RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
The candy over pearl looks great! Bob
Posted on: 8/14/2009 11:52 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9017499

RE: AeroFly Pro Deluxe Platinum for Mac OS?
Another quick review.. I got the "upgrade" from the Windows version, ordered direct from Germany, since I could not find any other source for the upgrade. It arrived in about a week. No problem installing or running, I just had to find all the old TX adapter cables that had gotten separated from the USB interface unit (which is also the "copy protection"). I am running it on a couple year old Mac Book Pro 17, 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo, 3 Gb RAM, Radeon X1600 graphics with 256 MB Vram, generally connected to an external 1920 x1200 pixel 28" monitor. It looks really good, and no problems with speed unless I have a lot of other apps open at the same time. I also downloaded a bunch of other models from RCsim.de Almost all of them worked, but I had to use Windows to "install" some of the ones that came as .exe installer files, then copy the files over to the Mac side. My one gripe is that it would be nice if the license let me install it on both my laptop and desktop machines... after all, it wont run without the hardware USB interface. Bob
Posted on: 7/15/2009 2:22 AM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "Ikarus AeroFly Pro and Aerofly Pro Deluxe"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8934727

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
I flew in the Collings B-17 a few years ago. Well worth it. its not the P-51, but its a LOT cheaper. Too bad they didnt have their B-25 on the west coast this year. I wanted to fly in it the last couple years, but was always out of town when they were here. Bob
Posted on: 6/10/2009 4:09 AM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8840476

RE: AeroFly Pro Deluxe Platinum for Mac OS?
[quote]ORIGINAL: rajul Bob, the addons that you have are not mac os x compatible [/quote] So, are you also saying that all the third party model files available will not work on the mac version? Those are DATA not programming, so there should be no reason they could not follow the same file formats in the two versions. And if other model files can work with both, why not the add ons? Bob
Posted on: 3/11/2009 12:56 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "Ikarus AeroFly Pro and Aerofly Pro Deluxe"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8566897

RE: AeroFly Pro Deluxe Platinum for Mac OS?
[quote]ORIGINAL: rajul Platinum edition just means, addons 1 to 5 are included in the afpd version. [/quote] I really want the mac version. For a long time now I have had windows, either as a separate computer or as Boot Camp on Intel Mac, mainly so I could run flight sims. OTOH, the Platinum bundle means that to get the Mac version I have to buy a lot of models I already paid for. Bob
Posted on: 3/11/2009 11:20 AM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "Ikarus AeroFly Pro and Aerofly Pro Deluxe"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8566591

AeroFly Pro Deluxe Platinum for Mac OS?
I just noticed that Ikarus announced a Macintosh version of AeroFly Pro at the Nuremburg last month. Will Hobby Lobby be carrying that here in the US? Also, I already have AFPD, plus a couple of the add ons that are now bundled with the new "Platinum" versions. Will there be any sort of upgrade option available? Bob
Posted on: 3/10/2009 11:52 AM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "Ikarus AeroFly Pro and Aerofly Pro Deluxe"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8562909

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
I sanded the blob of gel glue I made this morning, and it sands like other good aliphatics. Harder than the balsa, but it cuts cleanly. And, here is a photo of the bottle. All of the good Elmers wood glue products are in similar bottles, so read the label. I am making steady progress on my R54 now, at least a couple hours a day. I got 10 more steps done in the instructions tonight, mainly sanding and shaping the tails. 32 steps to go on the airframe! (plus a few mods that are not in the instructions) Bob
Posted on: 2/26/2009 3:32 AM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8519681

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
I have never sanded it, so I cannot say! I just put a blob on some scrap balsa to try it, and will report back tomorrow after sanding it. I probably had a bit of it get on the outside when I was doing the wing skins, but did not really notice when sanding it. While the GEL glue is really great for the tops of ribs when doing the skins, I would not use it for normal construction. I use the normal Elmers Professional wood glue for that, and I much prefer it over the Titebond equivalents. It has more "wet tack", so fewer pins, and it also dries about twice as fast. (Titebond 3 is my choice for laminating hardwoods however). The Elmers Gel is slower drying than either of the other types. I guess its good to have so many choices! [;)].. goes on the shelf with multiple types of CA and Epoxy. Bob
Posted on: 2/25/2009 11:24 AM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8516712

RE: Inlet Spike Design Question
Lance, If you can make it like that, and its really pretty constant cross section area between the inlet throat and the engine, then it should be fine. These engines are pretty tolerant, as long as you give them halfway decent airflow. The only issue, which might just be the simplification in the drawing, is that you dont want any convex sharp corners in the duct, they should be smoothed out. For example, the concave corner between the back of the spike and the starter is fine, but the sharp convex corner on the outer wall where it goes from the taper to the cylinder should be blended. Bob
Posted on: 2/23/2009 6:32 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8510253

RE: Inlet Spike Design Question
Ok, the external shape is fixed (has to be scale). The issue once you get inside the duct is how to taper away the cross section area of the spike without messing up the flow. The problem is that you now have increasing cross section area as the flow goes downstream, and so its going from low pressure, high speed flow, to high pressure low speed flow, and thus it wants to separate. Then the flow gets to the engine. A bunch of the air goes into the compressor, while the rest goes around the engine. BUT, a lot of the duct area is now filled with engine and the net cross section is small again. So the issue is that you have this area of large cross section area just ahead of the engine, and thats likely to cause flow separation on the centerbody unless the centerbody is really long with a gradual taper. The way around this is to "area rule" the duct. Namely, put a constriction on the outside of the duct, such that the cross section area stays pretty constant in the area between the inlet throat and the engine intake. As long as the cross section area is constant, the flow can handle some pretty tight bends without separating. Note, in general, you want ANY afterbody to come to a point, IF the taper is gradual enough for the flow to stay attached. Its the same as a wing trailing edge. However, if you cannot have it that long, then you taper it as much as you reasonably can and then round it off. If the engine has an electric starter in front, you can blend the back of the spike into the front of the starter. However, our turbines with the centrifugal compressors are pretty tolerant about turbulent inlet air. Chances are that regardless of what you do , the engine will still run. A good duct design will have a bit less drag and a bit more thrust, but it wont be dramatic. (A bad duct like this would totally kill the performance of a ducted fan, since its a low pressure ratio, high mass flow device.) The attached drawing is just a sketch. I didnt calculate any cross section areas. One thing to remember.. ANY airplane that uses a movable spike inlet had it designed for supersonic flow. The rules for our low subsonic flow are very different. The designers also had to make the inlet work over a wide range of throttle, altitude, and mach number. So dont just blindly copy what they did! Bob parks
Posted on: 2/19/2009 7:23 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8496040

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: Gandalv Nowthere is just to figure out how much shorter the strut will be when loaded, without having to buy it and test it in the ready plane ...... hmmmm Thanks [/quote] I would just email them and ask! Figure you have about 40% of the total weight of the plane on each strut. Thats close enough. Roughly 3 to 4 kg or 7 to 9 lbs. It is a nice looking strut, and its good that it extends almost straight for fitting in wheel wells. Bob
Posted on: 2/19/2009 3:03 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8495193

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
After a hiatus of 4 years, I am back at work on my R54. I did the lower surface wing skins last night. Bruce says to use aliphatic wood glue. I am a big fan of the stuff in general.. its non toxic and I have an allergy to CA and kicker. Well, I found a new type of the glue. Elmers Carpenters Wood Glue GEL type. Its much thicker than normal. And its a bit hard to get out of the bottle... good hand exercise! However, its a nice thick gel and it worked VERY well on the ribs. I could put on a nice thick bead of the glue and it would stay there rather than run down the ribs. Its also a bit slower drying time than other modern wood glues, so there was plenty of time to do all the ribs and spars etc. If you are going to do the skin with "yellow wood glue", I strongly recommend the Elmers GEL glue. Bob
Posted on: 2/19/2009 1:57 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8495027

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
For the trailing link type struts, you want to get the LOADED strut length to match the wire struts. When unloaded, the wheels will swing down and forward, so the retracted length will be longer. I would not change the landing gear mount structure or the location of the retract unit. Even those struts put the wheel a bit aft when extended. You would have to move the wheel well inboard a bit to handle the longer length, and a bit aft to handle the offset. Having the wheel a bit farther aft when the strut is loaded on the ground will mean that it takes a bit more elevator to rotate. However, when you are on a grass field, the wheel drag already means that you need more elevator to rotate, and the trailing link gear will probably cut the drag a bit. I doubt its a big issue for this plane. I would not use telescoping struts for a grass field. The main shock loads are aft, and the struts just are not good for that. The trailing link can be very good, but as others have mentioned, the wire struts work just fine. Bob
Posted on: 2/19/2009 1:52 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8495011

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: ww2birds Bob, It was GPS only, I did not bother to hook up the pitot, assuming the GPS would be the last word. It might be fun, though, just to see how close the readings would be .. I do have all the gear snip I have pinged Mike Luvara at RCATS to see if there is a chance we need to interpret the data somehow, and it might be reading high .. but honestly I don't see how... Dave [/quote] Oh, the GPS and the pitot will give you rather different readings. Data logging always raises more questions than it answers! ;-) The one difference will be wind speed, but low cost GPS systems tend to not like "dynamic" flying and get errors. Pitot systems have sensor calibration problems, and its always hard to get a good static pressure to compare it to. (most RC airspeed sensor installations probably have errors due to a bad static pressure) Bob
Posted on: 11/9/2008 8:36 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8131358

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: ww2birds Also noted that most turnarounds in the racetrack pattern pulled 3.5-4.5 Gs but we had one that was tighter and she pulled about 7.4 Gs. It's a 20 pound airplane .. so that say something about Bruce's wing design .. thank heaven! Dave McQ [/quote] I bet its good for at least 20G, and maybe quite a bit more, particularly if its assembled well. The main spar caps alone are good for about 300 lbs of lift or 15 G, and the skins, secondary spars and doublers will add a lot to that. (based on very rough calculations) Interesting data on the speeds. Was that just GPS or did you also have a pitot? Bob
Posted on: 11/9/2008 7:19 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8131082

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
Take a look at the new TamJets 100mm fan. It could do well for what you want, and I think it has some advantages over the BVM. (Required disclosure: I did some of the aerodynamic design on the TamJets unit, so I am a bit biased). Why did the field ban turbines? I notice you are in San Rafael. If its fire concerns, the R54 is one of the safest jets around... the turbine version might even be less prone to a fire in a crash than an electric version. Bob
Posted on: 6/26/2008 3:30 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7664330

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
A speedbrake there is directly upstream of the vertical tail, so expect some yaw wiggle and loss of stability due to the speed brake wake hitting the vertical. Most of the full scale jets with an upper body speed brake have twin verticals, so its not a problem for them. More flap deflection and/or crow mode would probably give more drag. bob
Posted on: 5/2/2008 12:05 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7447790

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
You would need a LOT of screws before it made much difference structurally. If you had birch ply hatch with screws into maple, it would not need too many. With screws through balsa or lite ply, you would need a lot of them. Now, its not THAT critical to get extra strength back there, since its pretty good already, and I dont think there are any reports of breakage at that point. So, use enough screws to hold it in place, and dont worry about the loads. Bob
Posted on: 4/27/2008 11:05 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7428562

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: flyinfool1 snip Since I will now have no need to get into the rear hatch for normal field operations I plan to get rid of the rubber bands and screw the hatch down. That hatch has blown open on almost every flight so far where I have pulled hard positive G's. I believe that this is due to the bottom of the fuse in the front being slopped upwards and the big hole for the nose gear facing into the wind causing the fuse to be pressurized whenever the jet is at a high angle of attack and going fast. This pressure is blowing off the rear hatch. Yes I tried stronger rubber bands. [/quote] It could well be air pressure. To significantly reduce the pressure, you would need outlets at least as big as the inlets, which is not practical. I have not finished my R54 yet, but my plan is to not have that hatch at all. A cutout in the structure like that does make the back end a lot weaker than if the structure was continuous. This is not to say that there is a problem, just that no hatch is stronger than any hatch, even one screwed in place. [quote] I am also thinking of cutting some openings to let the pressurized air in the fuse out in the boat tail area to help feed the turbine. [/quote] First, it would not make much difference in feeding the turbine. The turbine needs a LOT of air.. the flow speed at the compressor face is probably 300+ mph at full throttle (I never looked at it for a P70). If you dont have the engine cowled, the normal boat tail can provide plenty of air. What the cutouts WOULD do is significantly increase the risk of a tank rupture and fire in a crash. One nice thing about the R54 is that there is this large "crush zone" between the engine and tank, and that is by far the best way to minimize the chance of the engine hitting the tank hard enough to rupture it. It is pretty well proven that the fireball crashes happen when you get at tank rupture and dump raw fuel into a still running (i.e. not flamed out ) engine. Fuel on the outside of the engine will not do it, and fuel into the inlet even a second after flame out will not do it.. you just get smoke and a cooler engine. And even a kevlar tank will not stand up to getting hit by the engine in a moderate speed crash. Yes, its better than plasma bags, but at some crash speed, its still going to break. The boat tail on the R54 is a great crush zone to either reduce the energy with which the engine can hit the tank, or it could just cause the engine to flip to one side and never hit the tank at all. ANY holes in the boat tail structure will significantly weaken it for this kind of load. Even notching the boat tail to clear the starter and to allow the engine to move a bit farther forward is a big reduction (half? more than half?). I dont know of any R54's that have been in high speed crashes, but the chances of one fireballing are among the lowest of ANY jet designs out there. The long wooden nose is also a pretty good crush zone.. much better than the typical composite "egg shell" fuselage. I fly in California, and for half the year, the best description of the whole state is "burns to easily to even make good kindling", so the whole fire prevention thing is a big deal for me. Bob
Posted on: 4/25/2008 10:04 AM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7417731

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]why build ?PST in bangkok selling reaction 54 in ARF version ready to fly for reasonable price[/quote] Why build? Oh lets see.. its fun, its rewarding, you can get what you really want, and the result is quite a bit lighter than the claimed weight for the ARF version. I design airplanes for a living, and that includes building a lot of "rapid prototypes" (a current one is a 10ft span VTOL airplane with a 700 lb thrust cruise missile engine [;)]). For me, building something like the R54 is fun. Its wood, I can do almost all of it with non-toxic glues and covering, the parts fit and its designed so well I dont feel that I HAVE to "fix" it. Flying an ARF is certainly better than not flying, and its fine for those people who dont have the time to build, or dont want to. I certainly fly a lot of ARF's now, due to time limits, but its certainly not what I PREFER. Bob
Posted on: 4/5/2008 1:20 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7336933

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
OK, found another photo.. looks like its a strap on smoke generator. [link=http://www.airshowaction.com/zltwg2000/zltw043.jpg]more smoke[/link] bob
Posted on: 3/18/2008 1:34 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7244204

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
I doubt the smoke is a condensation trail. Here is a link to another photo that shows it: [link=http://www.airshowaction.com/axalp07/axalp07_080.jpg]smoke trail[/link] Its got to be some sort of a smoke generator, but nothing shows in any other photos. Bob
Posted on: 3/18/2008 1:25 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7244157

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: Woketman I went to that link guys. Looks like it went up in price: $4.49 for 2 ounces, before S&H. [/quote] Arrgh...I looked it up just before I did the post this afternoon. Well, it is the season for pinewood derby races, and demand is high right now! Bob
Posted on: 1/22/2008 10:58 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6953796

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: flyinfool1 I use tungsten powder mixed with epoxy for weighting a lot of things. I get it at [link=http://www.golfsmith.com/products/9466#]http://www.golfsmith.com/products/9466#[/link] [/quote] Thats $20 for 8 oz. The pinewood derby vendors sell smaller amounts, but lower prices too. [link=http://www.pinewoodextreme.com/detail.asp?item_number=418052]Pinewood Extreme[/link] has it for $2.50 for 2 oz, which is half the price. (note, I did not compare shipping and handling costs). Bob
Posted on: 1/22/2008 4:51 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6951407

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: Woketman It is just lead shot mixed with more JB Weld slapped on the end. Then, after curing, I just grind it down to a bullet-nose shape on the grinding wheel to allow the most efficient shape for getting low and into a tank corner. [/quote] You want to use appropriate precautions if you are grinding lead. Another option would be tungsten dust and epoxy. Its even higher density, and tungsten is non-toxic. There are a lot of web stores that sell it for use in Cub Scout Pinewood Derby cars. Bob
Posted on: 1/22/2008 10:57 AM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6949715

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: GeeBeeJim And regarding the Kavan brake also ................... Do you use a seperate battery pack to activate it, or the ECU pack ? Also, is it controlled by a servo, or a special switch ? > Jim [/quote] There is a post I did in this thread long ago about that, but I use an old 2 cell Lipoly battery, and a brush motor type ESC to get proportional braking. You need to program the ESC to have fixed "throttle" range. The brake pulls about one Amp, so you could use the main radio battery pack, or even the ECU battery for it. I needed nose weight anyway, and I had the LiPoly pack, so I used it. The only problem is remembering to plug it in before the first flight of the day and to unplug it at the end of the day. Bob
Posted on: 1/14/2008 6:47 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6907511

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: ww2birds If anyone does a multipart win, I'd suggest a break just beyond the gear with plug ins with a wing tube .. this is how a lot of warbirds are, and it's a good compromise between spacing saving and easy transportation. I guess that would be a three-piece .. but in the end easier than making a removable center joint.. Dave [/quote] I agree. A 3 piece, with the split right at the outboard end of the flaps would work well. I just did a REALLY rough estimate of the joiner loads, and it looks like about 1000 inch-pounds bending moment is about right. A 7/8" diameter, .049 wall 6061-t6 tube would be appropriate (TNT WT-370 with matching socket). I know that a graphite tube could be lighter (and maybe smaller), but its very hard to tell just how strong the various tubes are, since so much depends on the way they are made, and what kind of fiber is in them. The joiner tube could be done so its only one rib bay long on each side of the joint, but you need to be careful to have strong enough rib doublers and shear webs, and good glue joints to make it work. If you had the joiner go two rib bays on each side, then its a lot less critical. I would just add doublers to the front and aft faces of the spar so the spar width was about an inch, then have shear webs that go full height of the wing, bond to the spars as well as to the full length of the phenolic socket. For the short joiner, a 3/32" thick doubler on the rib (chordwise dimension of 3") plus an additional, mainly vertical grain, 3/16" doubler that fits the tube and the spar and between the shear webs, top and bottom, with good bonds to all of them. 3/32" ply wood shear webs front and back. Note, I tend to be VERY conservative with wing joiner sizing. The above tube is for a 30 G maneuver, and has some margin on top of that. They plywood part sizes are based on a ducted fan airplane I did with similar performance to the R54. As for the fuselage, a removable tail boom would be tough to do. OTOH, it would not be that hard to make the tail surfaces removable. (but the weight is all added at the wrong end of the airplane!). Bob
Posted on: 1/12/2008 8:45 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6897232

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: ww2birds I was surprised to see that some of the Kingcats have their two main tanks plumbed in parallel with a "Y" connector .. with the hope that they drain evenly. Seemed like a dull idea to me since if they do not drain evenly the fuel left in the "fuller" one is useless when the other one goes dry and draws air. Seemed to me a better idea to plumb with the usual series connection of vent to fill .. but the owner told me they did this deliberately to get even weight distrubution as the fuel drained (the series plumbing would guarantee worst case distrib since the tanks are on either side of the centerline). He told me that if all tube diameters and lengths are identical, it really does drain very evenly. Somewhat surprising, but there you are... Dave [/quote] The parallel tank setup was pretty much mandatory back in the glow engine ducted fan days. With series tanks, you would get a big change in flow resistance after the first tank emptied, and that meant the engine would go very rich. Its not a critical deal for turbines, since the ECU compensates for resistance variations, as long as all the plumbing is large enough diameter that the extra resistance of the series tanks is not a problem with full fuel and full throttle (but you need some big fittings if you want to run a 40 lb thrust engine with series tanks!) The parallel tanks worked just fine, and if you did them carefully, they would always empty within a fraction of an ounce of each other. Bob
Posted on: 1/3/2008 8:50 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6849896

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: causeitflies-RCU Eddie, Same here, the tank is a drop in replacement. It fills the space more efficiently, 20oz. worth. [/quote] Its not 20 oz.. I posted measurements in this thread ages ago, in post #680 (page 28): [quote]The real surpise is that the DuBro is actually 1800 ml, which is 60.8 fl oz, way above the claim of 50 oz or 1500 ml. The JetTech tank is about 2240 ml, 75.7 fl oz, about 15 oz more capacity than the DuBro. [/quote] Bob
Posted on: 1/2/2008 5:02 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6843131

RE: Reaction 54 Jet Kit
[quote]ORIGINAL: Molar mender As I have gotten older, I am not used to changes, [/quote] I hate to say it but all the radios I use are set up to have a switch layout very similar to the 25 year old Futaba gold box TX... it works, and I am used to it. Even my "put anything anywhere" Multiplex Profi has the same general switch layout. [quote] Now that brings me to the question. A couple of the Hitec servos I installed were specific for the JR radio and they seemed to work fine when I switched out the rx. Any problems running those servos using the Futaba rx? Roy [/quote] Should be no problem at all. There are NO differences in the Hitec servo electronics between the JR and Futaba versions, just the connector. And the Futaba and JR pin layouts are the same. The only issue is that the two brands use different shape connector housings, so its possible to plug a JR connector into a Futaba RX and get the connector in backwards. I have never seen a servo where doing this would damage the servo, but the servo will not work until you turn the connector around. Actually, if you look closely at modern Futaba connectors, they are set up so you can easily trim off the tab on the housing and then they fit JR type Rx. Bob
Posted on: 12/20/2007 3:58 PM by Author "bobparks2" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6783235