RE: Webra 35 toast?
Wow, thanks for the input guys. You've given me some things to think about. It sounds like my engine is definitely getting too hot: if I touch the carb or backplate right after a run, I will burn my finger in a couple seconds. Some of my airplane engines run almost this hot, so I hadn't thought much of it. Thanks for the input on the popping noise...I've never really had an issue with this on planes (I always err on the side of rich), so I really didn't know what to make of it. On headspeed: I really don't know what I'm getting because I don't have a tach....I should probably get one. The pitch settings are set per the manual from JR: if memory serves me correctly, it calls for 9* at full pitch and 11* in throttle hold. I will double-check everything (perhaps after lots of hours the pitch has drifted), but since it flew great for several months and I haven't adjusted anything, I kinda suspect the pitch settings are not the issue for now. Yes, it yaws right by the nose/clockwise when the engine slows down. The blades do rotate clockwise. Wouldn't tons of engine torque cause the heli to rotate counter-clockwise? I do notice this if I ramp the collective up too fast (especially before I got my gyro dialed in). It seems as though the engine torque is dropping and this causes the nose to swing right because the tail hasn't "caught up" and reduced its pitch enough yet for the lower torque. It does sound like from what you all are saying that my engine is running lean. This is strange, after I zeroed out the needle valves, it was rich and I had to gradually lean it out just to get the engine to stay running. I also always get a nice plume of smoke. I think I will give 5% fuel a try. Would regular aircraft fuel be ok? Matt
Posted on: 7/15/2012 8:20 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11156755

What in the world is this model?
Just ran across an ad on CL for some oddball *huge* model that doesn't look like anything I've seen before: http://oklahomacity.craigslist.org/for/3124760521.html OK, so it's a fairly conventional design, but it doesn't look like any particular model I'm aware of, or any bash-up of a particular model. Anyone here recognize it? If I had some giant-scale gear I would offer him something for it just to see how it flies (with those big flaps it looks like it was designed for STOL). Matt
Posted on: 7/11/2012 5:47 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11151926

Webra 35 toast?
I have a Webra 35 black head (came with the JR Venture CP). For a while I've had a major running issue. At mid-to-high throttle settings, the engine just "bogs down". Tonight I tried zeroing out the needle valves and starting from scratch....I managed to improve my idle a bit, but the mid/high end issue was as bad as ever. The engine slows randomly, seems like it might be getting rich but I'm not sure (I usually run it rich enough to keep some smoke going, to spare the engine). I can be holding the heli at a hover, not touch the collective, and suddenly the engine just slows down. Similarly, I can be floundering along at lackluster performance unable to take off, and suddenly the engine will speed up and run smoothly again, for a few seconds. Back when I had spent a lot of time fiddling with mixture settings, I had it where I could pretty much fly the heli, and the slowdowns would only happen for a second or two...but they were very frequent, sometimes forcing me into a descent and brief touchdown. Tonight I couldn't even keep the engine running well enough for sustained hover. Perhaps more tweaking would have brought me back to only intermittent slowdowns, but obviously I still have a problem. When the engine slows down, it doesn't really sound like a typical rich engine.....it makes a strange popping, almost a metallic sound. In fact, I thought at first that something was loose in the heli and interfering with the mainshaft or clutch, causing RPM/head speed to drop. But I notice when the engine slows down, the heli yaws right a bit, which indicates to me that it is actually not putting out as much torque. Similarly, I get a bit of nose-left when the engine "recovers" itself. I did have a couple lean shutdowns when I first got the heli (it came with a hopper tank that wasn't working properly, plus I'm new to glow helis). But once I bypassed the hopper tank and made some more adjustments, the engine ran great for quite a while. Perhaps I damaged something on those lean runs? I've also tried a couple different fuels, currently I'm running Magnum heli fuel, 20% nitro (oil content not specified on the container...hmmm). I did run 20% plane fuel for a bit because the hobby shop I had access to at the time did not have heli fuel....I think the oil content was either 16% or 18% on that stuff. It ran well (this was before all the trouble started). Any ideas? I like this engine, and I really can't afford to spend $150++ on a new heli engine of some sort, but I'm not getting any flight time. :( Matt
Posted on: 7/10/2012 9:56 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11150934

Why are we using NiMh...really?
I started RC in the early 90's, all my radio equipment was on NiCad batteries. As I gradually updated equipment, the NiCads went away and the NiMhs seeped in. At first I thought "great, I can move on to the newer batteries!" But after several years of almost exclusive NiMh use, I don't like them. At all. Compared to NiCads, I see only disadvantages, with NO advantages over NiCad. What I have learned and observed: 1. NiMhs take longer to fully charge....not a lot longer, but longer at any rate. 2. New packs require an incredibly long charge cycle the first time in order to get the best performance out of them. 3. They run down VERY quickly when just sitting. 4. They run down faster in use, even right after a full charge...more frequent charging is required. Point 3 is really my main area of concern. My time is very limited, my schedule chaotic at times, and the weather in central OK somewhat unpredictable. I may find myself with an hour of two of free time on a sunny evening, but my batteries are too low because I charged them two weeks ago. I can charge a NiCad and pick it up a month later and still see 5+ volts on a 4.8v RX pack under a simulated load.....plenty for a couple of flights. My heli's relatively new NiMh pack was charged less than a month ago and now shows less than 4 volts WITHOUT a load (under a load it's only giving me about 3 volts and gradually dropping...to get the same thing from a NiCad, I would have to leave it on the shelf for months on end). Overall, NiCads seem far more forgiving and resilient, and more efficient. So why exactly did the industry ditch our trusty NiCads and give us these inferior batteries? Any thoughts? Similar experiences? Matt
Posted on: 7/7/2012 1:13 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Batteries & Chargers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11146704

JR Venture 30 engine options
I have been pondering a new engine for my Venture 30.....I have a Webra .35 in it now, which seems like a great engine, but the heli feels a bit large for the .35........I've heard this heli does a lot better with something closer to a good strong .50 engine. I'm not doing anything crazy with the heli yet, but I'd like to get into rolls/flips etc (already done a few with a past helicopter) and some light inverted stuff. The .35 seems far too anemic in this bird to do any serious aerobatics comfortably, in fact sometimes I'm pushing close to full collective just to weather the insane Oklahoma wind gusts. Plus I'm having trouble keeping the thing running well....finally got it tuned in, and then it started randomly sputtering for a second or two at a time! Many flights and many adjustments have been fruitless so far, I'm about to take it out of the heli and mount it to the test bench with a prop and do further diagnostics. Anyways, just wondering what engines specifically are known to fit the Venture .30. Any .50 size? Matt
Posted on: 7/1/2012 10:29 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "RC Helicopter General Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11139419

RE: Fox 40 is impressing me.......
You know, that's something I am noticing with these little Fox 40s compared to my other engines of this class: they are light and tiny! Very impressive. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one enjoying the little Fox engines. :) I'm working on an old Super Sportster (which also came with the lot of stuff I bought with the Fox engines) that someone started, and am in the process of preparing it for the Fox 40. I think they will be a good match. Matt
Posted on: 5/21/2012 5:48 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11089516

Fox 40 is impressing me.......
I finally got a chance to fly one of the almost-new vintage Fox 40 2-stroke motors I bought with a collection of some fellow's RC stuff who was selling out. I was impressed by the RPMs and power this motor seemed to be putting out on the bench, and in the air was no different. Running it with a 10x6 prop....quite a performer! The other .40 engines I run are an old Tower Hobbies model and a nice low-time OS .40 LA. I realize the latter is a bit of a low performer, but still....are the Fox 2-strokes known for unusually good power? It isn't even really tuned in yet. With the engines I also got a 48" Stik model of some sort, which is what I put the Fox motor into....at half throttle, it was a little rocket, and way more fun than I expected. I was surprised! What really surprised me was when I went on ebay and found various examples of the Fox .40 going for under $30...!!! Are there just a lot out there? My two engines appear to be late 80's vintage, going by dates on their boxes (they appear to have sat on a shelf for most of their life). The other motor I got is a NIB Enya 45, no idea what that's worth. I haven't decided if I'm going to put it in a plane, or take my chances on ebay with it. Heck, if all the Fox 40s are like this, I might just ebay myself a few more to run in some of my other models. Matt
Posted on: 5/15/2012 10:52 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11082569

RE: Manufacturer of 1980's Cessna 150 kit?
Ding ding ding! It was the Pilot kit! Thank you Optech! I recognize the box art and paint scheme (the guy went with the stock box art for his covering scheme and it looked great). The scale lines of this model are what really struck me. Guess it was a 152, not a 150...my bad. :) I don't suppose these kits are particularly easy to come by anymore, but I would sure wouldn't mind having one. At least I know what to look for now! Thanks for all the other suggestions as well, I may include a few of those other models in my list of GA kits to search for. I've seriously considered the TF Bonanza, but I'd like to keep the price and size down for now (my garage is turning into less of an RC shop and more of a development room for my massive flight simulator project........) Matt
Posted on: 4/9/2012 4:40 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11035087

Manufacturer of 1980's Cessna 150 kit?
I have a little quandary here. A while back, one of my clients showed me his shop full of planes. Amongst them was the cutest little Cessna 150 you ever saw....I'm guessing it was in the .20-.40 size.range. He had another one new-in-box. I didn't catch what model/manufacturer it was, only that it was sold in the 1980's, and I forget which client it was. The built model looked great, and I have an old OS .20 FP that might be just the thing for this model. Does it sound familiar to anyone? I know there aren't many 150 kits out there. In fact, the general aviation sector seems notably under-represented in the RC hobby, which is a shame because those sorts of planes are my primary interest. Matt
Posted on: 4/8/2012 1:34 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11033370

RE: No more Youtube, engine videos
Andy: YOU ARE NOT INFECTED. At least, not from what you are seeing with the MS stuff. The "unauthorized change" just means a trigger was tripped in Microsoft's paranoid anti-piracy/software protection spyware that you pay for when you buy Windows or any Windows-based computer. MS's "solution" is to purchase a legit license for the copy of Windows you're running, because they assume in that case that your copy is not properly licensed. Of course, MS tried to sweep Vista's sorry remains under the rug like a cat covering its poo, so when you go to the licensing page, your are brought to a Win7 option instead. If you can get your Vista machine to a point where it tells you the license key is invalid, you may be able to "change" the license key....all you have to do is type in the key as it appears on the side of your computer. Now as to why it got tripped off like that....hard to say. I have seen viruses cause this "change", but it could also be a driver update, a third-party program gone awry, or Vista just being Vista. But you CANNOT fix it without dealing directly with the Vista licensing screen. Even then you may still end up needing to reinstall Vista. But one thing is certain, you DON'T have to give MS another $150 and get Win7. :) Matt
Posted on: 3/11/2012 11:20 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10996452

RE: Model Airplane News, then and now.
What's funny is I'm 29 and I am just as saddened by the decline of popularity in kit building and the rise of ARFs as anybody. I remember someone giving me a copy of RCM when I was a kid in the 80s, I don't know which issue it was but I remember it featured a Pilatus Porter build. I pored over that magazine for years, studying every detail of the Porter, going over the pictures and drawings in the various articles, and (later on) reading the howto's and other articles. Unfortunately I was never subscribed to RCM, but the handful of other copies I got my hands on later were always among my favorite magazines. I did subscribe to MAN for many years, and still have complete years worth of copies from the 90's and early 2000's. I eventually got tired of being bombarded with ARF news and useless products. Those RCM and older editions of MAN did much to spark the imagination of a little kid, and some of the techniques and tricks I learned I am still using today. I read some Model Aviation issues during my AMA years, but the large quantity of AMA talk, and news/information that didn't interest me turned me away (probably because MA is designed to cover a wide spectrum of the model hobby, whereas I have always been more interested strictly in planes). I'm afraid my generation is missing out big on the fun and enjoyment that can be had by building something beautiful. And it's not just the building itself, there is also joy and excitement just in learning new things. One of the things about learning is that it makes you want to learn more, especially when something that seemed insurmountable becomes not-so-difficult after all. Many times (especially when learning helicopters) I have faced some new challenge that seemed virtually impossible. At some point, I overcome it. That's when I think "well, if I can learn THAT, just imagine what I can do if I learn some more....." It's addicting. :) And it's sure a heck of a lot more productive and edifying than spending the afternoon watching the "big game" or the latest stupid reality show. I see the TV going at peoples' houses and I can't believe what a cesspool of violence, silliness, consumer-targeted propaganda, self-indulgent hubris, and inane drivel that TV truly is. And people are paying for it....WITH commercials. Matt
Posted on: 3/11/2012 11:08 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10996445

RE: beechcraft baron
Sometimes potential is the greatest curse. :)
Posted on: 11/23/2011 11:03 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10826600

RE: Why did you join the AMA?
I thought someone might pull the auto insurance card. The logic behind car insurance I believe arises out of the fact that cars in the US are so necessary to our way of life, that ownership and operation of a car is seen almost as a basic right (which is not accurate). However you cut it, it's certainly true that having a car to drive around in is pretty critical to doing just about anything in this country. It's also true that cars are operated with unreasonably tight margins for error....think about it, you pass within 2 or 3 feet of something with a combined speed of 140mph+ in relation to your own vehicle, and both vehicles may well be loaded with families, pets, possessions, etc, and weigh anywhere from 2,000lb to 5,000+. That's a LOT of energy. So, in the unacceptably high likelihood that someone's car will hit someone else's car, it is not unlikely that serious injury will result, and almost certain that at least one vehicle will no longer be drivable. This deprives a person of their means to get around and conduct their business. Society, and state governments, felt that this was so critical, there should be some safeguard against it to ensure that the vehicle is fixed or replaced, even if neither driver has enough funds to do the work. Compare this with model planes: they are not a necessary part of daily life, but rather a hobby/sport that a relatively few people participate in. The models typically weigh 5 to 20 lbs, (easily 100 to 400 times LESS than even the lightest car), have a speed range of say a little over 100mph tops in most cases (and usually much less), and are deliberately flown AWAY from other planes, cars, people, houses, airports, streets, trees, poles, water towers, UFOs, and strange small creatures. I dare say injuries from RC aircraft are lower than just about any other outdoor activity....and yet so many folks feel the need for "special" insurance. Boat/car registration is just a way for the state to collect money. Nothing more. (The crime-stopping/tracking thing is just a handy side-benefit, and completely unrelated to our discussion either way.) Matt
Posted on: 11/20/2011 10:20 AM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10820901

Let's see your DC Kaos!
Alright, so a while back I became the owner of a NIB Ultimate Kaos kit.....I know this is an old-school pattern plane, and it seems to have a pretty strong following from what I've read here and elsewhere. I want to see some pics! If I can figure out a covering scheme that I like well enough, I will make this one a winter project. Any other thoughts on the Kaos would be appreciated, of course. I've heard it's not a super-fast plane, but I'm guessing it would be faster than a Tiger 2 with a TT .46 in it? I am planning on equipping the Kaos with a NIB Enya .45 (came with the same lot of goodies), tuned pipe, and retracts. I like the idea of a classic pattern kit that is slick and (reasonably) fast. Matt
Posted on: 11/20/2011 12:19 AM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10820358

RE: Why did you join the AMA?
I was an AMA member for years, then I hit on hard times, shelved the RC planes temporarily. Things are going great now, I'm back into RC, and I've even gotten a nitro helicopter which is proving to be an absolute blast. But, I've never quite gotten around to re-joining AMA. I think my learning experience through lean times has made me count my pennies a little more. Even now, it's tough to see spending the equivalent of a season's worth of fuel just to be able to fly at AMA sites. Sure, it comes out to like $5 a month for AMA, but to be honest, the only real reason I would join is so I could fly at AMA clubs. And the nearest AMA club is a good 20 to 30 minutes from home. I like what AMA does for the hobby, from what I can tell on the outside looking in, and I've met some great folks at AMA clubs. But I do not like the notion that I MUST join some organization to participate casually in the RC hobby with other folks. A basic problem is that RC models typically have pretty expansive space demands, and most of us can't afford to have our own large personal space, or are not in an area where it's even feasible. Therefore, we have to pool our collective resources together to share a site, or find someone who has a good location and is willing to share. What I don't get is why it seems like ALL RC clubs just go the "default" AMA route. Is it because it's easy? Is it because it's the safe/accepted way of doing things? Maybe some for-profit insurance provider should start offering a cheap "model aircraft" policy for site owners, thus relieving individual pilots of the need for any sort of special "extra" insurance. People drive ATVs, go hunting, swimming, boating, and participate in various other potentially hazardous activities on public and private land all the time, without the need for ANY specialized insurance. If something does happen, there *may* be a claim against the landowner's own insurance, which is one of the things that insurance is for. If there is a claim against someone who was using the land, they may well not have any insurance policy that would help them out, but then that is their problem, right? I think this comes to the basic crux of my gripe: if land owners are really just wanting AMA coverage to protect themselves, then why don't they just let their existing insurance policies serve that purpose? Why do they care if the people using their land are protecting themselves with insurance? If someone gets hurt and starts suing, they can still claim against the land owner, even if they are also trying to claim against someone else (ergo, the RC pilot involved in the incident). I just don't see the advantage. This basic principle applies to most other activities that go on at the land, why must RC be so "special"? Let *me* take the risk and worry about my insurance (or lack thereof), and YOU can handle your own insurance situation, if you feel the need for it. Of course, I'm ignoring all the other benefits and positives of AMA when I focus on insurance like this, mainly because, for a lot of folks who join AMA, the insurance/access to clubs is the only thing that really makes them join. These days I just fly at a local public park, although I'm just a little concerned about the safety issue there, due to the proximity of houses (a couple of houses are in the approach path if you make a long final). But then, I haven't lost control of a plane since 1996.....driving your car to work can be a dangerous and risky ordeal too, but do we stop driving out of fear? Of course not. Naturally I would love to find a field that does not require formal membership and has plenty of open spaces away from houses, but until then, I will continue to fly at my little park, and strive to maintain the same level of caution, safety, risk-control, and even *professionalism* that I have always striven for in both RC and full-scale aircraft. Matt
Posted on: 11/19/2011 11:58 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10820349

RE: Torque and P factor, why do we continually confuse them?
The problem with observing prop effects is that so many different things are in play at the same time. I'm not going to try to affirm or disprove the supposed effects of spiraling slipstream, though I will go as far as to say that certain aerodynamics texts for pilot training are less than accurate at times (like the illustration that claims tricycle gear aircraft will tend to nose up a little on landing because the mass of the tail "sinks" a bit when the wheels touch...ignoring the obvious fact that the CG is AHEAD OF the mains). I've always been of the opinion that the exact "culprit" of why a plane tends to yaw left is not so important, so long as pilots are aware of all the POSSIBLE phenomena and what the net effect on the aircraft is. P-factor, for instance, is nice to know, but not a critical concern for a pilot who is on his toes and isn't afraid to use rudder. It's actually exactly the same thing helicopter pilots must correct for in forward flight, just in a much smaller way. Gyroscopic precession is probably the most dynamic of all the various so-called "left turning tendencies", and is what I would stress the most. It's one of the things that gives taildraggers an extra-strong tendency to yaw left on takeoff (and a great argument for NOT popping the nose up quickly and trying to hurry into the air). And of course, it affects the plane when yawing too, not just when pitching up/down.......it is not an isolated event as some texts seem to treat it. For instance, one reason you will get "pitch coupling" when doing hammerheads, is because when making such an extreme yaw, the plane will pitch one way or the other (yaw/drop left = pitch up, yaw/drop to the right = pitch down). And of course, it *can* mess with your Cuban-eights under the right circumstances. :) This is something aerobatic pilots in particular should be aware of and compensate for. I got a great demonstration of gyroscopic precession one day when practicing stalls in a Cessna Cutlass (172RG). I was pitching down through a power-off stall and had already run the power up to near full, I was almost at full RPM as I began dropping my nose. The plane yawed noticeably to the left...not something I was used to seeing in a trike! Matt
Posted on: 11/19/2011 11:14 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10820333

RE: I remember when.......
I remember my first visit to an RC field.......my dad knew a guy in Laurel MS, Mike Blakney, who had models. I still remember being fascinated by his white Cub with the red lightning bolt, especially when he did a spin. He also had a yellow and red plane, I think it was a Super Sportster. I was all of 6 years old at the time. What surprises me now is that I still remember specific planes....the red and white clipped-wing Cub whose owner stopped its engine with his foot (I was "shocked" at the time) and was selling the plane for $300, the GP Cherokee in police trim that was maidening after a major crash/rebuild, a white plane with rainbow multicolored transparent wing covering which the owner had found in the previous owner's attic and purchased for a song, a huge Lanier Stinger, and a few others. It wasn't until I was 12 that I got my first model (6 years seems so long to a kid), and I haven't put them down since. :) Matt
Posted on: 11/13/2011 9:02 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10810963

RE: Aggressive Flying
Precision hovering is boring to watch but great practice. Something that has helped me is to focus on hovering and moving in varied (but chosen) patterns in all orientations. Decide where you want the heli and put it there. Then try it nose-in. Then try it from both sides. Then try it while doing a slow pirouette....! Seriously, maneuvering the heli and hovering in a spot occasionally while doing a constant-rate pirouette is very demanding, but also very beautiful. And it's extremely satisfying! One of my favorite "zen" moments in my heli learning process was when I was still pretty rough on anything other than tail-in hovering, especially pirouettes. Then one day I just entered the prettiest little rotation and slid the heli right across the flight line where I wanted it to go....awesome!!!! I now incorporate pirouettes into my normal routine, to help sharpen my skills. Great skill-builder, and something a little different from (and far more graceful than) the usual 3D craziness. :) Matt
Posted on: 11/8/2011 11:03 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "RC Helicopter Beginners Forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10803725

This is so addicting
This weekend I finally go a chance to sneak out to the field and put up my JR Venture 30 that I got back in February....what a blast!!! I'm definitely still in the beginner phase, but even though I haven't flown in weeks, I did a bunch of fast forward flight and it felt great! In fact I think it was the highest and fastest I've flown yet. I believe I have hit another "level" in my learning experience....it's one of those times where after laying off for a while, you come back and everything has soaked in I guess. Even my nose-in hovering was rock solid. It actually felt completely natural, almost no different from tail-in hovers. All those times I forced myself to hover in a spot or move from place to place while nose-in are paying off now!!! I did have one hard "bounce" coming out of a forward descent.......the Webra 35 doesn't leave a lot of oomph for error! Now one of the hardest things is to NOT push myself too fast.......I really felt like trying a loop or roll or something along those lines, but I'm trying to meter my progress and not rush too much. So far I haven't had to replace anything on the heli except the junky stock muffler and a couple of servos (got the heli used, it seems to have had very well-used servos or something). And no boom strikes, yay. :) After a few more sessions of FFF I will be ready to switch to lighter paddles, maybe tweak my pitch/throttle curves a bit, and start doing some basic aerobatics. And eventually I will probably get a .50+ size engine for this bird, then get another (smaller) *true* .30-size heli for the Webra. Matt (totally hooked)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 10:38 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "RC Helicopter Beginners Forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10803708

RE: Whats wrong with this picture?
[quote]As for the people on I-40, I doubt they could care less about the RC field, but if you would like I think they might find one of those "Falling Rocks" signs but replaced with airplanes instead to be humerous. [/quote] LOL!! Love this one! Jeremy, you should totally do it. :) Alright, I live in OKC (soon moving to Moore), so I find this all pretty interesting. Unfortunately the new/upgraded El Reno site will be too far for me to fly on a regular basis, but I would love to fly some of the special events you are talking about. I don't believe I've ever seen/heard of a city taking on an RC project to this extent (or at all, for that matter). I think it's pretty exciting. So it would be something of an experiment...I say go for it and support the city's efforts! Remember, the more drama and grief you bring to a site's landowner, the less likely you are to retain the privilege of using said land..........I'd let this roll and see where it goes. The only thing I would suggest, and maybe it's too late at this point, but my suggestion would be to ditch AMA-anything at this field. People do all sorts of other (sometimes more) potentially risk-prone activities at public parks: speedboats, fishing, swimming, biking, ATVs, sports, etc, and there are no special club memberships or sanctions required in most cases. Claims from damage or loss are left to the city's usual liability insurance, which tends to be far more generic and less restrictive than AMA. If someone does want to hold an AMA-sanctioned event at some point, a short-term limited policy for the event can be issued, as was discussed earlier in this threat. Even if the city did not REQUIRE flyers to have any affiliation with AMA, or the oversight of an AMA-member, it would be fine by me. This would keep the site open to all flyers. I personally am a former AMA member, but have not renewed in years......it's especially hard to justify the cost of a season's worth of fuel, when I happen to have a pretty great little park not 5 minutes down the road where hardly anyone hangs out at all......and no AMA safety officers to tell me I can't fly my sport planes 10ft off the deck and 20ft in front of me at full power. :) Matt
Posted on: 11/6/2011 8:44 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10800274

RE: ***CUB BROTHERHOOD***
Count me in! I have a GP 40 Cub that I bought from the builder in '98 before it had been flown. It now has hundreds of flights on it. Now in the process of restoring it and converting to a PA-18. The Cub is one of my favorite planes. One of the things I love about them: a scale'ish RC Cub will make you a much more competent, well-rounded RC pilot if you let it. Practicing consistent patterns and takeoffs/landings on a windy day with a good Cub is one of the best things you can do for your basic stick and rudder skills. Matt
Posted on: 10/29/2011 10:12 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10788840

RE: If I play my cards right, I might have a new girlfriend
Not worried at all, I've got serious game. It's me against the world wide web, I tell you! Matt
Posted on: 9/28/2011 10:51 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10739796

RE: Got a vintage Fox .40
29%, yikes, where would I find fuel with that much oil in it? I think everything I can get locally is like 18%. I do use castor oil-based now, I've decided against synthetic. Some of my newer engines (well, newer as in mid to late 90s) like my 40LA and Tower 40 are probably fine on synthetic stuff, but my old .48 4-stroke and the old motors I got with this gear are probably best run on dino oil. I will resist the urge to run that .35 on my 18% oil for now, thanks for the tip. Matt
Posted on: 9/28/2011 10:49 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10739794

RE: If I play my cards right, I might have a new girlfriend
Yay I don't feel left out now, the same message popped up today in my inbox. The poor girl/guy/thing is desperate for love! scale only 4 me: we must assume from Moses' warm reply that you responded to the original message. ;) Hey wait a minute, I think I got it: could this be the beginnings of computers achieving sentient life? [X(] Matt
Posted on: 9/28/2011 5:04 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10739213

RE: Got a vintage Fox .40
LOL, I know engine design hasn't changed a whole lot since the early 80s or so, but I'm only 29......anything that was produced when I was still in 1st grade seems "old" to me. :) Plus I'm in the computer industry, where anything older than your last tax return is yesterday's news (not a good thing, by the way). I actually have another Fox engine, a .35 CL model from the early 90s that my dad and I ran on a Ringmaster for a while. Maybe I should clean it up and do something with it....we always had trouble making it run right, but I suspect it was due to our inexperience. Matt
Posted on: 9/28/2011 4:49 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10739182

Got a vintage Fox .40
The other night I got a chance to fire up one of three engines I scored last week when I bought a guy's collection of old RC stuff................he actually bought it years ago from someone else and it was old then. The guy never did much with the stuff, ended up selling to me cheap. I got two nice looking Fox .40s, one was in a plane, the other looks like it's never been run, or maybe just a little bit. I ran it the other night on a test stand ......impressive! I even got a good 30 seconds or so out of the ancient, dirty glow plug that was on it. :) Good throttle response, very nice LOW idle, and feels/seems like it's getting a lot of top end power (didn't have a tach handy). The biggest problem seems to be enrichening mixture at low to mid throttle settings, but I didn't spend a lot of time adjusting things, I mostly just wanted to make sure it was going to run and not have any serious problems.......alright, really I just wanted to hear it run. :) Last night I was going through the manual for it (yep, actually found its owner's manual in one of the boxes I got) and found the date: October 1987!!!!!! Anyways, it will be going in the equally old Super Sportster I got with the stuff (except it's going to get bashed into a Spacewalker). Here are some pics of the little gem. Oh, I also got a NIB Enya .45CX (6201 model). :) http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfamatt/6192440279/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfamatt/6192958168/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfamatt/6192440219/ Matt
Posted on: 9/28/2011 11:56 AM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10738674

RE: Lost another one today
Sorry to hear about your loss....at least you are mostly just out money, vs hundreds of hours in a kit-built plane. Did you range-check before the accident flight? I've been in the hobby off and on for over 15 years now. I've had exactly one loss-of-control accident related to the electronics, and it was actually a servo, not the radio itself. This was in the mid 90s, I was still fairly new to the hobby. My trainer was acting a little weird on the ailerons, which should have been my sign to land and check things out. Just as I was about to start a landing pattern, the plane just rolled full left from level flight, and didn't stop spinning until it hit the ground. I was able to throttle back, so I knew I had at least partial control. This was on an old Futaba AM radio, which then sat in a cornfield for about 3 months. It was later found, the suspect servo was discarded, and the radio was used for many years thereafter....in fact, it still works!!! Since then, the biggest problem I've had was two different servos in my glow helicopter went out, one during flight (yaw). Fortunately I was low enough on that one I was able to bring it in without incident. The yaw servo also only exhibited its untoward behavior when the heli was spooled up to almost hover RPM, which made the problem particularly hard to diagnose. I did have the elevator channel on my old Futaba 4ch FM go out after sitting for a while, but that is what control checks are for. :) There are many things that can bring a plane down, but nearly all of them can be virtually eradicated with proper installation, maintenance, and pre-flight inspection. If you're truly serious about safety and are not willing to accept that things "just happen" for no discernible reason sometimes, here are some good personal rules: 1. Keep a battery checker (not just a volt meter, but one that can optionally put a load on the battery) and use it RELIGIOUSLY at the field. Check when you unload your gear, check after your control check (those few moments of use may bring a failing battery down, so watch for unexpected voltage drops between readings), and check between flights. I usually check right after I land, and again before firing up the plane. It's important to know the battery's trends, and to develop an understanding of how much it should drop right after use, as well as how much it will "recover" after being off for a while. 2. Check for proper control surface movement before starting the engine. 3. Do a proper range check before your first flight of the day: collapse the TX antenna, walk away from the plane with its tail pointed towards you, go to about 100ft, and hold the TX vertical. You may need a helper at the model for smaller planes. Do a full control surface check again. TIP: only collapse your antenna when you're at full distance, and extend it again when you're done, as you're walking back....it's hard on the TX to transmit with a "short" antenna (obviously this procedure is quite a bit different for 2.4ghz radios, since the antenna is fixed). 4. Check control surfaces *again* once the engine is running/motor is spinning. 5. Be proactive when installing and setting up radio gear. Think about all details of your installation, and try to imagine how anything could cause a problem. Examples: RX antenna being stretched or pulled across a sharp surface (like the hard edge of a plywood piece), control rods binding even a little, metal-to-metal contact (ergo, don't ever allow this if at all possible), servo leads getting tangled up in aileron torque rod ends, etc. About those control checks...don't just wiggle the sticks and look for movement, consciously move one control at a time and look for the correct reaction on the plane. Know what you are looking for before you do something. I crashed a Butterfly once because I moved the stick in circles and noted tail feather movement...turns out my elevator channel was reversed. I also ALMOST flew my Cub with ailerons reversed, even after a thorough pre-flight. There happened to be a cross-wind as I taxied out, and I rolled opposite ailerons into the wind (a scale Cub will force you to do things right). They went the opposite direction of what I was expecting to see. Too close for comfort!!! There's still always the chance that something could happen (interference, for instance), but at least you will have the satisfaction of knowing you did everything in your power to minimize the chance of a problem. And if you do crash, the most important thing is to learn from it. Figure out what happened, and take measures to ensure it won't happen again. I know it sounds like a lot of stuff to do/remember, but once you start making safety a priority, it truly becomes second nature, part of the way you do everything related to the hobby. Just be vigilant.....when it comes to safe and professional flying, accept NO compromises. Matt PS: I won't get into an analog vs 2.4ghz debate here, but suffice to say I have not gone 2.4ghz yet simply because analog has never let me down. I've never been shot down or had any interference issues with analog (even including my old AM radio), so I see no need to change. Why change something that has a 100% success rate?
Posted on: 9/27/2011 9:23 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "JR Radio & Spektrum Radios"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10737835

RE: If I play my cards right, I might have a new girlfriend
Sounds like you don't need to "play your cards", just keep posting random stuff on RCU...apparently that it was made him/her/it/them "interested" in the first place. :) Funny, I've had two online relationships. First was actually a very nice Brazilian girl, second was a gorgeous, sweet Argentine lady who is now my wife. [:D] [8D] :) Matt
Posted on: 9/27/2011 7:51 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10737696

RE: I'm suddenly airplane-rich!
Whoopsies, looks like I messed up on my model ID'ing. Upon a second look, I see the Tiger is a Sky Tiger, not a Jr Tiger. Also, it appears the Tiger's fuselage has not been started. The partial fuselage I do have, and the mystery wing, appear to be a Super Sportster! Good news, as I have always liked that model but never got around to building one. Matt
Posted on: 9/23/2011 12:57 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Sport Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10730783

RE: Thoughts on old Junior Tiger and DC Ultimate Kaos 40?
Actually I misspoke.....went to look at the kit again and realized it's the larger Sky Tiger, the Tiger 2''s forerunner. I will probably still give it a go. Matt
Posted on: 9/23/2011 12:55 PM by Author "dabigboy" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10730779