 per year
Based on what I've researched on Google, AM Best, the Nevada Corporate agency, and replies from the company posted here, I think what we have is a person who thought they could make a quick buck for minimal investment. They're probably acting as a sales agent for Capitol Insurance Group of Nevada, which is actually does exist and have an AM Best Rating of A. Lance Kerness is just a guy making money helping people set up front corporations in Nevada (you hear the ads on the radio all the time). Having said that, based on the poor information available on the website, the person forming this website is probably at best a very poorly educated business man, with no real experience with the insurance industry. He's probably negotiated a group liability rate with Capitol Insurance Group, and is now trying to get people to buy into it. I'd be willing to bet that anyone that's truly interested in primary liability other than their Homeowners Policy could find a similar general liability, or even a specific liability policy for similar rates and scrap the AMA. They don't need to work though a questionably qualified sales agent in Nevada to do it. I'd bet your current insurance provider would be more than willing to help you out, and provide a good discount depending on your history with them. And as far as insurance goes, an A rating isn't that great, especially when you're looking for protection of your most important assets. Its to bad Billy Mays died. He could probably pitch this on late night TV! Maybe I'll just spend the $20 on a Jupiter Jack. Brad
Posted on: 10/3/2009 8:17 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9143061

RE: AMA competitor launches! Sportfliers.com $20 per year
Doing a google search for "Capital Ins Co" finds no direct match. There is a Capit[b]o[/b]l Insurance Group, and several other variations. Doing another search including the Best Rating portion of the statement finds a PMA Capital Insurace with a Best Rating of C++ in 2008, downgraded from a B. Checked http://www.ambest.com/ and could not find any rated or non-rated companies named Capital Insurance Company, Capital Ins co, Capitol Insurance Company, Capitol Ins co. Still not sounding legit. Brad
Posted on: 10/2/2009 8:14 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9140735

RE: I'm Dumping The AMA To Save $38 A Year
Even if this new company proves to be legit, and there's a lot of missing information before I can conclude that, its only and insurance provider. AMA does a lot more than that, despite the feelings often expressed in this forum. A national structure for safety rules, comptetion, open access to many clubs on a guest flyer basis, representation of the community to federal, state, and local agencies, a quality magazine, primary insurance for club officers and field owners, representation selected by election, support for training programs and field improvements through grants, scholarships, all designed to promote the hobby. Brad
Posted on: 9/30/2009 2:58 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9136256

RE: Question of ethics . . . needle valve tool
From my perspective, I'd rather have a short needle valve to adjust that is angled slightly back from the prop. No need for long extensions. Long extensions just get your hand out toward the outside of the prop, where the blade speed is much higher. Closer to the center, lower velocity, fatter curve on the prop, less hazard. Check it at the beginning of the day, and good to go. You can make it complicated and add additional parts, but sometimes its better to just keep it as simple as possible. Brad
Posted on: 9/24/2009 9:29 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9121632

RE: Problems starting my OS 46 LA
That engine should easily idle between 2500 and 3000 rpm. With the engine running at wide open throttle, lean it out to the peak and then richen it up 300-500 rpm. Now bring down the idle and adjust your throttle trim to bring it as low as you can. The low end is set a little rich from the factory, so you might want to make a small adjustment to the airbleed screw, but not before you've checked your throttle transition. The manual for the LA explains exactly how to check it. Once you have the high speed and low speed set, these engines are nearly bulletproof, and are easily started. As you've already discovered, they tend to like to be a little "wet" to start.
Posted on: 9/9/2009 5:54 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9082261

RE: Safety Reminder (WARNING-GRAPHIC)
Props is Props when it comes to safety. It is important that beginners be taught safe handling procedures from Day 1. I continually emphasize this to my students, as well as experienced club members. It is important to establish a routine, and stick to it. The most important part of the routine for me is - have the plane restrained, and once the engine is running (or capable of running for electrics) everything is done from BEHIND the plane. I had a student this weekend start to reach over the prop to remove the glow starter, and we spent several minutes discussing why that's unacceptable. Brad
Posted on: 9/8/2009 12:32 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9078779

RE: Engine noise level questions
Noise and perception of noise are two different things. The low frequency at high sound pressure levels (db) is much less offensive to the human ear for some reason. Its also less damaging, but thats another discussion. 94 db is VERY loud, and in an industrial setting requires good hearing protection. You cannot hold a conversation in an area that loud. So a good rule of thumb is if you can stand 9 feet away and still talk to someone standing next to you, you're probably well below that level. Also note that db IS NOT a linear scale, its a log scale. So every 3 db is a DOUBLING of the noise. We have a 90 db at 9ft limit which has been very easy for us to meet with stock mufflers. We have at least 1 160 two stroke that might be pushing the limit. Most of the guys flying the larger engines prefer the four strokes, which can be VERY quiet. I have a Magnum 91 FSR that I can barely hear running if there's anybody else flying at the same time. I also have a Thunder Tiger GP 61 that has no problem meeting the noise specs (If I recall it was around 85 db at 9 feet at full throttle with a 12x6 APC prop. The only engine we ever rejected was an old 46 two stroke that had an old strap on muffler (really nothing more than a pipe). Muffler designs have improved greatly. We have one pilot with a 42%, a DA-150 cc and a Cannister muffler thats quieter than than most of the 46 size two strokes! There are charts available that show tip speed, and they're broken into zones for noise. You want to stay below mach .7 on the tip speed to reduce blade noise. You can use shorter, higher pitch props, or as others have said, use three bladed props. Good Luck. Brad
Posted on: 8/13/2009 6:30 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9012738

RE: weight VS stability
My apologies if my comment seemed harsh, but being the beginners forum, it is important that incorrect information be identified. Many people, particularly beginners, misunderstand that the CG ranges provided by the manufacturers are not between tail-heavy and nose heavy. Most manufacturers recommendations tend to have the aftermost CG recommendation very close to neutral. A tail heavy plane will be aerodynamically unstable. A neutrally balanced plane will be sensitive, but for the most part stable. As the CG moves forward, stability increases, but elevator sensitivity is reduced. Now you will hear that 3D flyers like their planes to be slightly tail heavy. This is somewhat true, but one has to recognize the true relationship between the aerodynamic center of lift and the angle of incidence. the AC will, in fact, move backward on the wing as the angle of attack increases, causing the plane to enter a more stable aerodynamic condition as the AOA increases, which is why a certain degree of "tail heavy" can be tolerated for high alpha flight. A "tail heavy" plane will be easier to hover, but its going to take a greater degree of skill than most beginners to get it in the air and trimmed out. If the AC does not move far enough for the plane to enter the stable condition before transitioning into the hovering condition, it will try to flip around backward into the wind. A plane so balanced will be extremely sensitive, if not unstable, at higher speeds. Brad
Posted on: 8/11/2009 9:09 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9007194

RE: weight VS stability
[quote]ORIGINAL: Korps I have found that a CG which is aft - tends to make the plane floaty and it just wants to fly on a landing. A plane which is more nose heavy will tend, apart from making it land faster, but will make it easier to get the plane down won't it? [/quote] Sorry, but this is probably the worst description and reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between CG and the handling characteristics. A plane that is truly neutrally balanced (not a CG that is aft) will not normally drop the nose when it stalls. Depending on the lateral balance, the similarity of the wings on both sides, and the torque from the motor, when the wing stalls, the plane will tend to drop a wing and enter a spin. This is the "floaty" behavior described above. The stall is quick to occur, and why many people have difficulty learning to land an aerobatic plane. A nose heavy plane WILL drop the nose. This behavior requires using the elevator to compensate. As the plane slows down, the elevator becomes less effective, requiring more up elevator to keep the plane level. It is possible that the plane will not have enough airspeed to keep the nose level, which causes the nose to drop, and then air speed increases until the plane reaches an equilibrium, or hits the ground. This is why nose heavy planes must land faster. It is not easier to get them on the ground. If any plane won't descend with the engine at idle, wings level and nose level, then the idle speed is way too high. This can be addressed by lowing the engine idle, or trying a lower pitched prop. To land the plane, the lift produced by the wings must be less than the weight of the plane. Once the engine idle is low enough, its simply a matter of using the elevator to reduce the airspeed (up elevator will slow the plane down) and allow the plane to sink onto the runway. Some people do this just before touchdown (the flair) and others set the plane in that attitude during the approach. Personnally, I think the flare is more difficult. I teach my students the mantra "Wings level, Nose Up" on approach. Brad
Posted on: 8/11/2009 6:35 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9007032

RE: How do you Turn Off an Airbleed Engine
Pinching the fuel line at idle is perfectly fine. Running a little lean at that low RPM will have no effect on the engine. If I recall, that engine has a throttle stop screw. You'll want to make sure the throttle stop screw is allowing the throttle barrel to close sufficiently to cover the air-bleed hole (which is in front of the carb inlet). Brad
Posted on: 8/11/2009 6:18 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9007018

Battery Sharing/Voltage Regulation
I'm making my first venture into Giant Scale with a 30% Pilot RC Yak 54. The plane will have 5 HD-9150 Servos and one standard servo (probably HS-425). I'm expecting in the neighbor hood of 3-5 amps required to power everything. Looking at the electronics, I want a highly reliable power source, which means two LiPo batteries. Since the voltage is over the normal 6 volts rated for my reciever, as well as the ignition voltage for the DLE-55, I'm planning on a 6 volt voltage regulator that will power everything. I'm going to build the setup myself, since it only requires a few inexpensive electronic parts. The plan is to run each battery through a MBR1045 Rectifier Diode (rated at 10 amps). The Diodes will ensure the batteries discharge equally. Then I'll use an LM7806 and and MJE2955 Power Transistor to provide a 6v 10amp regulated power for the reciever and the ignition. Has anyone ever tried something similar? My concern is the high cost of the voltage regulators available commercially. Using this system I can provide redundant batteries and regulators for a small fraction of the cost. Is there something else I'm missing? Brad
Posted on: 8/10/2009 3:46 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9005368

RE: DL55 Sound Levels
Much better pricing. Thanks Rich. Any actual performance data on the MT-C-65 set? Brad
Posted on: 8/6/2009 9:08 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8996191

RE: DL55 Sound Levels
I've been looking at those designs, but trying to find the metal bottles is not easy, and I don't have a brazing or welding rig. Brad
Posted on: 8/6/2009 2:56 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8995299

RE: DL55 Sound Levels
So looks like I'll be going with the canister. Can someone explain to me why a few ounce of stainless steel and a couple of welds cost $200?? Thanks, Brad
Posted on: 8/6/2009 2:43 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8995259

RE: DL55 Sound Levels
101 at what distance? 9 feet? or was it closer? Brad
Posted on: 8/6/2009 12:40 PM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8994967

DL55 Sound Levels
I'm working on identifying my next setup. Currently planning a Pilot RC Yak 54 (30%) and I want to use a DL55 as the powerplant. the fuselage is preconstructed for a cannister. This is my first gasser, and before I spent $200 on the cannister, I was wondering if anyone knows the typical sound levels with the stock muffler on the DL55. Our field has a 90db@9 feet rule, and if I can stay below that with the stock muffler, I wouldn't mind saving the $. Brad
Posted on: 8/6/2009 10:58 AM by Author "bkdavy" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8994682