RE: ParkZone Spitfire Mk IX !!!
So mad web, this patent flaps and retracts system, you'll be taking off with the flaps down?
Posted on: 10/11/2011 11:16 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Park Flyers & Backyard Flyers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10759946

RE: which country had the best fighter planes of WWII
As for best fighters, horse for courses. Best prop engined point defence fighter below 15,000 feet, Yak 3 Best prop engined long range bomber support fighter, Mosquito TF30. Day or night. Jets? Well the Meteor Mk4 has speed, manouverability, duration and reliability over the 262 so I guess I'll go with that.
Posted on: 6/30/2011 11:09 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10600065

RE: which country had the best fighter planes of WWII
[quote]ORIGINAL: skull1971 [quote]ORIGINAL: spadulike 3 comments. 1/ its not Great Britain. Its The United Kingdom. Great Britain is the name given to the land masses making up the British Isles. 2/ Hollywood did not win the war or any other war and its about time some folks realised that. 3/ If it was not for the BRITISH Hurricane and Spitfire then we would all be speaking German right now.Those 2 aircraft and their young but immensly brave pilots held off the might of the Luftwaffe and the German Navy . Out numbered and out gunned they fought like the heroes they should be remembered for and not the subject of some How the USA won everything debate. Lets face it the USA obtained the first Enigma machine, invented the first computer, invented the jet engine and even managed to put a commercial supersonic airliner in the sky..... oh ,sorry , they failed at that.... but i will not hold that against our old colony. [/quote] #1 It wasn't called the U.K. in 1940, what was it called? #2 I don't remember anyone on here saying anything about Hollywood, except you. Also be sure to read all the pages in this thread, several of us talk about what the Brit's did, and the BoB. They were brave, BRAVE men! I don't know if I have the ''sand'' to do what they did. #3 Oh and you'd be speaking German not me, The English Channel, and Atlantic, two really different bodies of water. I'd have been a real mess to try and invade the U.S. The red coats tried it twice, and look what happen to them. [:D] [/quote] Wow. this got vitriolic. A small correction to the history: Brits have never attempted to invade USA. The colonies were British at the time of the revolution. The revolution succeeded because 50, 000 British colonist troops died fighting against a Spanish invasion led by Bernardo de Galvez in what are the southern states. Galveston is named after him. The war of 1812 was started by a US attempt to invade Canada while Britain was looking at Napolean's 1.1 million man invasion army across the channel. Our invasion failed of Canada failed. Canada then marched an army from one end of our country to the other burning our capitol on the way. We don't get to chalk that up as a success. If Germany had taken Britain in 1940 then USA would have been facing Japan in the Pacific and the Axis forces, German, Italian, French and British fleets now with fascist markings in the Atlantic. It real would depend what Canada did wouldn't it? National pride is a wonderful thing except in international forums.
Posted on: 6/30/2011 6:32 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10599650

RE: Turnigy 63-64-B 230kv Outrunner
To take them in order: The specs say its RPM is 230 per volt. Im a simpleton, does that mean with 3.7volts the RPM will be about 851? [color=#000099]Yes![/color] Also, how do brushless speed controllers control the speed? Is it by controlling RPM or amparage? To say it differently, could the speed control be set for 150RPM and draw as much amperage as required to run at 150 RPM? [color=#000099]There are different types of speed controllers but they all work by increasing or decreasing the average voltage applied to each winding over a given time (typically milliseconds). [/color] And lastly can a speed control limit the amount of amperage drawn on the batteries?[color=#000099] Well, they do, since they control the voltage applied across a given, but somewhat variable load; the windings. They also sometimes have thermal cuouts inside in case the overheat. The cells will also "limit" the amperage they'll deliver but you don't want that to happen. [/color][:(]Thanks! Oh last is there such a speed controller for such low voltages (and RPM)? [color=#000099]The motor you referenced isn't really a low Kv for that size. It'll probably need a 100A+ ESC and 6+ cells to deliver optimal power for its size. [/color]
Posted on: 6/28/2011 11:26 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10596564

RE: Bash your planes for little or no money
Let us not forget soda bottles. These come on several shapes and sizes and they all have the characteristic that, when heated, they want to shrink back to the blob they were blown from. So if you need a canopy or indeed you want a skin for that aircraft you haven't built yet, then maybe soda bottles are the way to go. If you can carve a chunk of wood to the shape you want and get it inside a section cut from a bottle, then a heat gun will shrink it onto the form. For those that suffer, as I did, from always having a piece thats a little larger than the bottles I have, there's a trick. Keep the screw tops. Drill a hole into the top, screw on a fuel nipple. Screw the top back on the bottle. Now heat the bottle where you want it bigger while pumping air in with a bike pump. Any pump really. Don't try blowing....trust me. When its big enough, let it cool and it'll retain its size and shape. Now stick your masterpiece inside, heat again and it'll come back down to fit. For a compound shape that doesn't come off the form easily, shrink on one bottle and cut it off with a straight cut end to end. Shink on another then cut it off with an end to end cut somewhere else. Now use a strip out of the second one to join the cut you made in the first. yes, you can make then double thickness too. Complete fuselages can be constructed this way producing overlapping tubular sections from bottles.
Posted on: 4/5/2011 10:16 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Foamies! - RC Electric Foam Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10444560

RE: Best Grass Field Foam Aircraft (Full House)
Hi Voodoo, I think you've hit it on the head with the PZ T28. There must be a dozen or more in our club that people solo'ed on. I've trimmed at least 6 for newbies. The only recommendation I've made for change is to increase the wheel diameter by 1/2 inch or so on rough grass. It makes a great backup plane too. Then there's the cheap $15 2200 Lipo's so you can fly all day with bothering to charge anything.
Posted on: 4/5/2011 9:56 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Foamies! - RC Electric Foam Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10444519

RE: gas to electric conversions
Just to add, my motor is a turnigy 50-65 320, Cells are a 4S Flightpower 15c (Turnigy again). ESC is a Plush 80A (Turnigy again effectively, all bought from Hobbyking. A good combo with enough power and very quiet!
Posted on: 11/3/2010 9:17 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10112837

RE: gas to electric conversions
Hi, I have a VK Camel I've electrified. it's been flying all season and works very well. Initially I got the motor (320kv), ESC (80A) and a 4S 4400mah all inside the cowl. It's a bit of work but can be done. Prop is a wood 16x10. The plane ended up nose heavy! It flew but was a little stodgy on all controls. I've since cut a hole in the lower bulkhead and slide the 4400 halfway through for a perfect CG position. Now it flies in a better than scale manner. Slow and floaty but capable of loops from level flight, stall turns and a somewhat sloppy aileron only roll. Oh! it also lands and I can keep the skid on the ground with the cg further back!
Posted on: 11/3/2010 9:14 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10112829

RE: most over rated and under rated fighters
This is a very long thread so it might have already come up. Best front line air to air fighter of WWII Gloster Meteor mkIV Worst front line air to air fighter of WWII Fiat CR42 (didn't even have a radio). Let the argument begin again :)
Posted on: 8/12/2010 2:58 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9928953

RE: Bad day...
[quote]ORIGINAL: paul33507 I have to add my 2 cents here.  I LOVE MY AVISTAR!  I would recommend this plane to anybody.  It's forgiving enough as a trainer to teach anyone.  I soloed the first time i took it off (un-intentional) was testing ground handling at taxi speed when a sudden gust took it airborne about 20 ft.  I managed to circle it around and land with out the buddy box (thank goodness for Real Flight).  2 months later i moved all the control point for maximum throws and was doing snap rolls, split S's and inverted passed all day long.  The ''Old Timers''(no offense intended, some of the best friends I have ever made) keep asking when i am going to get an acrobatic plane, that was 2 years ago and have no interest yet.  I won 2nd place in an aerobatic competition at a fun-fly with this plane.  It has never disappointing me nor have I gotten bored with it yet.  I have just re-located and added a second aileron servos to the middle of the wing to experiment with my new 9CAP Tx. Still being a newbie I don't see how anyone could go wrong with this plane.  It can be as docile or as challenging as you wish.  If you ever do get bored with it, pass it along to someone else.<img alt='''' src=''file:///Y:/Public/Pic-0019.jpg'' /> [/quote] Amen to all this. I have an Avistar with my old gear in it plus buddy box. It's my third. The other two were bought by the guys that learned on them. I use it to train newbies all the time. I've flown several other peoples trainers over the years while teaching and the Avistar flies in more linear fashion than any. This one I converted to electric:- HXT 42-60 600Kv motor $40 Turnigy Plush 60 amp ESC $35 4S1P Zippy 4400mAh 15C packs $34 each. The performance is about the same as with an OS 40 FSR up front and a lot cleaner and cheaper over two seasons . With 3 packs of cells to rotate you can fly none stop all day just the same as nitro..
Posted on: 12/18/2009 2:47 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Crash & Rebuild"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9341358

RE: 1/3 Scale Balsa USA Fokker D.VII Build
Excellent thread! I'm surprised you're not getting more comments. All I need to work out now is: How do I sell this "neccessity to my collection" to the wife? How do I electrify it? Nice workmanship. I think you're only up the way from me, so I'll bug you closer to the finish to find out where you'll fly it :)
Posted on: 10/16/2009 10:49 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9177813

RE: petes pilots closing down
Hi Pete, that sounds like a good plan. I hope your travelling days are long and enjoyable. Great work over the years, thanks! p.s. I'll still be a customer when you're interested :)
Posted on: 9/21/2009 11:33 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9112199

RE: PLEASE HELP!!! Plane calls for a .15 but I want to go Electric. Dont know what size???
Yup, what Speedy says! Though I am puzzled at the poor performance from the 35-36A 1400. I have a 35-36B 1300 and it performs as stated. I get 10-12 minutes with decent throttle management.
Posted on: 7/23/2009 1:56 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8957882

RE: PLEASE HELP!!! Plane calls for a .15 but I want to go Electric. Dont know what size???
The general rule of thumb for a scale plane is 100W or more per pound for aerobatic performance. So lets say you're looking for somethign approaching 400W. I'm cheap, so I'd go for: Turnigy TR 35-36B 1300kv brushless outrunner - $21.00 http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=2140&Product_Name=TR_35-36B_1300kv_Brushless_Outrunner_(Eq:2814) This motor matches props in the 8x6/9x6 range on a 3 cell lipo. Turnigy Plush 40amp speed controller $34.95 http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=2165&Product_Name=TURNIGY_Plush_40amp_Speed_Controller (Gets us the 40A we need) and three Turnigy Zippy Flightmax 2200mAh 3s1p lipo packs $16.99 each (Say 10v x 20 x 2.2A gives 440W without losses at 44A). http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=6306&Product_Name=ZIPPY_Flightmax_2200mAh_3S1P_20C So you'd come in around $107 plus postage from Hong Kong which is probably 1/3 what you'll pay in your local LHS for name brands. I've have an exception series of experiences with this stuff, which has not always been true of name brands.
Posted on: 7/13/2009 9:00 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8928601

RE: .60 glow to Electric COnversion
It seems we all have different luck with different manufacturers. I've had two small Rimfire motors, one which seized on the first run and a second wose kv was so far from spec I couldn't use it with the setup I'd bought for it. OTOH, I have a Turnigy 55-60 400 and Turnigy 42-60 500 which have run flawlessly for ages with ESC's from 40A to 100A and 4,5 and 6 cell Zippy packs. I guess it's a crap shoot.
Posted on: 6/19/2009 1:16 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8864898

RE: Hangar 9 Fokker DVII
I've been in this hobby since 1959 but had no clue what AP was until I saw this email. It's a world wide audience. CA=Super Glue=Cyno=Crazy Glue= several other things in other languages
Posted on: 3/31/2009 10:23 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8634506

RE: VQ Hurricane-Electric
I expected more to answer this. I don't know of another forum to go to, so i'll offer what little assistance i can. If its the .40 Hurricane, then I have one and for good performance you'll need about 500W with a prop pitch/rpm to generate 60mph minimum at full throttle. For the .60 Hurricane, you'll need about 700W but strangely prop/pitch requirements will remain about the same; 60mph. The wing loading on the 60 size is considerably lower.
Posted on: 3/16/2009 11:45 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8583463

all. Tips on building a 10" diameter NACA cowling
I guess the title says it all. The cowl will be a one off for a Fiat CR-42 I'm building from plans. I also guess the cowling needs to be smooth inside and out to get a venturi affect? The prop won't extend far beyond the cowl. I'm up for any tips on the best way to go with this. I'm competent at panel beating metal, fibreglassing and I'm even have a go at vacuum molding if anybody thinks its practicable. The cowl will be around 12" in length.
Posted on: 3/10/2009 3:42 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8563568

RE: Found a plastic spinner, sharing info
[quote]ORIGINAL: alex7403 i hear ya, i'm looking into Dave Brown's, tru turn, prop nuts etc' yes injury is much more expensive then all of these combined. [/quote] Much as I hate to send business outside the country, they're all made in China now anyhow. There's a good range of aluminum spinners, complete with adaptor, on Ebay for under $20. I have two and the quality is decent. They even do a good range of 3 bladers. To cut for the prop I use a Dremel tool, cutting wheel and then sanding drum. There are plenty more tips eher: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8479441/tm.htm
Posted on: 3/6/2009 12:14 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8550179

RE: Do ARF's Belong in the Scale Forum?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder [quote]ORIGINAL: deothoric [quote]ORIGINAL: Mode One [quote]ORIGINAL: deothoric So its ok to compete with a kit, where quite a lot of the work, including the design, has been done but not with an ARF, where a little more work has been done? Sorry but I think competitions should be limited to true OD models. No kits, no ARF. [/quote] Here is that elitest attitude
Posted on: 3/6/2009 8:56 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8549586

RE: KMP SBD Dauntless *NEW pics*
[quote]ORIGINAL: JL1 The SBD enjoyed great success in the hands of the navy. Although consisdered nearly obsolete at the beginning of the war, it had a good record in combat It was the key aircraft in the battle of Midway, sinking four Japanese carriers in the course of the fight. For a bomber, it was quite agile and, in a pinch, was sometimes used on CAP missions when there wern't enough fighters to do the job. It was very effective at Guadalcanal and numerous other battles in the Pacific. If I am not mistaken it sank more enemy warships in WWII than any other aircraft. In a nutshell, it was a very successful plane and there is a lot to know about it. http://books.google.com/books?id=sotfC1gBbsoC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=leppla+%2B+sbd&source=bl&ots=XPiowhOxKK&sig=luX7B6Yv-XpY0j0KLEr5VT1Psxw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA2,M1 [/quote] The SBD was an excellent workhorse whose crews earned their place in history but the record holder for sinking shipping has to go to the Fairey Swordfish I think you'll find.
Posted on: 3/5/2009 7:41 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8547908

RE: Do ARF's Belong in the Scale Forum?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Mode One [quote]ORIGINAL: deothoric So its ok to compete with a kit, where quite a lot of the work, including the design, has been done but not with an ARF, where a little more work has been done? Sorry but I think competitions should be limited to true OD models. No kits, no ARF. [/quote] Here is that elitest attitude rearing it's ugly head, again! The above comment doesn
Posted on: 3/4/2009 9:44 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8542674

RE: Do ARF's Belong in the Scale Forum?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder I think that quite a few of you are into straining gnats, and swallowing camels. There is a vast difference between building a kit, or from an existing plan, and gluing pre assembled sub assemblies together. It sounds as if you are justifying your choice of either building, or flying. There is a wide gulf between us, and I doubt if any of us will ever use the boat to come to the other side. The original post asked the question that still remains unanswered. I know that the major contests do not allow them to compete with each other. The question had nothing to do with competing in contests. Let me rephrase the question in order to get the thread back on track: Do model airplanes that are not scale belong in the Scale Forum? Maybe that will eliminate the angst. Bill, Waco Brother #1 [/quote] I reckon this will still call for straining gnats. I don't believe there's ever been an exact scale prop rc airplane to 1/3 scale or less. The props won't be efficient enough, the revs will be too high, with a scale airfoil the flight speed will be too high. As for static scale, there's always something too thick or too thin. Building an ARF calls for some skill. Building a kit calls for more skill. Building from a plan usually calls for even more skill. Designing a scale airframe from scratch (that's what scratch built means BTW), takes vastly more skill and courage, since until you're finished, you don't know if it'll fly worth a damn. So if we're going to scorn someone for building an ARF because we built a kit, then we have to accept there are people miffed because we didn't scratch build and we have to accept their rightful, by our definition, scorn. Glass houses!
Posted on: 3/4/2009 9:22 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8542606

RE: Do ARF's Belong in the Scale Forum?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Kemosobie That is a tough question. I am going to say no. When I enter my Boeing F4B2 in a contest and lose to and ARF it does't give me warm fuzzies. Lose to a built model I go home and try to improve mine. I am not against ARF's I own one Skylark 56. I am building a second F4B2 ( Balsa products kit) and read your WACO forum all the time for tips and ideas. IMO a scale model should be built and flown by the modeler and discussed in the Scale forum. ARFs should have their own forum. Stick you build a very nice model. What size Pica kit would be good for my OS 160 twin? [/quote] So its ok to compete with a kit, where quite a lot of the work, including the design, has been done but not with an ARF, where a little more work has been done? Sorry but I think competitions should be limited to true OD models. No kits, no ARF.
Posted on: 2/23/2009 8:21 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8508351

RE: The Greatest Ever
[quote]ORIGINAL: bassfisher I also watched the show before that - top 10 Bombers. The Fairey Swordfish was #10 [:@] Come on- why didn't they add the SBD or Avenger- they did a heck of a lot more damage to shipping than the Swordfish?. Maybe being bias toward US made bombers, but no mention of the B-24 or B-25? The B-17 was #2, but I still disagree with that too. At least the B-52 was ranked #1. I didn't watch the Fighter show, had to spend most of that hour washing the bile out of my mouth from the Bombers show. Who makes these picks? Maybe they just pick them out of a hat- they sure don't use anything else! [/quote] I think you'll find Swordfish sank more tonnage of shipping than the entire US forces on WWII. Start with the complete Italian fleet in Taranto and work from there. As for the B17, it depends how they're rating. A Lancaster carried 4 time the bomb weight and its return % was higher. The Mosquito caried roughly the same weigh as a B17 and could certainly fight its way in and out better. Its all a matter of perspective. Yes, I'm USA from VA. We have an interesting John Wayne
Posted on: 2/19/2009 4:06 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8495402

RE: 90SP Muffler failure on run #4.
[quote]ORIGINAL: Michael211 Well I don't have a tach unfortunately, but with Coolpower 10% I can get the idle so low you can actually see the prop as it swings around... and it'll idle like that for several minutes without loading up. Not bad for an engine with only a little over 1 hour's run time on it. I'm a bit peeved about the muffler coming apart... to be fair, I had read up on these engines quite a bit before deciding to buy one so I was already aware that there've been reported failures of the RCV mufflers. However I'd *hoped* that RCV had addressed the issue and fixed it promptly and that a brand new engine wouldn't come with a poorly built muffler by now. [:@] Brazing or somehow welding the end of the muffler end into the casing is the only way it'll ever hold together... a press fit just isn't sufficient. Why isn't RCV taking care of this defect in their design? I like the engine so far, I'm annoyed about the muffler though. Would like to see RCV step up to the plate here on this issue. [&o] - Michael [/quote] To be fair, the end has been falling out or rattling on OS Surpass engines for 20 years. Very nasty, since that black goop is powered aluminum. My fix has always been to use JB Weld. I wash the assembly with dishwashing soap and water. Then dry it with paper towel. Then swab down with alchohol and dry again. Then mix up the JB, push the end in as far as it'll go, squish the JB around. Twist the end a bit to spread it inside and out. Pull the end flush, wipe off the excess and wait 24 hours. The OS 26 and 48 engines I did this on have been good every season since 1984.
Posted on: 2/2/2009 3:23 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RCV Engines Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8430504

RE: Dutch Roll
Not for nuthin' Boss but the webpage refered to is wrong in almost every statement. Starting with history "Dutch Roll" is the motion ascribed to a ship when it has wind and wave under side quarter stern. Absolutely the worst ships under these conditions were the 15th Century trading cogs the Dutch used, hence, Dutch Roll. On the more recent statements, the statement seems to refer to "dihedral" as "tip above root" while talking about dynamic conditions. Mixed messages, since the swept wing mentioned will act dynamically as extra dyhedral. I'd go on but rather I suggest not quoting this page as a definition would be better. Thanks. [quote]ORIGINAL: da Rock [quote]ORIGINAL: Shoe [quote]ORIGINAL: da Rock Actually, it's caused by an imbalance between the yaw stability and the roll stability. And truth is, it's cured by fixing or overpowering what ever is weak about the design that is causing it. [/quote] I'm not sure what you mean by roll stability. [/quote] What do "I" mean? That's a direct quote from the definition of dutch roll where it mentions the cause. [/quote]
Posted on: 1/27/2009 1:19 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8407729

RE: Avistar four stroke
As to the throttle operation with a 4 stroke, it's very easy. Take the tank hatch off. Configure the 4 stroke throttle arm to the up position. Use a pushrod (bicycle spoke?) from servo to throttle arm. It'll need a small bend depending on the engine height and servo. Once that's all operating freely (sometimes it needs a nick in the top of the firewall), dremel out the hatch front edge to clear it. Now thin CA all over wherever cuts were made, go fly!
Posted on: 1/26/2009 11:51 AM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8403094

RE: Albatros DIII
As a guestimate, I'd say we shouls expect to pay $200 for such an airframe kit.
Posted on: 1/21/2009 2:48 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8384329

RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
I have a pair of Saito FA82s and a Saito FA100 that will certainly do the job if the RCV doesn't. The RCV won't require any holes in the cowl either, so changing up won't make it too ugly. The extra weight of the RCV is a plus on this plane. Also, all the extra space behind the dummy Clerget I'll use to house the flight battery, the throttle servo and anything else I care to throw up there. I intend to use Pull-pull for rudder and elevator. I'll replace the tail braces with carbon fiber cords and no metal fittings. That, I hope, will reduce the tail weight enough so that I can get to a 3.75" CofG without the lump of lead.
Posted on: 1/13/2009 12:18 PM by Author "deothoric" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8353527