RE: DS8511 oscilating
I ditto what Dave, dbsonic, and dubd have said. I had a similar issue with one of my Aileron Servos (DS8411) on my Ultra Bandit. After a lengthy investigation I struggled to pinpoint the exact source, so before changing the servo (which was the easiest and quickest thing to do), I decided to replace the extension lead with Multiplex 3 x 0.5 PVC twisted cable and have had NO issues since. Since then I generally do all my installs with twisted extensions. The quality and preciseness of the servos is second to none. Darryl
Posted on: 9/5/2012 9:20 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11219085

RE: MOKI RADIAL Care and Maintenence
Thanks a lot Mitch. I had adjusted mine and made a note of how much influence it had on the CLOSED/STOP position of the CARB, but then forgot where the original setting was. Nice to know it can be discarded although I will keep mine set at about 4 turns out. Thanks again, Darryl
Posted on: 7/1/2012 7:37 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11139287

RE: MOKI RADIAL Care and Maintenence
Gentlemen, I have a question, which may be absolutely obvious, but just to be 100% sure. Please confirm the Larger Screw (below the H/L Needles), is the Throttle STOP Screw. If NOT, then please can someone tell me what the factory (default) setting is (how many turns out). Many thanks, Darryl [image]
Posted on: 7/1/2012 12:45 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11138305

RE: MOKI RADIAL Care and Maintenence
Hi Jake, Thanks for the information, actually Airworld Modellbau have just sent me 20 tappet screws in an envelope. My valve clearance is set to 0.05mm BUT I do clean them (valves, rods, tappets) after a days flying - which is usually two flights. You will be surprised how much carbon build up there is, admittedly my motor is NEW and set a little rich, but several squirts of fuel and a good scrub with an old toothbrush cleans them well, then a generous dose of WD-40. Actually a better lubricating product is the SONAX Formula 1 Performance (Multi-Functional Spray Oil). Now I am a little nervous, perhaps my valve clearance should be higher (0.08mm). Regards, Darryl
Posted on: 6/11/2012 6:25 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11114219

RE: MOKI RADIAL Care and Maintenence
Hi Jake, Quick question: Valve Adjustment Screws (or Tappet Screws). Where did you get some spare ones? I need like 20 as I would like to replace mine and keep some for spare. It's a pity these screws are not like the O.S. ones where you can fit an Allen Key onto the adjustment end, I find the screw slot weakens the screw. I have done thousands of Google searches for Moki Tappet Screws / Valve Adjusting Screws but came up with NOTHING. Regards, Darryl
Posted on: 6/7/2012 8:47 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11110029

RE: MOKI RADIAL Care and Maintenence
Hello Jake, Awesome Gee Bee R3, WELL DONE. I have always admired this aircraft and yours looks fantastic. You guys also have a really nice flying field. I think "77chickenhawk" was commenting on my RPM being on the RED LINE (not yours). Currently I am running a FIALA custom made 28 x 18 prop (which is a little under-propped, I know), but I don't want to over torque the crankshaft during the break-in process, also I am NOT using full power at any stage to keep the RPM down as the Static RPM is 4,800. I have just ordered the Functional Scale Spinner and FAN from Vailly Aviation to get more airflow into the cowl as very soon I will be putting on the BIELA 3-Blade Scale 32 x 16 Prop, especially designed for the Fw 190. Cheers, Darryl
Posted on: 6/4/2012 5:55 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11105659

RE: MOKI RADIAL Care and Maintenence
Hello Gents, I have found this thread very informative and it has taught me a lot about my Moki S250. Here is a YouTube Link to the second flight on my 1/4 Scale Fw 190A-7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=medzQ52I8_U The model is an Airworld Kit. Dry Weight is 24.8 Kg. I am still running-in the motor so you will notice she is fairly rich on the low end, I am NOT using a Turbulator but am using the Emcotec APS PowerFuel 380 with fantastic results. I have 2 x 2100 Li-Po's on an Emcotec DPSI which runs my ignition and fuel pump. The engine is baffled and performs flawlessly during the summer months in Dubai. Although we are at Sea Level when I flew this morning the ambient temperature was 38C / 100F and the pressure is very low, resulting in a High Density Altitude (3,000 feet). Due to the strong crosswind I was going to do a "Wheeler Landing" but bounced a little, so I chickened out and ended up doing a three pointer. The video is a little jerky, I will get around to doing a better one some day. Regards, Darryl Tarr (Dubai)
Posted on: 6/1/2012 8:16 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11102439

Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-7
Hello Gents, Here is a YouTube Link to the second flight on my 1/4 Scale Fw 190A-7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=medzQ52I8_U The model is an Airworld Kit, powered by a Moki S250 Radial. Dry Weight is 24.8 Kg. Still running-in the motor, you will notice she is fairly rich on the low end. Due to the strong crosswind I was going to do a "Wheeler Landing" but bounced a little, so I chickened out and ended up doing a three pointer. The video is a little jerky, I will get around to doing a better one some day. Regards, Darryl Tarr (Dubai)
Posted on: 6/1/2012 7:50 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11102398

RE: How close can ecu be to fuel pump
Hi Sean, As Dave has mentioned a Static Discharge is fairly rare but still happens from time to time, especially in warm and dry climates. Actually the climate where I live attracts a lot of static which effects the bigger turbines (P-160 and upwards), as these turbines require a higher fuel flow. The static can be so bad here that after filling your jet the underside of the Jersey Fuel Can is coated with a layer of fine sand, and when wiped away you can feel the static, just like rubbing your feet along a carpet wearing nylon socks. Also if you place your arm next the fuel can, or Tygon tubing your hairs stand up. The discharge tends to occur during takeoff, normally at the point of lift-off, and depending on the severity your turbine may shut down due to WatchDog (the ECU code for a Static Hit). The JetCat Anti-Static is also a higher concentrate then the stuff sold at BVM. I use 20ml of JetCat Anti-Static for 5 USG (18.9 liters). I also use Biobor JF (which kills the Hormoconis Resinae, or Cladosporium Resinae), a fungus that lives in kerosene type fluids. Have a look at your brass fittings, if there is a dark green residue visible between the Tygon tubing and the fitting, then you have a fungus issue. Very serious on full size aircraft as it restricts fuel flow and clogs valves and filters, and therefore will also effect our RC Jets. I hope that wasn't too technical, didn't mean to be. Regards, Darryl (Dubai)
Posted on: 4/20/2012 8:20 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11049822

RE: jetcat p-140 RX refuse to star help
Hi Mario. I see that you have already increased the Pump Start Voltage. Therefore, If there is still no ignition (or ignition only for a few seconds), with some white smoke, and a pool of fuel, then I can almost guarantee you that your Battery is the cause. Have a look at the BATTERY symbol on the GSU during the start (it is made up of 4 Bars, or 4 Bricks on top of each other). It should only drop 1 BAR during the start process. If it drops more than 1 BAR then your battery is LOW. Trust me, plug your fully charged ThunderPower (that you showed me via PM) directly into the ECU and do a start. You may also want to then reduce your pump start voltage back to where it was before you increased it. Regards, Darryl
Posted on: 4/15/2012 9:36 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11043672

RE: Failsafe Delay (JetCat ECU) Setting ?
Bob, I set all my JetCats Turbines as follows: Failsafe Delay 0.3 Failsafe Time Out 3.0 Regards, Darryl
Posted on: 4/14/2012 8:53 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11042237

RE: jetcat p-140 RX refuse to star help
Mario, if you have already increased the pump start voltage then it's your Battery. Use a fully charged Li-Po (preferably NOT the JetCat one), make sure is has a High C Rating (35+), and plug this directly into your ECU. For the TEST do NOT go through any I/O Boards or extension cables, just directly into the ECU and try another start. You may think your ECU battery is good, BUT if it's just slightly down then you will get a WET Start (No Ignition), as the battery has to keep the Kero-Plug HOT, Cycle the Start Valve, and Run the Fuel Pump all at the same time. This can often results in No Ignition should the battery be tired. Regards, Darryl
Posted on: 4/14/2012 7:36 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11041445

COMPLACENCY
As an experienced RC pilot (and full size pilot), when asked to do the Maiden Flight on a new model there are many things that I scrutinize, the list seems endless. However, there also has to be a small element of [b]trust and faith[/b] in the Owner/Builder as you can’t check absolutely everything (after all the model can’t be X-rayed and borescope). Example: Do I physically test each individual battery to make sure that they have been fully charged, NO, I take his word for it. Do I physically check the CG by picking up the model. YES, nine times out of ten I do, BUT not this time? WHY? Simply because this guy has been flying jets with us for about 2 years and this is his fourth jet, so when I asked: - Have you checked the CG? - Yes, many times - Where is the location? - Slightly forward of the Wing Tube Sounds good right. Well this is where my complacency was found wanting. I took his word for it. As soon as the model left the ground (which was way too early and slow), I knew something serious was wrong. With full down elevator the models attitude was dangerously high with what felt like zero airspeed. The only way to reduce the attitude is to apply full down elevator (which I had), reduce thrust, and roll. But I am only 10 feet off the ground, anyway by this time the jet had started to roll as the left wing had stalled so I corrected with rudder (as aileron would have increased the angle of attack of the down going wing), reduced the thrust a little, and relaxed the full down elevator to the neutral position. Then, as the models attitude approached a gentle climb attitude I applied full power again and about half down elevator to maintain the attitude. I eventually ended up in a gentle climb, although still dangerously slow, and managed to climb away but the jet continued to tip stall, so after several recoveries (and at a safe height) I applied takeoff/approach flap, but this had little effect. I battled with the controls for almost 3 minutes hoping to at least be in a position to dump the jet onto the runway or the sand, but eventually the results were disastrous. A complete “Hull Loss� due to "Loss of Control". Sometime later I asked the owner “How exactly did you check the CG – what method did you use�. Well it turned out that when he used the wing tube to measure the CG, he made a mark at the wing root, BUT followed a wing panel line towards the wing tip as a reference. As we all know the MB-339 wing is tapered so the panel line does NOT run perpendicular to the lateral axis (fore and aft axis). This meant that the CG was approximately 3� AFT. So my confidence is low and my ego and pride dented. Never believe everything you hear. After all it is my responsibility to check, check, and check again, and at the end of the day it was my complacency that contributed to this unfortunate and unnecessary event. I hope that others can learn from this. Darryl Tarr (Dubai)
Posted on: 4/7/2012 1:04 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11031497

RE: How good are the SAVOX Servos??
Well that video tells me nothing - the proof is when its flight tested on critical control surfaces such as FLAPS. I recently did the maiden on a BAE Hawk that had several Savox Servos installed, including the Flaps, and I wasn't impressed. Too Sloppy for my set-up standards. But hey, this is just my opinion!!!
Posted on: 1/26/2012 11:18 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10930042

RE: Air France 447
Eddie, Thanks for the spell check, already corrected. Like I said I know very little about the 330 however most modern commercial aircraft do share a lot of similarities, meaning that the heating of their system cant be too far from the norm these days.
Posted on: 1/14/2012 5:52 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10908077

RE: Air France 447
I am NOT going to get involved with this anymore as I don't know enough about it, BUT for what its worth here is some details from the Interim Report from BEA. [quote]F-GZCP – 1 June 2009 - 9 - 1 - FACTUAL INFORMATION 1.1 History of Flight On Sunday 31 May 2009, the Airbus A330-200 registered F-GZCP operated by Air France was programmed to perform scheduled flight AF447 between Rio de Janeiro Galeão and Paris Charles de Gaulle. Twelve crew members (3 flight crew, 9 cabin crew) and 216 passengers were on board. The departure was planned for 22 h 00. Towards 22 h 10, the crew was cleared to start up engines and leave the stand. Takeoff occurred at 22 h 29. The Captain was PNF, one of the copilots was PF. The takeoff weight was 232.8t (for an MTOW of 233 t), including 70.4 tonnes of fuel. At 1 h 35 min 15 , the crew informed the ATLANTICO controller that they had passed the INTOL point then announced the following estimated times: SALPU at 1 h 48 then ORARO at 2 h 00. They also transmitted the SELCAL code and a test was undertaken successfully. At 1 h 35 min 46, the controller asked the crew to maintain FL350 and to give their estimated time at TASIL. Between 1 h 35 mn 53 and 1 h 36 mn 14, the controller asked again three times for the estimated time at TASIL with no response from the crew. There was no more contact between the crew and ATC. At 1 h 55, the Captain woke the second copilot and said “ […] he’s going to take my place�. Between 1 h 59 min 32 and 2 h 01 min 46 �, the Captain attended the briefing between the two copilots, during which the PF said, in particular “the little bit of turbulence that you just saw we should find the same ahead we’re in the cloud layer unfortunately we can’t climb much for the moment because the temperature is falling more slowly than forecast� and that “the logon with Dakar failed�. Then the Captain left the cockpit. The airplane approached the ORARO point. It was flying at flight level 350 and at Mach 0.82 and the pitch attitude was about 2.5 degrees. The weight and balance of the airplane were around 205 tonnes and 29% respectively. Autopilot 2 and auto-thrust were engaged. At 2 h 06 min 04, the PF called the cabin crew, telling them that “in two minutes we should enter an area where it’ll move about a bit more than at the moment, you should watch out� and he added “I’ll call you back as soon as we’re out of it�. At 2 h 08 min 07 , the PNF said “you can maybe go a little to the left […]. The airplane began a slight turn to the left, the change in relation to the initial route being about 12 degrees. The level of turbulence increased slightly and the crew decided to reduce the speed to about Mach 0.8. At 2 h 10 min 05 �, the autopilot and auto-thrust disengaged and the PF said “I have the controls�. The airplane began to roll to the right and the PF made a nose-up and left input. The stall warning sounded twice in a row. The recorded parameters show a sharp fall from about 275 kt to 60 kt in the speed displayed on the left primary flight display (PFD), then a few moments later in the speed displayed on the integrated standby instrument system (ISIS). F-GZCP – 1 June 2009 - 10 - Note: Only the speeds displayed on the left side and on the ISIS are recorded on the FDR; the speed displayed on the right side is not recorded. At 2 h 10 min 16, the PNF said “we’ve lost the speeds then� then �alternate law protections�. The airplane’s pitch attitude increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs. The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left. The speed displayed on the left side increased sharply to 215 kt (Mach 0.68). The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft and the recorded angle of attack was around 4 degrees. From 2 h 10 min 50, the PNF tried several times to call the Captain back. At 2 h 10 min 51, the stall warning triggered again. The thrust levers were positioned in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs. The recorded angle of attack, of around 6 degrees at the triggering of the stall warning, continued to increase. The trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) began a movement and passed from 3 to 13 degrees pitch-up in about 1 minute and remained in the latter position until the end of the flight. Around fifteen seconds later, the speed displayed on the ISIS increased sharply towards 185 kt; it was then consistent with the other recorded speed. The PF continued to make nose-up inputs. The airplane’s altitude reached its maximum of about 38,000 ft, its pitch attitude and angle of attack being 16 degrees. At around 2 h 11 min 45 �, the Captain re-entered the cockpit. During the following seconds, all of the recorded speeds became invalid and the stall warning stopped. The altitude was then about 35,000 ft, the angle of attack exceeded 40 degrees and the vertical speed was about -10 000 ft/min. The airplane’s pitch attitude did not exceed 15 degrees and the engines’ N1’s were close to 100%. The airplane was subject to roll oscillations that sometimes reached 40 degrees. The PF made an input on the side-stick to the left and nose-up stops, which lasted about 30 seconds. At 2 h 12 min 02, the PF said, “I have no more displays, and the PNF “we have no valid indications�. At that moment, the thrust levers were in the IDLE detent and the engines’ N1’s were at 55%. Around fifteen seconds later, the PF made pitch-down inputs. In the following moments, the angle of attack decreased, the speeds became valid again and the stall warning triggered again. At 2 h 13 min 32, the PF said, “[we’re going to arrive] at level one hundred�. About fifteen seconds later, simultaneous inputs by both pilots on the side-sticks were recorded and the PF said, “go ahead you have the controls�. The angle of attack, when it was valid, always remained above 35 degrees. The recordings stopped at 2 h 14 min 28 . The last recorded values were a vertical speed of -10,912 ft/min, a ground speed of 107 kt, pitch attitude of 16.2 degrees nose-up, roll angle of 5.3 degrees left and a magnetic heading of 270 degrees. No emergency message was issued by the crew. The wreckage was found at a depth of 3,980 metres on 3 April 2011 at about 6.5 NM and to the north of the last position transmitted by the aircraft.[/quote]
Posted on: 1/14/2012 5:36 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10908109

RE: Air France 447
Gents, I have never flown the 330 and know very little about this aircraft. As for the 777 it has Three Pitot/Static Probes and Two Angle of Attack Vanes which are Electrically Heated. The system is automatically turned ON as soon as one engine has been started; there are no switches in the Flight Deck. I am almost certain that the 330 system would be identical. Some of our 330 aircraft had to have their Pitot/Static Modules changed after the AF447 accident. Apparently there were TWO types of units that could be fitted and one particular type was PRONE TO ICING UP. I believe it was this type that was installed on the AF447. As David mentioned this fault has occurred several times before on 330's and for the grace of God shortly after the probes iced up they flew out of the clouds into Daylight conditions (giving the crew a perfect Horizon Reference). Once again the AF447 was a multitude of unfortunate events, plus they were IMC, in poor weather, at Night, with no Horizon. Higdsight is a wonderful thing and I believe there was a total of 24,000 hours of experience onboard the AF447 flight deck, BUT unfortunately the only true facts of what exactly happened, and why they did what they did, remain with the poor crew.
Posted on: 1/14/2012 4:53 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10908015

RE: 25% Pilot RC Yak 54 Attitude Problem
[quote]And certainly you should never have to add up thrust to any model, let alone a scale aerobatic model.[/quote] NOT TRUE!!!!! For a ZERO / ZERO incidence setup the only way to induce a slight tail down force (which is required for longitudinal stability as the CG is forward of the Center of Pressure), is to set some degree of up thrust. This is usually very small and is usually less than 1 degree. Bearing in mind that on a "right hand tractor" (which most of our Petrol Engines are), the downward blade of the propeller produces more thrust then the upward - due to the positive angle of attack, which is required as the wings are usually symmetrical on these types of models, then this side force also acts a a small amount of up thrust due to gyroscopic procession. Any updates Tony?
Posted on: 1/13/2012 10:24 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10907901

RE: Air France 447
Danno, with all due respect your comments are NOT entirely correct. The intricate details behind this accident are VAST and remember; for any accident to occur there is always a multitude of events that have to be in sync - explained in the Swill Cheese Reason Model by James Reason. Of course, the pilots are always the last line of defense and its ALWAYS VERY EASY TO POINT FINGERS AT THE CREW, but trust me - no flight control system, by design, should leave the flight crew guessing or confused by going into some other LAW. This is NOT an AIRBUS bashing, many other manufactures are also guilty of this concept, however, I do believe that Pilots should always have full control and authority at all times (unless when aerodynamically impossible).
Posted on: 1/12/2012 3:30 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10904704

RE: Mobil DTE oil and Jetcat warranty?
Guys, I was talking to Marcus Zipperer from JetCat a few months back about this very subject – alternative synthetic oils. He explained that there are several fully synthetic oils that can be used as an alternative, HOWEVER; the problem is NOT the oil but rather the different grades of kerosene that modelers use. Its this inconsistency that some oils don't do well with. Mobil Jet II provides the best lubrication and protection to internal parts when the kerosene used is NOT a high quality, aviation grade Jet-A1. Therefore the way I see it is this: 1. If a modeler uses very clean, high quality, aviation grade Jet-A1. Then an alternative to Mobil Jet II may be considered. 2. If a modeler uses kerosene (perhaps of various inconsistent grades), then only Mobil Jet II (or the JetCat Turbine Oil) should be used. Any other comments, ideas, suggestions will be welcome. Best regards, Darryl
Posted on: 1/6/2012 8:59 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "JetCat Turbine Direct Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10895703

RE: There I was thinking it was just us RC pilots who flew too low!
Hey Al, No worries at all, like I said it all started from the Canadian website. I dont mind the photo's at all, but do get a little concerned when "they" mention that I was supposedly fired. Take care and best regards, Darryl
Posted on: 1/5/2012 12:16 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10892428

RE: There I was thinking it was just us RC pilots who flew too low!
Thanks for the comments Guys. The resurrection of the old photo has stirred a little hornet nest, but thats okay as it forced me to elaborate on the details. I must re-emphasize that the "Horse Bolted" from the release of the Vintage Wings of Canada webpage (a few months back) and NOT, and I repeat NOT from Ali's Post on RCU. [b]I know Ali well, he is a good friend and have a lot of respect for him.[/b] Regards, Darryl
Posted on: 1/4/2012 11:52 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10892417

RE: Air Zimbabwe Boeing 707 Display Flight - By Captain Darryl Tarr
Thanks for the comments Guys. The resurrection of the old photo has stirred a little hornet nest, but thats okay as it forced me to elaborate on the details. I must re-emphasize that the "Horse Bolted" from the release of the Vintage Wings of Canada webpage (a few months back) and NOT, and I repeat NOT from Ali's Post on RCU. [b]I know Ali well, he is a good friend and have a lot of respect for him.[/b] Regards, Darryl
Posted on: 1/4/2012 11:50 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10892415

Air Zimbabwe Boeing 707 Display Flight - By Captain Darryl Tarr
First of all "Happy New Year to Everyone". Although this is NOT directly RC related I decided to post it HERE on RCU as there is a previous post regarding this subject. I hope you enjoy the details (PDF attached). Regards, Darryl Tarr
Posted on: 1/3/2012 3:02 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10888965

RE: There I was thinking it was just us RC pilots who flew too low!
[b] Air Zimbabwe Boeing 707 Display Flight By Captain Darryl Tarr [/b]
Posted on: 1/3/2012 3:00 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10888958

RE: There I was thinking it was just us RC pilots who flew too low!
[b]Please see my New Post (Post # 22), which has a PDF document that explains it ALL [/b] [b]Captain Darryl Tarr[/b]
Posted on: 1/3/2012 2:57 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10873771

RE: Jet Cat P140's arrive
Hey Ali, Marc S, Mark S, and Dave W, I look forward to having a beer with you guys tomorrow. I fly out of Dubai in the morning to Dusseldorf, and then a train ride, so should be at JP by 4pm, and will be there till Sunday. YIPEE!!! Regards, Darryl Tarr
Posted on: 9/14/2011 5:43 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10715950

RE: Williams BMW Futura From The U.A.E.
Hi Carsten, Jeremy, Many thanks for the info and comments. Greg is very happy with his new baby, in-fact I was quite sad to see it go when it left my workshop but on the other hand there is also a lot of enjoyment and pleasure to see a really happy customer. I actually had a feeling that the landing gear and retract on Greg’s FUTURA were of an OLD design as I had seen newer and improved ones on the internet. Thanks again. Darryl
Posted on: 7/16/2011 3:57 AM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10623535

RE: Williams BMW Futura From The U.A.E.
Some more:
Posted on: 7/15/2011 10:16 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10623393

RE: Williams BMW Futura From The U.A.E.
Hello Gents, Many thanks for the compliments on the installation. The build took me approximately 120 hours. I had the model in my workshop for 10 weeks but during that time I did take a 2 week break from the FUTURA as I was finishing my new 1/5th Scale Turbine EC-135 from Helicoptertechnik Schwing (German Kit), therefore the 120 hours were spread over a period of two months. Here are some of the modifications and fabrications that I have done: 1. The forward battery tray (supplied in the kit) was too small to accommodate the two 4,000 mAh PowerBox Batteries so the tray was extended rearwards and stepped upwards by 1� in order to clear the nose retract unit. 2. The rear section of both inlet ducts were cut at an angle to allow smoother transition of the airflow towards the turbine. 3. The P-180 is a long turbine so instead of moving the fuel tank forward I decided to fabricate a tail pipe support system and mount the pipe behind the rear turbine mount ply former. This resulted in the pipe being too long so the bell mouth rivets were drilled out and 27mm was removed from the front section of the pipe. This also ensured the correct clearance between the end of the turbine tail cone and the leading edge of the bell mouth (which should be 4 cm according to JetCat). 4. None of the supplied clevises were used and these were changed for heavy duty aluminum ones. 5. All threaded pushrods were encased with K&S Aluminum Tubing for additional strength and a better look. 6. Two Du-Bro 24oz fuel tanks were converted to kerosene and mounted on the fuselage floor either side of the turbine, these were used for the smoke system. As you know with any smoke system mounted internally the smoke oil has a tendency to find its way around parts of the rear fuselage and eventually this leads to a slow death of the model as it becomes oil soaked. Therefore all wooden formers were coated with epoxy resin and then the fuselage was sealed internally with 2K Polyurethane. Powder Blue was chosen for the esthetically pleasing appearance. 7. I was a little concerned regarding the strength of the forward incidence pin on the vertical stabilizer as we were not installing the forward fairing (which has an extra anchor due to the mounting bolt). Therefore I filled a syringe with BVM V-Poxy and applied this into the pin which allowed the glue to form a fillet inside the stab. I then also filled the pin with glue and plugged the opening with a 3/16 balsa sheet. 8. Four pneumatic air tanks were used as I wanted to increase the total volume of air, not really required for the wheel brakes but definitely required for the landing gear (2 large tanks for the landing gear and 2 small tanks for the wheel brakes). This would result in lower pressure loss per cycle. Although the landing gear is of good quality I am a little disappointed in the retracts, in particular the small volume of the nose wheel cylinder which has to work overtime to retract the nose wheel once airborne as this retracts forward against the airflow. A plastic carbon/ply laminate was fabricated and mounted on top of the tanks which would accommodate the FESTO connectors. The total weight of the model is 19.2 KG. Initially the CG was located in the middle of the wing tube which required 480 grams of lead weight in the nose, but after the first flight I removed 240 grams and the flight characteristics were certainly a lot better. Jeremy, the Fuel Dots are from JE Model Products. Here are some photos. Regards, Darryl Tarr Dubai
Posted on: 7/15/2011 9:34 PM by Author "darryltarr" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10623353