RE: Sterling Models WWII Warbirds
I always felt the die cutting was something that like the quality of the wood was just a matter of luck. My luck back then buying kits was so very often bad, that I spent more time buying what balsa I could afford than buying any other hobby stuff. I always considered the mark of a good builder back then was how much wood he replaced in the kits he built. Sterling was one kit mfg that taught me early on that building from scratch/plans was a LOT CHEAPER. The 2nd profile Mustang of theirs turned out to be little more than a set of patterns. If I remember right, I sold it after cutting out all the parts, building it, and discovering I still had almost all the original parts in the box. They'd all been substituted with better wood. I wonder if that's why so many kits nowadays have such heavy wood in 'em? [8|]
Posted on: 5/24/2013 3:29 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11521111

RE: Zenoah G62 electronic ignition conversion???!
Perhaps he will get a direct answer to his question in a more appropriate forum for a gas engine question.
Posted on: 5/19/2013 1:32 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11516269

RE: Applying vinyl invasion strips
[quote]ORIGINAL: splais well I got another issue. If I do this I have to take off the giant US insignia on the wing and fuselage first. Last time I tried this i really pulled loose a lot of the covering that would not iron back down smoothly. Is therea trick to doing this? Would warming them with a heat gun first make them easier to peel off. Steve [/quote] Low tack masking take should be safe, that is if those insignia were adequately ironed on originally. Do you make it a habit to iron your ARFs out of the box? If you don't, then you might want to iron them a day before masking them.
Posted on: 5/18/2013 12:26 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11515262

RE: Lipo/ESC Connection question
[quote]ORIGINAL: BBreck my problem is, the battery is using 10AWG and the ESC is using 13AWB on the input line and I'm just wondering if I match these two up will it cause serious issues? [/quote] It's a sensible question, but the sensible answer is.... We really cant retrofit LiPo battery wires easily. We can't easily swap ESC wires either. Trying to do either of those most probably will cause serious issues. Don't worry about those wire sizes. They are something we all have discovered isn't a problem.
Posted on: 5/18/2013 12:21 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11515260

RE: SOARING USA??WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!!!
OK, enough....... Both sides have been heard from. Time for a court recess. This thread is locked. Please re-read and consider the rules we agree to when we register, especially the one we see every input: [quote] [color=#660000]Please resist the urge to curse, flame, degrade, insult or embarrass someone in your post. We encourage the free flow of your ideas, but believe that they can be communicated (and received) much more effectively if you keep things civil. If you have to vent, take it offline. We carefully monitor posts and will ban individuals who engage in offensive conduct within the forums. Thanks. (RCU Policies)[/color][/quote] This thread has gone way beyond being a glider topic. Most posts within it are venting that you were asked in the rules to "take offline". Calling someone a lier repeatedly goes beyond RCUniverse's rules. The rule directly above the post input window clearly asks that we not insult or degrade anyone in our posts. Repeatedly calling someone a lier does just that. enough........
Posted on: 5/16/2013 3:30 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Gliders, Sailplanes and Slope Soaring"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11512942

RE: SOARING USA??WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!!!
I believe that most ARFs are shipped from the factory already packaged. It would not make sense for any retailer to package. It would not make sense for mfg's to ship loosely boxed parts. I doubt seriously that Soaring USA packaged that ARF. It is most probably the manufacturer who wrapped that slightly damaged wingtip in bubble wrap and tape. If that wing was wrapped in bubble wrap (it's not clear at all from your photographs) and the covering was sliced when you removed the tape and bubble wrap, I'd bet the farm the damage happened in China or somewhere over there where almost all ARFs are stuck together. It really looks like exactly the kind of thing that would be done by the kind of workers who slap those toys into boxes and who really don't want to lose their jobs from damaging the merchandise. That ARF costs way more than that packer can afford to make good. You are quite lucky that nothing was really damaged other than some covering.
Posted on: 5/15/2013 5:41 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Gliders, Sailplanes and Slope Soaring"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11512628

RE: small pilot figures hard to find
If you use the proportions for human figures you find in art literature, then work that info against the average height of a man during the era you're modeling, it's not too hard to work out how "tall" your pilot figure's head should be. Most art literature suggests that the human head is 1/7 the height of that human. So I worked out how tall the head would be for a man 5'8" tall. Then did 5'10" and averaged the two. Yeah, I could have done 5'9" to begin with, but I got an excuse..... moving right along... scale ~ head measurement 1/9 ~ 1.0" 1/8 ~ 1.15" 1/7 ~ 1.3" 1/6 ~ 1.5" 1/5 ~ 1.8" 1/4 ~ 2.25" I would take the time to warn everyone again about the advertised scale you see on the available pilot figures. H9 is selling what they call a 1/9 scale pilot right now. They have them in stock. They aren't even close to being 1/9 scale. But you can see that massive dude in the assembly instructions for their .50 size Corsair. His head is a touch under 1.5 inches. He looks awful stuffed in that cockpit. Off the top of my head, I'm guessing that if he were brought to life he would be over 9 feet tall. Ugh.....
Posted on: 9/18/2012 5:44 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11232191

RE: H9 Phoenix 7 or Revolver 70?
[i]"... have to sell the 75 and get a 95AX"[/i] ???? Why? Both models you're interested in are designed to perform excellently powered by a .60. All the 75s I've run (and I've worn out more than one and rebuilt them) have been very, very good in 60 planes. Both models you've mentioned fly great. There really is nothing to choose one to the other. They're both accurate and stable. And both can do every maneuver the majority of flyers can do. Flip a coin. And use the 75.
Posted on: 9/17/2012 2:43 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11231490

RE: why are the motors SO far forward?
Why? Because they have to balance the weight on the other side of the CG, and the CG gets it's location based on aero considerations. The area of the wing, it's chord, how far back the horizontal tail is, it's area and chord are those aero considerations. Once they're built, they and the weight of the plane lock in where the motor goes and how much it has to weigh. That's it. So........... If you're replacing a motor with another, the usual choice is a replacement that weighs the same as the old one. If not, then you work out where the replacement should go based on how much it weighs compared to the old one. Pretty simple to do actually. As for placing things like they are in cars, that idea doesn't fly. Almost nothing is comparable. So what does the old motor weigh, and what weight is the new one? Yes, shifting a battery can make up for a change in motor weight.
Posted on: 9/17/2012 2:36 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11231478

RE: small pilot figures hard to find
BTW, the figures themselves are Century Jet and they have more versions still.
Posted on: 9/16/2012 6:41 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11230499

small pilot figures hard to find
For the last 5 years, off and on, I've needed pilot busts around 1/8 scale. They have never been easy to find. Most often, they aren't in stock. 1/7 and larger are what never seems to go out of stock, but the ones that suit the .50 and .60 size warbirds are tough to find. So when I started putting together the H9 "50 size" Corsair awhile back, I checked out my supply closet first, knowing the smallest I have probably wouldn't be small enough. Yup..... So I checked all the places that list pilots, with a tight feeling in my chest while searching. Nope, nobody I'd found in the past had anything. BTW, H9 lists their HAN9108 as the recommended one for their "50 size" bird. Hey H9! that guy looks like Godzilla in that cockpit! The model's fuselage is 45.5", and divided into the full scale Corsair's 402" length, the result says the model is 1/8.8 scale. The HAN9108 guy's head is between 1.3" and 1.5" tall. That means he's between 1/6 and 1/7 scale when the model needs a pilot closer to 1/9. So I wound up doing another internet search after exhausting my usual sources. Turns out I found a new supplier that had figure that looked like the head was around 1", which would be 1/9 scale. For any of you needing a small pilot........ Advantage Hobby is the place.
Posted on: 9/16/2012 6:21 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11230476

RE: landing bounce
What's the real lesson to learn in this thread about aerodynamics? Very often, it ain't an aerodynamic problem at all.
Posted on: 9/16/2012 8:18 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11229973

RE: landing bounce
[quote]ORIGINAL: jester_s1 CG isn't determined by how a plane lands, but rather how it flies. . [/quote] Exactly right. However, once the CG is worked out for the flying, the gear might have to be moved for the ground handling. BTW, the CG trimming tests are pretty much exactly like the landing trimming test. You do something with the plane that tests pitch recovery and that tells you where the CG is for flying. You land the airplane and how it reacts upon hitting the ground tells you where the gear needs to be. There are many ways that the gear can wind up "in the wrong place".
Posted on: 9/14/2012 6:34 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11228210

RE: Propeller Question
Swing by a hobby shop and pick up a couple of wood props. Take a close look at the wood grain. Visualize what the blank they carved that prop out of must have looked like. Your questions will be answered a lot quicker that way. Another reason to look at those props closely would be to compare the pitch of those successful props. It varies from hub to tip. It's worth noting what has evolved in the real world. It's also worth testing what has evolved in the real world. It will provide you a basis of performance to compare your own design against.
Posted on: 9/13/2012 2:57 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11227607

RE: landing bounce
As you've guessed, and others have mentioned, it could be a lot of things. With taildraggers, it can also be the result of a poorly located CG. When the tires touch the ground the mass of the plane tries to keep going in the direction it was going, toward the ground. If the wheels are located properly in relationship to the CG, they absorb the landing shock in such a way that the pitch of the plane isn't affected. If the mass of the plane is too far aft that the mass has some leverage, that mass keeps going toward the ground. The gear keeps the front from going too. The pitch is changed. The plane's angle of attack pitches tail down. The wing has been forced to provide more lift than you had established and that was giving you the slow descent you had right up until the tires hit. The plane starts to climb in response to that new increased lift. So how can that happen with our models? The designers worked out the location of the gear to the CG to give good manners landing, right. Well, they also worked out the location of the CG for flight manners too. You did work out exactly where the CG is in your model, right? And it's in the range the mfg suggested, right. And you've not had to repair damage and might have somehow added weight aft, or (I've seen this more than a couple of times) put the landing gear back on backwards, right. It could be the CG. It's not often the case, but look at the model again and maybe just give the CG a look. Sometimes they change. Sometimes the location of the wheels change.
Posted on: 9/13/2012 2:48 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11227594

Full scale Albatros test
Testing youtube video of a full scale Albatros [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x31Vl1eAD4M&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]
Posted on: 9/11/2012 11:24 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11225203

RE: 1st warbird
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXAFCB&P=ML
Posted on: 9/9/2012 6:31 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11223187

RE: 1st warbird
http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/p-51d-mustang-40-arf-HAN4440
Posted on: 9/9/2012 6:30 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11223185

RE: Source for Scale Accessories
[quote]ORIGINAL: iflytailies Correct, I am the US distributor for Propagteam ;-) [/quote] As mentioned to you in a personal message I sent back on the 30th, there are a couple of RCUniverse rules that concern you. Please take a look at the pm.
Posted on: 9/8/2012 5:42 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11221600

RE: RE:
[quote]ORIGINAL: oriole What's a ''Waeplane'' ? :) [/quote] misspelled word hit the 'e' instead of the 'r'
Posted on: 9/7/2012 2:40 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11221047

RE: Having engine, wing and horiz. stab on a common centerline as opposed to having it otherwise.
In full scale use, those tabs lessen the stick loads for those surfaces. They also provide a convenient place for counterweights. The weights help balance the mass of those surfaces. When the surface is balanced it is less apt to flutter. For models, they're not as important as we have zero stick load feedback. Our systems are driven by servos and there is no free movement possible.
Posted on: 9/7/2012 2:37 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11221042

RE:
There was a Hurricane wing setup that crammed 12 machine guns into the sucker. Amazing how little rifle caliber machine guns could do.
Posted on: 9/6/2012 8:40 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11220285

RE:
Guys, there are good reasons for not discussing politics and religion. But whatever the reasons, it's against RCU rules: [quote]We do not permit political, social, religious, or other off-topic discussions. There are many places online to express your opinions on issues outside of RC so "RC" Universe is designed to be a place to talk just about RC.[/quote] Please be so kind as to leave out off hand comments that are covered by that rule. Please....
Posted on: 9/6/2012 7:30 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11220217

RE: glow to electric conversion
Yup, there are reasons for every power system. And they've been hashed over and bashed over way more than enough. So this thread is about a glow to electric conversion. Sticking to that topic..... I chose the motor for my conversion of a H9 60 size P47 Thunderbolt based on it's weight and how that model had been hauled around by an OS91. The OS91 was more than needed. The weight was 7lb-11ounces and the model would do over 100mph. It didn't need to go 100mph at all. So I started looking for something in electric motors that'd have power something like a 2-stroke glow .70 would have. Since nobody much advertises that size my final selection of the RimFire 80 was kickstarted from the "80" being close enough to take the time to read the specs. There is a rule of thumb about watts/pound applied to the weight of your model. 100 watts will fly most things reliably, although somewhat slowly. 200watts will fly for sure, and do aerobatics. 300watts should do whatever you want to do. Since the Thunderbolt is about 8 pounds, I was looking for motor specs claiming 2000 or so watts. The RimFire .80 specs say it can punch out 2200watts. There you go..... The specs also call for a 60A ESC. I got a Castle Creations 75. There you go... The specs say the motor can spin a 15x6 or 15x8. I want to run a 14x7 three blade for looks and performance. There you go.... The OS91 gave both in spades. I'm expecting both in diamond or hearts at least.
Posted on: 9/6/2012 11:58 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11219734

RE: glow to electric conversion
[quote]ORIGINAL: glazier808 [quote]ORIGINAL: da Rock AXI is another top mfg. They don't seem available anymore however. [/quote] not quite correct...Hobbylobby has the full line of AXI motors. Casey [/quote] Oohhhh ... excellent news
Posted on: 9/5/2012 2:46 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218642

RE: glow to electric conversion
[quote]ORIGINAL: 91zulu [quote]ORIGINAL: da Rock EFlite says the Power46 is a 925 watt motor. OK, seems realistic. The 52 should be about 15% more powerful right? EFlite says it's 1650 watts. That's more than 75% stronger? And it's 20% heavier. [b] But EFlite's suggested props...? But the clincher was: [/quote] Rock the reason the 52 swings a smaller prop is because of the KV. Higher
Posted on: 9/5/2012 12:06 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218470

RE: glow to electric conversion
AXI is another top mfg. They don't seem available anymore however.
Posted on: 9/5/2012 11:43 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218453

RE: glow to electric conversion
[quote]ORIGINAL: glazier808 Wow da rock, Sorry bout your luck...[/quote] Not as sorry as I have been over the years. It actually started when the first EFlite motor I bought snapped it's shaft. It was connected to a plastic gearbox. The gearbox wasn't damaged, nor was the prop. Go figure... (obviously an over tempered shaft) [quote] Never had a problem with any of the connectors
Posted on: 9/5/2012 7:18 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218208

RE: glow to electric conversion
If I had to choose between Rimfire and EFlite, I'd go with the Rimfire. In fact, I've just had to make that choice twice and wish I'd gone Rimfire 1st for both. A Rimfire .80 is going into my conversion from an OS91 in my H9 Thunderbolt. I used the 91 from the beginning in order to spin a larger diameter 3-blade prop. It's been awesome since day one. Looked scale and flies scale. Fast and smooth. The other day I noticed there wasn't a 'regular size' electric warbird in the hangar and Warbirds over Dixie was coming up. The conversion has been almost effortless. There should be a P47 and another electric under my popup at the Dixie this year. I'm also assembling the new slightly smaller H9 Corsair as an electric. It has gone along effortlessly until I started installing the Power52. It turns out to be significantly longer than the Power46. I didn't have that 46 to compare to the 52 when I bought the 52. The hobby shop clerk looked up the two at my request to see what the measurements were. They don't happen to list about half the specs on the 52 for some reason. One of the missing ones was length. Go figure. I figured there was a good probability the 52 wouldn't be too much longer since it should only be a touch stronger and a lot of electric motors of the same power measure exactly the same. Not only is the 52 way too long for the cowling, but after looking at the few specs listed, I have doubts about all the specs. EFlite says the Power46 is a 925 watt motor. OK, seems realistic. The 52 should be about 15% more powerful right? EFlite says it's 1650 watts. That's more than 75% stronger? And it's 20% heavier. But EFlite's suggested props for the 46 says you can go toa 14x10 but have to stop at a 14x7 for the 52. Make any sense? But the clincher was: When I had everything installed and tried to connect the motor to the ESC, the factory installed male connectors on that Power52 would NOT go into the provided female connectors that came in the box with that sucker. In fact, I can't plug that Power52 into any of my existing ESCs. I really don't feel like buying connectors for the thing. It also turns out that 52 requires an 80A esc. The 46 requires a 60A and I have a number of 75As ready to go. In fact, the RimFire .60 and RimFire .80 both take 60As as well. And for some reason, the Power52 weighs over 2 ounces more than the 46 and almost as much more than the RimFire 60s and 80s. I'm definitely not a fan of EFlite. They've cost me both time and money since I got into electric some years back. I'm sure a lot of their products are excellent, but I've not been lucky enough to have bought only those. I'm also not a fan of real cheap Chinese electric stuff. Been there done that and lost time and money. After trying EFlite again after some years, I'm not convinced EFlite is any better choice than cheap Chinese. But my experience with RimFire has been 100% so far. And that's been somewhat unique with the electric stuff being sold nowadays.
Posted on: 9/5/2012 4:20 AM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218055

RE: Wind speed limits?
I've got a 2m I built back in the 80s. It's your run of the mill builtup rudder/elevator, a pure thermal glider with polyhedral wing. I built it with a plywood ballast that could be put in while rubber banding on the wing. The box would hold just over a pound of lead. I cast my own bullets so cast a couple of fitted weights. One was 8 oz, the other 16. Moderate days would get the half-pound weight, heavy days the heavy weight. I don't ever remember us not going sloping because the wind was too much, unless it was also below zero. ahhh those Minnesnowta days.
Posted on: 9/2/2012 2:02 PM by Author "da Rock" in the forum "RC Gliders, Sailplanes and Slope Soaring"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11214741