RE: Best Kits
I have to agree with eddieC at least in part. Just last month I finally found an Aerodrome kit of the Stinson 108. Had been looking for a few years, until one appeared on RCU for sale. They have a reputation for being beautiful kits, and I must agree. My other favorite is the old line of Pilot kits from the 70s and 80s out of Japan. Unfortunately the factory burned down about 20 years ago, and they never rebounded, at least in their original form. They had amazing parts fit, and it was done with die cutting, not lasers. The only down side was the weight of the finished planes, which tended to be a bit high, especially for the 25 size planes. Build the 25 size PT-19 a couple of years ago, and it does fly well despite the weight.
Posted on: 9/1/2012 7:59 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11213482

RE: Whats up with kits?
Last month I noticed an auction on eBay for a Sig Citabria. It went for about $325. I am still scratching my head on that one, as Sig has NOT discontinued this kit. You can buy factory fresh kits for about $125. By the way, I am guessing Sig's models of the J-3 and the Citabria are among the longest running production model aircraft kits. I think the J-3 dates to the early 1960's and the Citabria to maybe the late 60's. I still have my Citabria that I built in 1977. Has not flown in years, but the Randolph dope over Southern R/C Skyloft (now sold by Dave Brown, I believe) finish still looks brand new! Anyone know of a kit in production longer than these??
Posted on: 8/24/2012 9:23 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11204507

RE: Hyundai vs. Mercedes C230
Does someone really care?
Posted on: 8/21/2012 6:23 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Off Topic Forum - Cars, Trucks, Buggies and more"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11201503

RE: Hangar 9 40 Size Piper Pawnee!!!
I have been flying my Pawnee for at least four years now. I am on the low side of power with the recommended .52 Evo. No powerhouse, but a fine running engine, and scale-like operation. I have noticed one surprising quirk in the handling of this plane. Flying straight and level at full power (what of it there is) if I apply a moderate amount of rudder, there is a very noticeable tendency for the plane to "tuck under," that is for the nose to drop. A lot of up elevator is required to keep it on line. With all the dihedral this plane has, I am very surprised that it does this. Has anyone else noticed this trait? Do you have an explanation / remedy?
Posted on: 8/19/2012 11:09 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11198752

RE: What Airplanes are you Installing a Mintor22cc gas engine in?
4 it is. Thanks guys.
Posted on: 8/16/2012 9:31 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11195797

RE: What Airplanes are you Installing a Mintor22cc gas engine in?
My Mintor 22 is due from FedEx on Friday. I want to go ahead to get a battery pack for the ignition on the way. I know this ign. can take more than 6 volts. I guess I will get a 5 cell NIMH. Is this the ticket?? I don't have charging capability for any of the more modern / exotic batteries at the moment, so I want to use what I am familiar with.
Posted on: 8/15/2012 7:49 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11195211

RE: What Airplanes are you Installing a Mintor22cc gas engine in?
Cap'n, In RC Groups I think I have talked a fellow into using the Mintor 22 in this plane: (http://phoenixmodel.com/Default.aspx?mode=view_detail&CatId=16&id=55) He was posting all over the internet trying to decide on power, including the maker of the plane and at least one Mintor site. It seemed perfect to me for the 22 based on weight, type, size, etc. and the intended (scale) application. He did not want to spend the money for the 120 - 150 4 cycle glow engine, and liked the idea of gas anyway. I told him the original recommendation of a 1.2 two stroke glow seemed overkill, and the factory was back-pedaling on that recommendation anyway. I suspect that their "chinglish" recommendation was meant to be 1.2 four stroke anyway. Anything meant for 1.2 4 stroke glow is probably good to go with a Mintor 22 or equivalent . Do you agree??
Posted on: 8/13/2012 2:20 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11192021

RE: What Airplanes are you Installing a Mintor22cc gas engine in?
Seagull Models SpaceWalker II.
Posted on: 8/12/2012 8:10 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11191059

RE: Bud Nosen Giant Scale Aeronca Build
What is (or will be) the ready to fly weight of your plane? I have seen these as light as 7 - 8 lbs and as heavy as 20 lb. plus! If yours is on the light side, or 12 lbs. or less, the 91 should fly it scale like. I have that same engine in a scale ARF Glastar at about 11 lbs. It climbs fine on a 14-7 ASP prop and I usually fly at about 3/4 throttle.
Posted on: 8/11/2012 9:27 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11189333

RE: Getting kinda bored...
[/quote] As for the RCU test I know a fair amount are still in the hobby, and active on other sites. They just quit this site for various reasons so saying they are out of the hobby is not really valid. I'me sure if we go into the airplane forum we can find similar trend just like every other form of RC's ;) [/quote] I believe I indicated that some are still involved, and just left RCU for whatever reason. I stick by the admittedly unscientific forum test. I also went back to those same years in the airplane side of RCU, and found that the vast majority still post or at least log into RCU. None of this proves that people are still involved or not, but the trend is clear to me.
Posted on: 8/10/2012 9:13 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "RC Car General Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11188200

RE: Getting kinda bored...
My observations of R/C cars (both online and at the LHS) is that most enthusiasts are young - certanily most are under 16. This is a time of growth and change for young guys, and as they age they mature, they find new interests and discover new things. What was new for them is now old, and what is new is exciting. It is not surprising that most get bored. While R/C cars can certainly be fun, it is basically a two dimensional endeavor. Steer right or left. Yes, there are many nuances and technical challenges, but it is still at the end of the day steer right or left. R/C flying more often becomes a lifetime hobby. The three dimensional aspect of the sport I think tends to hold one's interest and imagination for a long, long, time. I have been doing it over 40 years. Having said that, some still get bored with it and leave the hobby. I did a little test and pulled up a few random R/C car discussion threads on RCU from 2004 - 2005. I found that about 90% of the posters have not posted in the last three years. On one thread, I had to get to page 3 before I found a single poster that had logged in during the last 6 months. I assume most of this 90% are no longer running cars. Some may still be involved, and just got bored with RCU, but I think you get the idea.
Posted on: 8/10/2012 7:40 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "RC Car General Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11188107

RE: New JR DMSS Radios Announced
Very cool! Thanks for the heads up on the polarity. I have a charging station that is set up for current polarity of (older) JR stuff. Will have to put together a new wire for the XG once I get one.
Posted on: 7/31/2012 2:41 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "JR Radio & Spektrum Radios"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11176298

RE: New JR DMSS Radios Announced
I believe the mode is adjustable - I hope so, as I fly Mode 1. I have always had to special order my JR radios..... If it IS adjustable, why do you have to specify a mode when ordering? Mabe is is so you don't have to open the back to move the gimbal spring?
Posted on: 7/31/2012 8:56 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "JR Radio & Spektrum Radios"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11175875

RE: glow plug thread
I usually don't read a lot of articles in MA, but I was interested in the subject of the referenced article, and saw the info on thread size. I immediately panicked! Two days before I damaged the thread on my (expensive) OS FS91 Surpass II / pump, trying to start a new plug into the hole. I pulled the head that night (just to make sure on debris had fallen into the engine) and chased the thread with a 1/4-32 tap. Seemed to work perfectly. After seeing the article, a furious internet search ensued. Every reference said glow plug holes are 1/4-32. I was relieved, and mystified as to the author's assertion that 1/4-28 is correct. Strangely, the article said the 1/4-28 data was a correction to another article the month before, where he had (correctly) identified the thread as 1/-32. I have NO IDEA how the author in the following days was able to convince himself that 1/4-28 was the correct answer. Misprint had nothing to do with it. He went out of his way under a "correction" heading to spread the bad information. Hope nobody ruins their heads trying to use the wrong tap.
Posted on: 7/29/2012 12:17 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11173450

RE: Where to mount the ignition box?
Taz, Great idea with the rubber stand-offs. This offers some vibration isolation as well as optimizing the cooling under the ignition. Can you post a close-up of the isolators and tell us where you obtained them? (The spark plug cable hides the isolator in your photo. Radical Departure, You may be the one who posted the ridiculous shipping quote about a year or so ago. It was so egregious I have never forgotten it. I guess what Glen's Models is saying is that they really do not want to participate in the USA market unless the buyer wants to offer up an arm and a leg.
Posted on: 7/24/2012 8:44 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11167264

RE: Where to mount the ignition box?
Am considering that area on my Spacewalker too. What engine did you use? Has it flown?
Posted on: 7/23/2012 5:47 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11166523

RE: Where to mount the ignition box?
John, If you know him and get a chance, please ask him what is the issue with shipping / selling his products to buyers in the USA. Depending on what you find, I may pursue the matter. I appreciate it very much!
Posted on: 7/23/2012 2:15 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11166205

RE: Where to mount the ignition box?
John, Thanks again. The Nalgene bottle has been fitted with metal fittings I have seen somewhere. Apparently Glen's Models is getting them from someone that goes ahead and upfits the bottles to make tanks from them. I am familiar with Glen's Models of Scotland, even here in North Carolina, USA. They have a wonderful series of Maule airplanes that they get as ARFs from China. I have wanted one since they were introduced, but have not been able to get my hands on one. Chatter on RCU uncovered at least one or two modelers in the states who contacted Glen's about getting one sent from Scotland to the USA and were greeted with no return communication on their request or were quoted absolutely outrageous shipping charges (I think in the range of 500 pounds sterling.) I am a Maule fan, and bought a Powerplanes International kit of the Maule Skyrocket made in the early 1990's from a guy in the Channel Islands. HE only charged me USD 20 to ship it to me! Powerplanes International, you probably know, was a kit maker from Wales. They are no longer in business. The kit built nicely, and is a great flyer. It is only a small .40 size model. My daughter lives and works in London at the moment, and is moving back to North Carolina in November. She is coming home on a cruise ship (cheaper than flying, believe it or not!) and I am considering having Glen's deliver a kit to her apartment in London and get her to float it to me on the ship.
Posted on: 7/23/2012 1:36 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11166146

RE: Where to mount the ignition box?
Nice installation, John. Very neat and clean. What kind of fuel tank is that?
Posted on: 7/23/2012 12:30 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11166035

Where to mount the ignition box?
I have over forty years experience with glow, but my first gas engined plane is nearing completion. It is a Skywalker II and will have a Mintor 22. I guess I am a real noob with gas! My question is this. In this plane, I have plenty of room inside the plane where I could mount the ignition module. I can see the advantage of it being in a cooler place, but it could be worse as there would be no airflow over it. I don't know how much heat must be dissipated from the ignition. Mounting on the outside of the firewall is an option, but this would be behind the engine and would be at a somewhat elevated temperature. Also, if mounted inside, can I wrap it in foam like a receiver to protect it or would this cause it to overheat? Putting it inside the plane puts it a bit closer to the receiver, which I would think would not be desirable. So, I just don't know which way to go.. Your thoughts??
Posted on: 7/20/2012 6:56 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11163057

RE: Metal spinners...Nose cones ?
Just a matter of terms - airplanes have "spinners" and rockets have "nose cones." Most beginners will refer to the spinner as a nose cone, and of course that is OK. They learn soon that over the years the accepted term for airplanes is spinner. It is an odd thing really, as in many respects nose cone would seem to be a better term! You can argue all day about "engine" vs. "motor" also. Most engineers will refer to any internal combustion device as an engine - that includes some expansion devices such as steam engines. Motor is a term usually reserved for electric motors and not too many other devices, but of course some. I believe rubber powered airplanes have "rubber motors." An air motor would be another example. NASCAR guys refer to their engines as motors, though, so go figure.
Posted on: 7/9/2012 4:26 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11149199

RE: Why buy a kit just to have it?
People who collect coins, paintings, antiques, and any number of "collectables" do so without any intention of "building" them or doing anything to them whatsoever. Fans of PBS's Antiques Roadshow know that many people do thousands of dollars of damage to antiques in their quest to "improve" them by refinishing, buffing, polishing, and in general removing generations of patina from the objects of their desire. Kits are no different in many ways. Some collect them just to have them, and that's totally OK. They are nice to look at, talk about, etc., but have the advantage of being useful (i.e., to be built) if the owner wants to at some point. This is something that cannot be done with most collector items. In the mean time, the value of most will continue to increase with time, and can be sold at some point, ether during or after the lifetime of the collector, for their book values. I tend to collect kits, with intentions of building each one at some time. I buy them when I find them, as the weird subjects I tend to favor do not come available too often. Therein lies part of the thrill of collecting kits - the chase!! I love looking for certain kits, and it is really satisfying when I find what I am looking for somewhere in the world. I bought a kit from the Channel Islands about three years ago, and actually built that one. I would prefer to collect Ferraris, Picassos, and Rembrandts instead of kits, but have found those to be more costly.[:)] If I had some multi-million dollar paintings, like other collectors of those subjects I would only be able to look at them, talk about them, and pay the insurance. Kind of like model plane kits, but only on a grander scale! I had better NOT do anything to try to improve them, like letting little kids color in the Picassos.
Posted on: 7/4/2012 4:45 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11143172

RE: Setting valves
It has been a while since I bought a Saito. Looks like they are getting more generous as OS becomes less so. Odd. By the way, I should have stated that the OS gage is 0.1 mm, not 0.01 mm. The convresion to 0.00394 is correct, however.
Posted on: 7/2/2012 9:30 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11139881

RE: Setting valves
WacoNut, I still have the gages supplied with my old FS-61. The "no-go" gage is 0.01 mm (.00394 in.) and the "go" gage is 0.04 mm (.00157 in.) Therefore, the correct setting is less than .00394 in. and equal to or greater than .00157 in. OS used to supply the feeler gages with every four stroke engine - before they got stingy. As a practical consideration, I try to set the valves so that the thinner gage will just pass through the gap. As the valve train wears at all of the contact points with run time, the cold valve clearance will increase. This is most noticeable during the break-in porcess as the wear points in the valve train (cam, cam follower, push rod ends, etc.) I find that a correctly set engine will progress to the point the valves are out of clearance tolerance in the first 1 - 3 hours of running. Reset, and they will tend to remain in tolerance for a long time - maybe a year of normal use. Subsequent adjustments will last much longer as the engine becomes fully broken in. I believe these same gages are applicable to all OS four strokes, and all Saito four strokes I have had have carried the same 0.01 - 0.04 specification, although Saito to my knowledge has never supplied a set of gages with an engine.
Posted on: 7/2/2012 7:06 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11139707

RE: Blushing Dope
Years ago, when I did more final finishing with butyrate dope, I had the same problem in the humid southeast USA when I painted in summer. What I found was that I could just let the dope blush if it wanted to, and after curing, polish the doped surface with most any automotive rubbing compound, followed with a coat of automotive paste wax. The blush, which always has a kind of grainy feel to it, would completely disappear with the rubbing compound. The whiteish coloration goes away too. Problem solved. Sometimes you learn to embrace the problem, find a work around, and go from there. Using this method I did not have to wait for a low relative humidity time, which were I live can take months sometimes.
Posted on: 6/30/2012 2:08 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11137889

RE: New JR DMSS Radios Announced
I know DMSS has been around for a while in Europe and other markets - at least a year or more. There should be enough "stick time" with this system in the real world to judge how well it works. How about it DMSS owners - thumbs up or down?
Posted on: 5/2/2012 10:15 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "JR Radio & Spektrum Radios"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11065549

RE: New 6, 8, and 11 ch. JR radios announced - DMSS technology
slarty, I noticed this week that JR sells their own branded SD cards. There was some indication in their literature (don't remember exactly where) that normal everyday SD cards may not work properly in the radios. I took this to be marketing hype to sell cards at what I am sure is an inflated price, but there may be some truth to their statement. I took it that JR does some type of formatting on their proprietary SD cards, although I am unaware that you have to do this with normal cards for cameras and similar devices.
Posted on: 4/18/2012 3:05 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11047620

RE: New 6, 8, and 11 ch. JR radios announced - DMSS technology
I know DMSS has been around for a while (at least a year or two) in Europe and other world markets other than the USA. What reputation has this system developed during its deployment to date? Is it bullet proof, a disaster, or something in between? Give us your experience with this system in your contry!!
Posted on: 4/17/2012 11:11 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11045869

RE: New 6, 8, and 11 ch. JR radios announced - DMSS technology
Correct. The two systems are not compatible.
Posted on: 4/14/2012 1:11 AM by Author "littlera" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11041219

RE: New 6, 8, and 11 ch. JR radios announced - DMSS technology
The JR site with the announcement is a USA site. It will locate USA dealers only, and refers you to a different site for international business. The fine print at the bottom shows a copyright for Horizon Hobbies, the USA distributor. And, as I pointed out, the announcemnt on the eve of the Toledo show is no accident. JR and others frequently debut new products at this largest of all R/C expos.
Posted on: 4/12/2012 3:57 PM by Author "littlera" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11039430