RE: Lancair Wing Failures
I've got the same motor/muffler setup as you. As the weather warmed up I noticed lack of power after being in the air a few minutes. Checked the head temp after landing and it was HOT! Way hot. Even with the baffle in the cowl and the vent at the bottom, it was over heating. I opened up the cowl around the landing gear even more and started running the motor richer. That cooled it off enough. The days have not gotten 'hot' here yet so there still may be heat problems in store for me. Me thinks I'll be carving around that gear opening even more! Good luck! Chip W. (wing still ain't broke... . . . ! No worries. I jinxed it several posts back! Still flying)
Posted on: 5/17/2004 12:11 PM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1821635

RE: Lancair Wing Failures
We had a Lancair wing failure at our field on Sunday the 11th. The fella was landing with flaps down and the right wing folded at the fuse. The plane spun in and was trash bag material when we went out to get the pieces. I have a Lanc with 5 hours on it and, after seeing this, am about to tear off the bottom of the wing and re-enforce the first 12 to 14 inches on either side of center. The other fella may have landed his hard a couple times and compressed the rib and/or cracked the sheeting under the outer part of the gear. That would make the wing very weak at that point. He had no added aluminum plate to tie his gear together, as I do. Maybe thats why I'm still flying? Hmm. Best of luck to us all![sm=spinnyeyes.gif]
Posted on: 4/16/2004 2:52 PM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1729579

RE: cutting fiberglass fuse
Al, Search for Lancair+door hatch or Lancair+hatch. There are a couple of guys who have done what you are looking at doing. Secondly, I have a Lanc with an O.S. .61 on it and it screams! Checks the posts. There is a fella who said he has a Lanc. with a Saito 100 on it and a flying buddy has one also, but with a .61, and the .61 smokes the fourstroker. Read up on the wing failure issue also. That's why I went with the .61 setup. Minimize weight on that long, thin wing. That and no ugly motor hanging outta my cowl! Only have 4 small engine related holes in it. Keeps the lines intact. There is at least one landing gear mod you are going to want to do also. That's all. Good luck on your build! Chip W.
Posted on: 3/31/2004 5:56 PM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "Tips & Techniques"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1678104

RE: Highstart mishap
Wow. This has turned into some discussion! I assume that as your 'club' is in a County Park, that it is more of an Association than a club. (Club could imply fees, usually a no-no on State, County, or City property) The reason I make this statement is that the Association I belong to is in a State Park here in Washington State. I would also assume that your group flys up to AMA standards but is not an AMA sanctioned field. (I may be wrong here!) We fly up the AMA standards also, but cannot be a sanctioned field as that would require paying dues to AMA and collecting money from patrons of the field. Collecting 'dues' is a no-no on State land here. I am part of a 3 person advisory committee that negotiates between the Association and the State on the many facets of maintaining a RC flying field in a State Park. Our success had led the State of Washington to change it's code governing Parks, allowing RC flying at most State Parks. Who says you can't fight City Hall! We also went beyond the AMA protocol to establish higher standards of safety for patrons and spectators, as well as diminish the impact of RC flying to neighboring homes. We had problems much as described here. We also had to get a bit tough with our rules so as to limit these potential disasters. This has peeved off a few folks, but after explaining why this is being done, the individual understands and adapts, or, as in the case of a few, they go somewhere else. One of our greatest problems was the high speed pass down the runway. There was great debate involved, but in the end, the box over the runway was relegated to take-offs and landings ONLY. No high speed passes, no acrobatics, no high start lines, no bomb or parachute drops. Suddenly, nearly all of the near misses, collisions, and 'oops!' flights over the pit area disappeared. Our pilots are to announce their intentions as to taxiing out onto the runway, landing, or going out onto the runway to collect an aircraft. The pilot states his intention loud enough to get a response from [b]ALL[/b] others flying at the moment. This has eliminated the old take-off while someone else is landing near miss or collision. These 'rules' may not sound new to many flyers, but it is the [b]enforcement[/b] of the rules that makes it all work. Nobody slides. We have suspended a few flyers for 30 days over what they called 'trivial' infractions. Being in a State Park, we can lose our flying field here by violating a few 'trivial' rules. Also, [b]NO[/b] rules are trivial when it comes to the safe operation of a flying field. We don't have many gliders pilots, but we do have heli enthusiasts. Here we ran into gray areas with respect to them flying with the fixed wing folks. In the end, they were asked to follow all the fixed wing rules. This actually has not been a problem as an 'unwritten' rule created itself out consideration between the flying types. The heli guys will wait for the fixed wings to all land before going out, and the fixed wing pilots will let the helis have their turn before returning to the sky. No mixed aircraft. Like I say, this little stiuation created itself through consideration and a bit of cooperation, and it works very well. How does this all apply to the original incident that started this thread? Suffice it to say, it would not have happened at our field. Both individuals would have been violating rules in our Management plan. Now, if it had, the incident would have been documented and kept for future reference. If these individuals were involved in more infractions then the groundwork for flying privileges removal would already have been laid. We have yet to banish anyone permanently, but there are always those rules benders out there. They are approached and reminded calmly that they are pushing the limits of acceptable flying behavior, and that they are jepardizing the use of the field for RC purposes. Strict adherance to the rules has created a very safe and organized flying experience at our field and complaints from the people living around the park have dropped to zero. That sounds like a bit of success for alot of hard work! Hope you folks get your situation settled! Chip W.
Posted on: 3/31/2004 5:37 PM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1678042

RE: What engine do you guys have in your Lancair ES ?
Judging from the wing failure stories, weight seems to be an issue here. I took that issue to heart when I built mine. Went with O.S. 61. After 20 flights now, I'm glad I did! It MOVES! In fact I was chasing a Quickie 500 plane yesterday and he could only lose me by turning hard. THAT I won't do with this long wing span. Not at high speeds. Read these forums on the Lancairs. The landing gear mod should be done to the plane. It was the ONE place I added a little needed weight for structural reasons. Keep it light and enjoy the flight![8D]
Posted on: 3/29/2004 3:27 PM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1671009

RE: Lancair Wing Failures
I reckon I'll put in my 2 cents also. I purchased one of these ARF's at the end of January this year and shortly after beginning assembly started searching around the web for any helpful hints. The wing failures postings I ran across had me wondering if I shouldn't have done this search before buying the plane. Well, I just decided, as a few others have have also, to just go for it and see what happens. The only mod done was to the landing gear with an aluminum joiner, effectively turning it into a 'one piece' unit. What Einstein decided on a two piece system?[sm=bananahead.gif] The first few flights were made on pins and needles as I slowly bumped up the speeds. 20 flights later I now have no qualms about a full power, 45 degree dive down to the runway for a high speed pass. The pull out is still conservative as I would like to hang on the plane as long as possible. No yankin and bankin EXCEPT at low speeds. She will snap roll quickly at a fairly low speed. I imagine the stress on the plane at that point would be fairly low, by comparison. I kept the weight to a minimum by going with an O.S. 61. Glad I did. The plane just screams with a .61. And with the in-cowl muffler set up, buggering up the cowl is minimized. If the wing loading is an issue, steer clear of bigger motors (more weight) they don't seem to be needed. I would bet this would fly off a paved runway with a hot .46! And that's my 2 cents worth. Hope I didn't jinx my success so far with this post![X(] Best of luck! Chip W.
Posted on: 3/29/2004 3:16 PM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1670971

Lost squadron
Hi Seafurymike! I just spent an hour cruising the net and could find no squadron signal books on the Sea Fury. New or used. I went to Squd/Sig and checked their catalog. Nada. Did they ever do one? There are many of the WarBirdTECH series books available for the Sea Fury. It's Vol. #37. I got a copy of it a month ago and it is at least as good as a sq/sig book. Better in some areas, poorer in others. Not many others. It was good enough for panel line placement on my TF Sea Fury that I have nearing completion. The author seemed to have chosen many of his pictures BECAUSE panel lines were visible. Good enough for me. Check out abe.com. This is a web site for 1000's of used book stores around the world. I've found just about everything I've ever looked for there. I even found a rare, very rare, book at a bookstore in New Zealand. Good thing the fella didn't know what he had. Best wishes, Chip W.
Posted on: 3/14/2003 6:07 AM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=613291

hidden wonders
Shannon, I think what Hans is refering to are 'RADS'. made by I.R.F. Machine Works in Milwaukie, Oregon. Take the periods out and run the name together for the web site. My 55" Sea Fury is so narrow at the back, I can't imagine hiding linkages. The darn tail wheel setup is hidden and hardly has room to turn. And it's 4 inches or so from the back! You are either brilliant, or a glutton for punishment. I'm hoping for the prior! Then I can pick your brain! :D Top Flight has theirs come out below the stabilizer for the rudder and elevator. Looking down on it, the linkages are pretty well hidden. The wing is fairly thick and should doable. Are you going to glass it? It's gorgeous glassed! Again, best of luck! Chip W.
Posted on: 3/13/2003 7:27 PM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=620578

panel lines
Shannon, The Warbird Tech series of books has a volume on the Sea Fury. I'm using it to do my panel lines on my Top Flight Sea Fury. Probably not a good as the drawings suggested by the other fellow but more readily available at a good book store. I got mine from the used book seller ABE.com Found the closest book store that had it, bought it online and had it 3 days later. Lots of very good pics in it and colors. I think I got reasonable accuracy on the lines. Don't worry too much about being right on unless you are entering a contest. The guys at the field are not going to know that they aren't right! Also, in my opinion, moderation is best. You could put panel lines on it until it looks like window screen. Just my 2 cents. Let your judgement rule! Best of luck on your scratch built! I wish I was that ambitious! (I think lack of time has something to do with tempering ambition!) Chip W.
Posted on: 3/13/2003 7:04 PM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=613287

Choke choke!
Paul, I too have an RCV that I thought was out of whack. Harder than heck to start. Sometimes it wouldn't. It needed, and still needs, to have the living daylights choked out of it. Yes, that goes agianst everything we ever learned about motors, but in this case. . .! Make sure you have an O.S. type F glow plug in it. All the difference in the world. The O.S. F plug has a larger bore where the coil is located, and a slightly larger coil. The larger bore allows the fuel mix to access the coil and react much more readily. Hope this helps. :) Chip W. If you think you've choked it enough, choke it some more!!
Posted on: 3/13/2003 6:07 AM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RCV Engines Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=611814

rcv engine for BT hurricane
Ric52, Zinger has multi-blade prop setups available. I've learned from reading Otto's posts and talking to him by phone that he is not fond of 3 or 4 blade props. I'm not sure exactly where it is in this forum, but he does explains his reasons. Even though it is against his knowledgable advice, I do like the fact that if you have a prop strike on four blade unit, it might only break one or two blades. Zinger replacement blades in the 16 inch range are about $5.00 each. That is better than a new $20.00, 20 inch-2 blade. Your (our) choice, but Otto knows his stuff. And go wood. No plastic. Hope this helps until Otto gets back to you! Chip
Posted on: 2/9/2003 6:48 AM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RCV Engines Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=542463

CD series
Hi Otto, I was going to say something a little bigger than, say, an OS 91FS, but I see RCV is going to have that covered. How about something in the 1.3 range? 1.4 maybe? That would get into alot of 1/4 scale stuff that way. Maybe even pull a F8F? :D Talk to you later, Chip
Posted on: 2/5/2003 7:04 PM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RCV Engines Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=535326

Brand New RCV 90
Otto, I stopped by and asked him about your calls. Carl said he got them but his brother-in-law is named 'Chip' also, so he thought the 'Chip recommended calling you' dubious at best. He asked me to let you know to call him again. He just got rolling again yesterday after his mothers funeral. Convince him about those F8Fs!! I ordered a 85" P-51 from him. When I get going on it I'll keep you up to date. Well, make that everyone who reads this and is interested in just how much pull an RCV 120 has. It just might do it. Chip
Posted on: 2/5/2003 4:20 AM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RCV Engines Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=468787

RCV 120 SP bench run results.
Dave, Keep us up to date. Heck, I'm interested! Thanks for your info. As a RCV 120 owner, I'll take all the information I can get! It ONLY helps. Chip
Posted on: 2/3/2003 7:04 AM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RCV Engines Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=483435

120
Ed, I wanted to get into this topic in the prop section, but that would not have been very thread specific, would it? I called Otto the other day and, among other things, asked him if the RCV's 'breathe' any easier than a normal 4-stroke. He said 'yes'. I'm sure you are familiar with the typical valve train of a 4-stroke. The RCV's pull easier and exhaust easier. This is prominent at operating speed. I'm thinking that is why we need to prime the tar out of them. It's not so prominent (the vaccum, pull) at low(hand) speeds as a typical 4- stroke. It needs more priming props turns to get the fuel in there. My theory on the sensitive needle valves is that the motor pulls SO well that it exaggerates any change to the needles. (as compared to typical 4) Any credence here? Maybe I've been in engine exhaust too long. Keep us posted on the 'Stang!! :D Chip
Posted on: 2/3/2003 6:59 AM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RCV Engines Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=499577

120 'itis
Ed, I'm still not going to put that 120 in the Sea Fury. I don't really want to torque roll the plane into the turf on take off. I'm a scale flyer, but why add stress? With a 18x14 prop it was over reving at 5400 rpm plus. I didn't open the throttle any further than that. I don't think the idea of the 120 was to spin any faster than the 90. If one was to use a 90 size prop on it I'm sure it might go up a few hundred revs. It's that bigger prop that sets it apart. A US Engines 35 cc. with a 20x12 does not turn a whole lot faster. It's a pound and a half heavier too. For models that are ' on the fence' with the weight/thrust decision to make, the lack of some revs might be made up for by the lighter engine. (that US engine IS quite a bit cheaper, however. Hi Otto!!) :rolleyes: I bet you are going to have a hoot with your engine/plane setup. Keep us up to date. I'm going to try a NW hobby Tech 85" foam core Mustang with the 120 to see if will fill the bill. If not, well, time to try gas! [B]Otto,[/B] How did the F8F inquiry go? Any future for the 1/6 scale foam core? I'll be a buyer! :D Chip
Posted on: 2/3/2003 6:35 AM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RCV Engines Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=468785

Fuel composition
Gentlemen, Can ANYONE give up any info on fuel? I see alot of sales manuevering and the type of evasive dancing that would make a presidential candidate proud. Otto put in his two cents and got thrashed for it. The 'thrashers' did nothing to back-up their statements. Personally, I'll take experience over sales hype anyday. Post it all for the world to see. If it's alot of info and data, consider it well worth it. You just might make a few sales with some rays of sunshine instead of covering it in *!&?. :eek: This is supposed to be a forum to get info. Why is it so hard in this case? Chip W.
Posted on: 1/14/2003 6:22 AM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RC Fuels"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=480740

FUEL, is not fuel, is not Fuel Picking the right one. for RCV engines!!!!!!!!!
Otto, Is there any source of information on fuels, specifically the ingredients, and the pros and cons of said ingredients, and the reason they are there? When hearing it from a manufacturer one has to assume some bias in the response, so I would be interested in a third party reference. Thanks, Chip W.
Posted on: 1/11/2003 1:01 AM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RCV Engines Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=293575

props
Paul, I'll pass on to you what Otto told me on the phone yesterday. He is not fond of 3 or 4 bladed props on RCV motors. It's an issue of efficiency. More blades equals more drag. Check under the 3 and 4 bladed props thread for his words. He also recommends wood props. APC and the other plastic/composite props were way down his list. Using his parameters I'm guessing he'd say that 90 would be good in the Hurricane. I'm building a 66" Hawker Sea Fury myself. I made a mistake and bought the 120 RCV for it. It said a 120 four stroke was ok on the box, but the RCV's perform bigger for the same displacement. A 90 would have done it. Oh well! Still learning! Enjoy yours! They are very cool! Chip
Posted on: 1/9/2003 1:42 AM by Author "lokeetl" in the forum "RCV Engines Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=468783