RE: question about going from 4 chan to 3?
I learned on three channels and before I switched to four I did exactly what High Plains recommends in order to teach myself to use the left stick to steer on the ground. I was used to using the right stick for ground steering. After that, switching to ailerons was effortless. Rudder in the aileron channel does make sense because with the extra dihedral of a three channel ship you have a lot of roll coupling, so rudder is effectively a roll command in most circumstances, just like aileron. The exception is a stall turn, where there is almost no forward motion and therefore little roll coupling. With my computer radio I taught myself to use the left stick for that so I was used to doing it correctly later on. I had a ball teaching myself to fly, starting with rudder and throttle, then three channels, and finally four. Jim
Posted on: 11/16/2009 7:56 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9258774

RE: New Enya SS40BB G7 engines $109 plus s&h
I'm sure the point about needing castor is correct. But I enjoy my collection of old engines, so I keep 22% 1/2 castor 1/2 synthetic on hand anyway, so the 40ssbb fits right in for me. But I can see how it would be a problem for the average sport flyer. Jim
Posted on: 11/3/2009 8:36 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9224666

RE: Top Flite DC-3 Kit, What engines?
Lovely. The combination of a good scale look with light weight, appropriate power, and enjoyable, scale-like flight is a wonderful and rare achievement. Thanks, Jim
Posted on: 10/28/2009 10:07 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9210952

RE: Top Flite DC-3 Kit, What engines?
Jan, how did you do the metal finish on that beauty? I've really admired the pictures on various threads. What did you do for landing gear? Jim
Posted on: 10/28/2009 11:43 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9209132

RE: .30 or smaller 4 stroke engine?
I agree with Red, those little four strokes are great fun and they make very useful power on 10 inch props. The sound is so appealing that it makes the whole flying experience more enjoyable. I swear they make me fly better because they have such a calming effect. That TF DC-3 flying on 26s is just awesome and I'm sure it is much more realistic in flight than heavier versions with usual larger engines. Jim
Posted on: 10/25/2009 12:00 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9200570

RE: Overweight Precedent BI-Fly 25 : what to do ?
One more time...how much does it all weigh? That 25 SF is pretty strong, but the Webra is scarcely any heavier. I wouldn't do a lot of work to lighten it. I'd use it to learn about flying planes with high wing loadings. Other people's airplanes... I've been tempted by them too many times. Best take away lesson is that it is worth it to build your own. Jim
Posted on: 10/25/2009 11:48 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9200544

RE: New Enya SS40BB G7 engines $109 plus s&h
It's a strong .40 at a moderate weight. Check out the ratings ... owners love them. Lots of uses for this one. Jim
Posted on: 10/24/2009 6:37 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9199077

RE: SIG Kommander
I think VRCS finally changed the rule about cut off dates, and now accepts designs at least 35 years old. I may have to rejoin! Jim
Posted on: 10/24/2009 6:31 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9199066

RE: Dynaflite Butterfly build
OK, that works. If you get a chance, try a Master Airscrew 8x3. Nice prop for engines that size. Do you have a total weight? Best of luck with the flying. Jim
Posted on: 10/19/2009 9:23 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9186630

RE: CG issues
The symptoms are very clear. Even when slowing for a landing, the plane is porpoising. The CG is too far to the rear. I use a formula on my planes too, but airplane flight is complex and the ultimate guide to CG is how the plane behaves in the air. Now that I see the design, it is obvious that this plane will be sensitive to CG, because the tail arm is very short and the stab is very small. That means the stabilizing force is smaller than it is on most airplanes. At this point you have already flown the plane and it is exhibiting exactly the symptoms of a CG that is too far back, so there is no mistaking what to do. I would move the CG forward. How much? It's a guess until you try something and fly it again. I would try about a half inch forward of where it is now. It will be much more flyable. Moving the CG forward is quite safe within reasonable limits. You will need more up trim with a more forward CG, but it won't be unstable as it is now. I cut two thin strips of masking tape and place them parallel to the wing at the balance point that I want. Then I just use my fingers. Sounds like this one wants to be upside down for CG measurement, so put the tapes on the top of the wing and turn it over. Jim
Posted on: 10/18/2009 10:50 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9182561

RE: Silk Covering Techniques
Nice post. I used Thai Silks on two planes because of the nice colors they have, but I got very frustrated trying to get it tight enough. I applied it wet, pulled it tight as I could while I doped it down, used tautening nitrate for the first coats, and after about four coats it got tight enough. I am eager to try Dharma silk instead because I will never use pre-shrunk again. But how did you get that nice red color? I thought the Dharma only came in white. Did you dye it? Regarding old silk and dope, I have had a bit different experience. It seems fine after 40 years if you keep it out of the light or use silver dope. Without silver, a few seasons of UV exposure destroy it, even with color dope and even if the dope is still pliable. Jim
Posted on: 10/18/2009 10:29 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9182505

RE: Twin .020 Jr Skylark build thread
I really like my PAW .033. They aren't cheap and they are much heavier than Tee Dee .020s, but they are powerful and they throttle very well. I've flown a 21 oz plane with one. It required a pretty long take-off run, but two would be lively to say the least! Mine starts well enough by hand I haven't been tempted to use a starter. Two would make quite a sound! I'm really surprised that two Pee Wees are so marginal for 22 oz. The stock needle valves can be kind of sloppy so imagine getting consistent runs can be an issue. I agree with upping the nitro, and maybe finding a way to seal the needle valve threads. The old Cox "Racing Fuel" had 35% nitro. I don't remember how I know that, but I'm pretty sure it's right. Such a pretty plane; a really classy job. Jim
Posted on: 10/18/2009 10:11 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9182459

RE: Dynaflite Butterfly build
On that air bleed screw, I know the standard advice is to start with the hole half covered, but don't be surprised if you have to open the hole all the way. That's where all my air bleed carbs end up. Jim
Posted on: 10/17/2009 5:05 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9180893

RE: Penetration
This term is a little pet peeve of mine, like "ballooning". People talk about these all the time without being precise about what they mean, and it leads to confusion. So good for you for asking what it means. I can't tell you, but I can tell you what makes it confusing. It is often spoken of in conjunction with wind, as in "wind penetration". But wind is just moving air, and the ability to move forward against it relative to the ground has another term that IS precise. It's called "speed". People will say that a heavier plane has better "penetration". I think the confusion is this: in level flight, a heavier plane, all else being equal, is NOT faster than a lighter plane. It's slightly slower since it must fly at a slightly higher angle of attack and create more "induced drag" (drag created by producing lift). But if your airplanes get to coast downhill, which is what gliders do, then it is a different story, and that's where Rock's comments hit the mark: more weight means more speed because they are always going downhill relative to the air. They're like a soapbox derby racer ... the heavier, the faster. For powered planes, I think what people mean is that if your plane is downwind, and you need to get it back, the heavier plane has an advantage as long as there is some height to spare, because giving it a little down elevator will bring a heavier plane back faster. But for level flight, the extra weight does NOT improve "penetration". I think it's a term that should not be used, and I don't think you will see it in aerodynamic texts. Jim
Posted on: 10/17/2009 4:49 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9180864

RE: THE HAWK FLIES
Hey Franklyn, I'm really happy for ya! Congratulations on doing this the right way, and thanks for letting us know. I like scale-like flight and a long take-off run on planes like this. Now, if you can manage a pic...? Jim
Posted on: 10/17/2009 11:36 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9180303

RE: Maybe it's a sign that I'm just getting old...
is that I like Buzzard Bombshells and the like that were before my time too. And many of us love full
Posted on: 10/17/2009 11:29 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9180287

RE: CG issues
ALO, you are describing the symptoms of a tail heavy plane. It's surprising, because manufacturers usually specify a very conservative balance point, so make sure you are measuring it correctly. Tail heavy and a diving tendency are not contradictory at all. A tail heavy plane is unstable in pitch, so it is almost impossible to trim the elevator to a happy medium that will result in level flight. A little down, and the flight path will deviate down more and more; a little up, and it is the opposite. It makes a plane pretty hair raising and you have to fight it every moment. The quickest way to check for this is simply to move the balance point forward a little. It probably won't take much to make a big difference. Jim
Posted on: 10/16/2009 9:50 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9177691

RE: Spoilerons or Flaperons?
V8, the club member is right. Washout is extremely common on full scale aircraft, and models of those planes benefit from incorporating that scale feature. Mustangs, Zlins and even Piper Cubs all have washout. I'm about 99% sure Cessnas do too. Washout will allow you to slow down more before the plane stalls. But this is no help for the original question because washout would compromise the inverted performance of a Stick or Sukoi. It's really for planes that usually fly right side up. Jim
Posted on: 10/16/2009 9:37 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9177673

RE: GOLDBERG P6E HAWK
Franklyn, a 10x4 prop has a 10 inch diameter and a 4 inch pitch. The pitch is a measure of the blade angle. Higher pitch gives more speed for a given rpm. But for the same engine and prop diameter, a higher pitch will load the engine more. The 9x4 prop has a 9 inch diameter and the same pitch as the other prop. I suspect you have the OS .20 FP. My OS .25 FP ran better with a 9x4 prop than a 10x4. The 10 inch prop was too much for it to run well or develop full power. I would bet your .20 would be happier and produce more power on the 9x4. I agree that it will be enough to fly a 4 lb plane. Most people would want more power than that, but it is enough and actually should be very appropriate for scale-like flight. To test that plane you need an experienced pilot who knows how to handle a plane without a lot of power reserve. Some pilots now use large engines all the time and never learn any other way. You want the right guy making the first flight. Great project. Good luck. Jim
Posted on: 10/14/2009 8:46 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9173856

RE: Babcock Aeronca ready for maiden
About downthrust on those old designs...the ones that don't look like they have any actually do. This is easy to see in a diagram, but a little hard to explain. Please bear with me... Picture a DeBolt Champ, for instance. The firewall is at a right angle to the fuselage. It doesn't look like there is any downthrust. But the wing and stab are both positive to the fuselage (the wing more than the stab). If you left all the aerodynamic pieces the same ... the thrust line, wing incidence and stab incidence, and then rotated the fuselage to tip it up at the nose so that the stab or the wing was parallel to the fuselage, it would now be obvious that the engine was pointing down. We would see that as downthrust. But aerodynamically, nothing changed (except the fuselage would fly at a higher angle and probably be a bit draggier). It's a nice way to have downthrust without hanging the motor at an unsightly angle. But it also means that the common practice of shimming up the trailing edge of the wing on old timers is actually reducing downthrust. Jim
Posted on: 10/14/2009 8:15 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9173788

RE: Glow converted Fokker DVII
Are you serious? Instead of kerosene? Extra virgin or the cheap stuff? Not to get the thread off track, but, wow... Really nice conversion. I'm surprised it worked so well with the long tubing...good to know. Sometimes those extensions rob power and sometimes they don't. Good luck with the test flight. Jim
Posted on: 10/12/2009 11:23 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9166466

RE: Why I think a smaller plane is better.
A good .25 powered plane can be a very capable performer and practice plane, and there have been many great designs over the years. I'm flying a Spickler 500 racer on an Enya .30 and it is fast, very aerobatic and handles wind very well. For that matter, .25 size is large compared to many great performers using even smaller engines. Now that radios are lighter, it's an even better choice. The problem is that I don't see much out there in the way of kits. The Sig Kobra gets good reviews. For ARFs, there used to be the Suprafly 25 which had a great reputation as an aerobatic plane, but now you'd probably have to find an electric and convert it. One of the things I like about smaller planes is that they are often pretty easy scratch building projects, and then there a lots of choices. The Sarpolus Hammer from Flying Models, Ace Super Pacer (plans still available), New Era (AMA), and many, many others. For that matter, the old Kao Jr., designed for the K&B .40, would do great on a strong .25 with a modern light radio. But if you have something in mind, there's no reason not to go for it. You'll only find out what suits you by trying some things. Jim
Posted on: 10/12/2009 11:06 AM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9166419

RE: Am I still the
My very first model was a stick built glider with a box fuselage and a little box in the front for lead weights. We lived near Oxford England at the time. I just went to a hobby shop, bought supplies after telling the owner what I wanted to do, and then tried to imitate a beautiful tow line glider a friend's older brother had. Mine was smaller and not so beautiful, but it gave me a thrill when it glided across the yard. I built rubber powered models and gliders till I got my first motor, a Wen-Mac .049, when I was 13. Then I flew control line till I was 16 and finally got my first radio, an MRC single channel escapement. Used it to fly a Schoolboy with Cox 020 Pee Wee. Radio quit working after the first flight. I got back in during the early 80s by building an Ace Digital Commander kit with 3 channels and 2 servos. Success at last, flying a Schoolmaster with a Cox .049. I love the old designs, but I also really like designs from the 70s when I wished I was flying but wasn't. I've acquired a set of magazines from that period and they are full of easy scratch building projects. Radios had finally gotten reliable and affordable, and people were having such great fun coming up with new designs that they could get into the air quickly. Tons of plans still available from RCM and other sources. Yes, I feel like a kid going back to those simple designs. Jim
Posted on: 10/8/2009 6:31 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9157303

RE: Bridi RCM Trainer
I think that's a list of photos, not plans. It is a great website, but the plans list doesn't include the Skylarks, Falcons, Warlord and others. Darn it. Anyone have a scan of plans for the Warlord or Skylark? Jim
Posted on: 10/8/2009 5:43 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9157152

RE: Good Plane for .074?
The x250 is a fancied up electrified Joy Stick, which was designed for TD .049. You can get plans from RCU pretty cheap and it looks like an easy build. Jim
Posted on: 10/8/2009 1:59 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9156598

RE: Good Plane for .074?
Perfect engine for the HOB series of 36 inch warbirds - Mustang, Thunderbolt, Bf-109, whatever else they still have. Jim
Posted on: 10/7/2009 7:59 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9154900

RE: Great Planes Escapade .40 ARF
One way to help balance a tail heavy plane is to just ditch the tailwheel and bend a wire skid. Getting rid of a 1/2 oz tailwheel is like adding 2 oz to the nose...except you're subtracting instead. Steerable skids work great on grass. You'll forget you ever had a wheel.
Posted on: 9/30/2009 8:43 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9137079

RE: Is it a phenomenon of these little 2-strokes that until well broken in, they will not turn a larger
Just for the record, some of the older .15s will run quite happily on a 9x4. But I wouldn't bother using one on a modern Magnum 15. Peter Chinn found the old Enya .09 III would run very well on a TF 10x3.5 without overheating. Obviously most engines aren't designed to do that. Jim
Posted on: 9/28/2009 12:25 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9130002

RE: ASP Engines
Wow! But postage from China probably jacks it up a lot, right?
Posted on: 9/28/2009 12:15 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9129981

RE: Sig Kobra engine?
The Irvine should come out very close in weight to the Norvel if you can swap out the heli head for an aero head. Depends on the model. I have an older silver case .36 that is 12 oz. with muffler...lighter than the Norvel, great engine. The red case .36, which they later reworked into a .39, is heavier, but still under 14 oz. with muffler. If you can get the aero head reasonably I would do that and skip the Evolution. A TT .36 would be lighter than any of these, including the Evolution, and you can get it for 90 bucks. Jim
Posted on: 9/28/2009 12:06 PM by Author "buzzard bait" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9129959