T6XA TX
I need an antenna for the T6XA TX. Is it still available? If so, what is the part number? Thanks
Posted on: 9/10/2012 7:10 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Futaba Radios Direct support forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11224450

T6XA TX
I need a replacement switch for a T6XA TX. The switch is the ELE>FLP switch. Is it available and what is the part #? Also, is the antenna available for a 9C Super? If so, what is the part #?
Posted on: 8/20/2012 2:24 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Futaba Radios Direct support forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11199605

9C Super and using VR(D)
Is it possible to use VR(D) as an idle adjustment? I would like to keep my idle trim set and use VR(D) to vary the idle up and down like a fast idle. Can it be done?
Posted on: 6/17/2012 4:52 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Futaba Radios Direct support forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11121650

Share an experience
I want to share an experience I had recently with an online battery supplier. This post isn't intended to flame the company so I don't want any posts flaming me. It's rather long even with the short version. I just want to tell what happened. I have bought thousands of dollars worth of batteries from this place since the late early 90's. First at the Toledo Shows and then online since I don't go to Toledo anymore(can't find the time). Anyway, on 3-10-12 I ordered a few battery packs but the one in particular was a 1500 mah 4.8V pack to be used as an ignition pack for a 50cc gas engine. I received the packs a few days later. The first thing I do is charge all my packs for 16-18 hrs to make sure they are charged and then do a discharge cycle to determine capacity. I use a tried and true Ace Digipace3 for my cycling. I usually do the charge and discharge cycles to form the batteries and determine the capacity which I document for future reference. The other packs cycled fine at stated or slightly higher capacity except for this 1500 mah pack. I cycled it 4 times and got 1350 mah. This to me was unacceptable. I called the company I ordered the batteries from and explained my observations. The man I spoke to told me I wasn't doing it right that my method was flawed. I explained that the other packs cycled at stated or greater capacity and he said he should just charge me more for those packs. That didn't sit well with me. Anyway, he asked me what current I was charging them at and what current and voltage I was discharging them at. I told him I was using a Digipace3, I was charging at 140 mah for 16 hrs and discharging at 360 mah to 1.05-1.1 v per cell. He said that I needed to discharge them to .8 v per cell and that these new batteries don't contain as much material as they used to and that the capacity stated is pretty much what you'll get without much capacity over the stated. I told him that I had another unit that I could discharge them to .8 v per cell and that I would do this a few times to see the capacity. Guess what, after 2 cycles I still got 1350 mah. On the phone again stating that I followed his advice but the batteries were still the same. He acted like it's no big deal and live with it that there are more important things to worry about besides a battery pack. By this time I'm not real happy with him when he basically says that I don't know what I'm doing just like the time I called before. He asked what I want to do and I said I wanted the pack replaced. He said I don't have them anymore. We go back and forth before settling on a 1300 mah pack. I agree to send the pack back but I have to send $3 to get a smaller size pack. Yeah, $3 for a smaller heavier pack. He said send the pack to his attention and he would send the new pack when he receives the pack back. I wait 2 weeks, no pack comes. I call and talk to some lady. I go thru the whole deal about the pack blah, blah. She finally finds the info. and said she will send the pack out. I wait a week no pack. I call again and talk to the same lady. I go thru the same crap again. She says they are out of those batteries but should have some the next week and will send them out. Well i call a little over a week later and get the same lady. She says they are just getting settled from the Toledo Show and will have to get the pack made and she will send it out. I waited until yesterday and still no pack. This has been well over a week since the last time I called. I called yesterday. This time I get a different lady. I ask about my pack. Of course I have to explain the crap again. I give here my name and she states that they need more money before they can send the pack. I said WHAT!. I told her the story about the man who said to send the bad pack with $3 and I would get a new but smaller pack. She said no way that the price difference was more than $3 with the cost of the different pack and shipping. I told her point blank that I made a deal with an individual there and I wasn't sending anymore money. I told here that I wanted the agreed pack to ship this week. She finally agreed but reluctantly. What gets me is if I didn't bother to call back, they had no intentions to contact me or even send the pack. I'm no longer going to buy batteries from them due to this bad experience. I don't like being belittled by stating I don't know how to use/check nicads. Thanks for letting me relieve a little.
Posted on: 5/2/2012 12:04 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Batteries & Chargers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11064380

RE: Share an experience
I'd rather not give out the name but will say where they're located. 8845 South Greenview Dr., Suite 2, Middleton, Wisconsin 53562 You guys can figure it out for yourselves.
Posted on: 5/1/2012 8:02 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Batteries & Chargers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11064562

RE: K&B Sportster Club
I've got 2 K&B Sportsters. I have a 20 and a 65. The 20 is on an Ace Simple Series Ultimate Bipe and the 65 is on a Sig Kougar. I run both engines on Wildcat Premium X-tra fuel(15% nitro and 18% oil with 80% syn and 20% castor). Both engines run fine. I flew the Kougar 2 weeks ago. The engine ran great considering it hasn't been run in almost a year. I run a 9x4 on the 20 and 12x6 on the 65. Both engines run super great. The 65 will idle a whole tank if I would let it. Both engines transition wonderful with no stumble at all.
Posted on: 3/28/2012 8:27 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11019378

RE: DL 50 that never did run quite right
I went ahead and ordered a piston ring from Frank Bowman and also a new isolator block and reed assembly from Tower. For kicks, I got some glass and lapping compound to check the reed cage faces. Boy were they really uneven. Low spots and also not flush across. I had to use 320 grit compund to true it up and then 500 grit with a polish at 1200 grit. The reed cage faces look like a mirror. It looks like the reed cage faces were put on a belt sander. There's no way the didn't leak. I'm curious how the new reed cage will look loke when I get it. Maybe DLE has taken a little more care and time on the newer reed cages. Anyway the reeds fit flatter and tighter so I may end up using the old ones. I will check the new one to see if it is true and flat.
Posted on: 9/23/2011 10:16 AM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10730564

DL 50 that never did run quite right
I've got a DL 50 that I bought new about 3 years ago. It never really did run right from day one. It always started easy but I had to tweek the LSN just about every time I flew the plane. I would find it rich from low throttle to midrange on one flight and I would adjust the LSN a little leaner. It would run fine for that flight but on the next one it would be to lean and I would have to adjust the LSN rich again. WOT was the only way it ran fine. I flew it this past Sunday and it was doing the same thing. In the past I just thought it was not broke in yet but this is ridiculous. Out of 3 flights, it needed tweeked every flight. It has almost 3 gallons of fuel ran thru it and it is getting worse. I figured I would just break down and get a Frank Bowman ring rebuild the carb. I took it apart and found a problem with the reeds. The reed cage doesn't fit right in the isolator block. There seems to be some kind of hard rubber in the isolator block where the reed cage goes in. If I push the reed cage into the block, two of the reeds will lift up about .005 ". Will the reed assembly from the DLE 55 work? Also, if the reeds aren't fully seated will this cause the problems I'm having? I might just get a reed assembly and ring for the darn thing. If these don't fix it, I'll just put another engine on it that also starts with a D.
Posted on: 9/20/2011 5:53 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10726449

RE: ASP 108 gonna be the death of me
I have an ASP 1.08 that is new. I got it just a few months ago and it ran like crap when I first tried to run it. It didn't idle well and the midrange was terrible. It wouldn't take throttle at all and it would make a heck of a noise when throttling up. I flew the plane a few times and it would just quit. It was on a profile so dead sticks weren't a problem. Any way I found that the 1.08 didn't like 15% nitro fuel. I went to 10% fuel and man what a different engine. Idles great, transitions well and revs like he??. Try 10% fuel and see if it runs better.
Posted on: 9/20/2011 5:02 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10726412

RE: LIFE Battery Voltages and Discharge Curves
Check this out. This may or may not answer your inquiry but it's full of info. http://www.hangtimes.com/a123_batteries_for_giants_faq.html Maybe we'll get to fly at the field this weekend. I assume there's a meeting Sunday.
Posted on: 6/28/2011 7:25 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Batteries & Chargers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10597422

RE: any ideas?
Got it apart. I used the washer method. I had to make the hole bigger in the washer with a dremel and a grinding wheel. I borrowed a small 3 jaw puller from work but the ends of the jaws wouldn't fit in the groove of the prop hub. I put the washer in the groove, fitted the puller and turned it by hand. Dang thing popped right off!! I had to heat the crankcase a few times to get the rear bearing out. Everything was little gummy from all the years of running castor based fuel. I never had to change bearings before. Maybe due to using fuel with castor in it or running my engines dry and adding after run oil. The bearings in the ASP have always been a little noisy from day one but have gotten a little noisier the last few years. I'm actually changing bearings in 2 engines. The other one is a Tower Hobbies .46 Pro that seems to be sucking air from the front bearing. Funny thing is the prop hub came off when I heated the crankcase and tapped the crank with a piece of wood. Thanks all for the suggestions!!
Posted on: 4/27/2011 6:32 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10488765

RE: any ideas?
I can't get the aluminum prop hub off. These always seem to be stubborn but I've got them off in the past with heat and some rapping on the crank with some wood. This one has the aluminum prop hub and underneath it is a tapered aluminum piece that has a slit in it. If I can get this stuff off I can get the bearings out. I need the bearings out so I can see if there is numbers on them or I'll have to measure them to get replacements.
Posted on: 4/26/2011 7:05 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10486991

any ideas?
I have an old ASP .32A (1992 vintage) that I wanted to replace bearings in. I heated the crankcase in the oven @ 325 deg F for about 10 minutes but I can't get the prop collet to come loose from the taper. I put the crankcase on a thick leather glove and took a piece of wood and hit the heck on the end of the crank shaft. The dang collet wont come loose. I did this a few times and end up splitting the wood I hit it so hard. Anybody have any other ideas how to get it loose so I can replace the bearings? I figure the collet is on pretty tight since it hasn't had the prop removed for over 10 years. I don't want to scar the collet or bend the crank but for the life of me I couldn't get the darn thing off. Anybody have any tricks up their sleeve?
Posted on: 4/26/2011 4:37 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10486647

RE: anybody know the difference?
I decided to order the ASP 1.08. Less that $100 from HK. I'll see how it works out.
Posted on: 4/13/2011 7:42 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10461442

RE: anybody know the difference?
[quote]ORIGINAL: NM2K [quote]ORIGINAL: madman75 [quote]ORIGINAL: NM2K [quote]ORIGINAL: DarZeelon [color=#000066] [quote]ORIGINAL: Live Wire Look at the muffler. [/quote] It appears to be the same muffler for all. That's not the difference. HobbyKing offers the [link=http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8987]ASP 1.08[/link] for $78.90 and the [link=http
Posted on: 4/11/2011 10:07 AM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10456202

RE: anybody know the difference?
[quote]ORIGINAL: NM2K [quote]ORIGINAL: DarZeelon [color=#000066] [quote]ORIGINAL: Live Wire Look at the muffler. [/quote] It appears to be the same muffler for all. That's not the difference. HobbyKing offers the [link=http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8987]ASP 1.08[/link] for $78.90 and the [link=http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8988]ASP .61[/link] for $61.60... Those offers for the ASP .91 at $103.85, or at $130.77, do seem quite expensive. [/color] [/quote] As Dar suggests, I bought the ASP 1.08 (2) when they were on sale at Hobby King. Mine were $70 each. Ed Cregger [/quote] I looked at the 1.08 from HK and thought about it. The shipping comes out to about $35 so the price is higher than Hobbypartz. Hobbypartz is out of the 1.08. I found a place that lists the specs for the .91 and 1.08. There isn't much difference in stated HP. The .91 will fit the fuse opening better than the 1.08. I'll have to grind out about 5mm for the 1.08 to fit. I'm leaning towards the .91 since I now know the difference, I need to decide if I want the remote needle or not. Not sure if there is any running/performance difference between the needle locations. I just have to figure if I want the .91A or the .91AII since the only difference is the needle valve location. Maybe I should go with the remote needle due to missing part of a finger from a prop. LOL As cheap as some engines are now days, if it's something other than bearings, they become throw away items. If parts are needed, it looks like Just Engines has parts but they are in England. Here's a link to a review for the .91. http://www.justengines.unseen.org/acatalog/A.S.P.__Series_3__.91__s_____By_Steve_Dorling__.html Thanks all. I didn't know the difference was the needle valve assembly.
Posted on: 4/10/2011 6:35 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10455070

anybody know the difference?
I'm looking for an inexpensive engine for an OMP Yak 65" profile. I'm looking at the ASP engines and found 1 place that caries them. I'm looking at the ASP .91 but I'm a little confused. I don't know what the difference is between these 3 engines. Anybody know what the difference is? Here's the links to the engines. The descriptions sure don't tell much. http://www.hobbypartz.com/72p-s91aii.html http://www.hobbypartz.com/72p-s91a.html http://www.hobbypartz.com/fm01-10-s91a-asp-nitroengine.html Thanks
Posted on: 4/9/2011 1:51 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10453063

anybody know the difference?
I'm looking for an inexpensive engine for an OMP Yak 65" profile. I'm looking at the ASP engines and found 1 place that caries them. I'm looking at the ASP .91 but I'm a little confused. I don't know what the difference is between these 3 engines. Anybody know what the difference is? Here's the links to the engines. The descriptions sure don't tell much. http://www.hobbypartz.com/72p-s91aii.html http://www.hobbypartz.com/72p-s91a.html http://www.hobbypartz.com/fm01-10-s91a-asp-nitroengine.html Thanks
Posted on: 4/9/2011 1:50 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10453058

RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying
I got a response from my Senator also and it contained valuable information. Here's the email I received. Very good information. I also looked up the amendment mentioned in the email and it very interesting. Looks like the FAA is prohibited from regulating model aircraft. Here's the email: Dear Mr.: Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me on S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. Air travel in the United States should be the safest and most efficient in the world. However, I share your concerns over unnecessary regulations on model airplanes. On February 17, 2011, the Senate approved S. 223 with the inclusion of an amendment that would remove model airplanes from FAA regulation of unmanned aircraft. As this legislation continues to move through the legislative process, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind. Thank you again for getting in touch with me. Sincerely, Sherrod Brown United States Senator I found the amendment to the bill Here's all the info from that. Here's the person who sponsored the bill along with a cosponsor: S.AMDT.86 Amends: S.223 Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (submitted 2/15/2011) (proposed 2/17/2011) AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To provide for use of model aircraft for recreational and other purposes. TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S759 STATUS: 2/17/2011: Amendment SA 86 proposed by Senator Hutchison for Senator Inhofe. (consideration: CR S830-833; text: CR S832) 2/17/2011: Amendment SA 86 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. COSPONSORS(1): Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] - 2/17/2011 Here's the actual wording from the amendment: SA 86. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 223, to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 245, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following: (g) Special Rule for Model Aircraft. (1) IN GENERAL.Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into FAA plans and policies,, including this section, the Administrator shall not promulgate any rules or regulations regarding model aircraft or aircraft being developed as model aircraft if such aircraft is (A) flown strictly for recreational, sport, competition, or academic purposes; (B) operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; and (C) limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program currently administered by a community-based organization. (2) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.For purposes of this subsection, the term ``model aircraft'' means a nonhuman-carrying (unmanned) radio-controlled aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, navigating the airspace and flown within visual line-of-sight of the operator for the exclusive and intended use for sport, recreation, competition, or academic purposes. So it looks like model aviation is fine for the time being!!
Posted on: 3/4/2011 7:22 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10379548

RE: I got a response from my Senator
I got a response from my Senator also and it contained valuable information. Here's the email I received. Very good information. I also looked up the amendment mentioned in the email and it very interesting. Looks like the FAA is prohibited from regulating model aircraft. Here's the email: Dear Mr.: Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me on S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. Air travel in the United States should be the safest and most efficient in the world. However, I share your concerns over unnecessary regulations on model airplanes. On February 17, 2011, the Senate approved S. 223 with the inclusion of an amendment that would remove model airplanes from FAA regulation of unmanned aircraft. As this legislation continues to move through the legislative process, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind. Thank you again for getting in touch with me. Sincerely, Sherrod Brown United States Senator I found the amendment to the bill Here's all the info from that. Here's the person who sponsored the bill along with a cosponsor: S.AMDT.86 Amends: S.223 Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (submitted 2/15/2011) (proposed 2/17/2011) AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To provide for use of model aircraft for recreational and other purposes. TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S759 STATUS: 2/17/2011: Amendment SA 86 proposed by Senator Hutchison for Senator Inhofe. (consideration: CR S830-833; text: CR S832) 2/17/2011: Amendment SA 86 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. COSPONSORS(1): Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] - 2/17/2011 Here's the actual wording from the amendment: SA 86. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 223, to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 245, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following: (g) Special Rule for Model Aircraft. (1) IN GENERAL.Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into FAA plans and policies,, including this section, the Administrator shall not promulgate any rules or regulations regarding model aircraft or aircraft being developed as model aircraft if such aircraft is (A) flown strictly for recreational, sport, competition, or academic purposes; (B) operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; and (C) limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program currently administered by a community-based organization. (2) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.For purposes of this subsection, the term ``model aircraft'' means a nonhuman-carrying (unmanned) radio-controlled aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, navigating the airspace and flown within visual line-of-sight of the operator for the exclusive and intended use for sport, recreation, competition, or academic purposes. So it looks like model aviation is fine for the time being!!
Posted on: 3/4/2011 7:19 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10379546

RE: OMP 65
No holes at all. I poked around where I think the holes should be and found nothing but hardwood. This sucks as I don't have an incidence meter. It's not worth buying a meter as I have to buy a wing tube. These two things would run me over $100. I know someone that has one that I might be able to do some measuring on to get the locations where to drill the holes.
Posted on: 1/31/2011 5:18 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10303544

OMP 65" YAK 54 KARF wing mounting
I posted this in the OMP forum but haven't got an answer ye. So, I'm hoping some of you might be able to help. I got the wings built but not covered. I decided to see how they fit. I put the wing tube in and slid the wings on. I wanted to bolt the in place but can't find the holes in the fuse for the bolts to go through. I can't find the wing tab holes in the fuse anywhere. Are the holes pre-drilled? The manual says to mount the wings with blind nuts and 6x32 1.75" screws but doesn't say anything about the holes in the fuse. If I have to drill them, how will I know if the wing is correct to the thrust line? Since this is an ARF fuse, wouldn't the holes already be drilled in the correct position? Thanks
Posted on: 1/29/2011 2:24 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Profile and Fun Flying Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10298243

65" Yak 54 KARF-wing mounting?
I got the wings built but not covered. I decided to see how they fit. I put the wing tube in and slid the wings on. I wanted to bolt the in place but can't find the holes in the fuse for the bolts to go through. I can't find the wing tab holes in the fuse anywhere. Are the holes pre-drilled? The manual says to mount the wings with blind nuts and 6x32 1.75" screws but doesn't say anything about the holes in the fuse. If I have to drill them, how will I know if the wing is correct to the thrust line? Since this is an ARF fuse, wouldn't the holes already be drilled in the correct position? Thanks
Posted on: 1/23/2011 4:28 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "OMP - Ohio Model Products Support Forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10283328

RE: OMP 65
What torque rating for the servos do you recommend? Thanks
Posted on: 1/4/2011 5:10 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "OMP - Ohio Model Products Support Forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10239846

RE: Bad news from Webra
[quote]ORIGINAL: NM2K [quote]ORIGINAL: madman75 [quote]ORIGINAL: NM2K [quote]ORIGINAL: madman75 I have 2 Webra 50's and they are probably the best starting, best idling and best accelerating 2 strokes I've ever owned or have seen. I have both of mine on profiles and they are more than powerful enough for the planes. Each plane weighs in around 4.5#. Whenever I go to the field and fire
Posted on: 12/30/2010 5:09 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10214760

RE: OMP 65
That's what I was looking for. Now I can begin the other wing. How critical is it to get the wing ribs pretty well perfect with the wing angle guide? Someone had started the other wing and a few of the ribs weren't quite right according to the angle guide. There was really no way I could fix the few ribs that were off. He had the trailing and leading edge pieces already glued in place along with the spars. Also, what is the torque rating for the servos for this plane. I couldn't find anything in the manual(cd)?
Posted on: 12/29/2010 9:19 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "OMP - Ohio Model Products Support Forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10226606

RE: Bad news from Webra
[quote]ORIGINAL: NM2K [quote]ORIGINAL: madman75 I have 2 Webra 50's and they are probably the best starting, best idling and best accelerating 2 strokes I've ever owned or have seen. I have both of mine on profiles and they are more than powerful enough for the planes. Each plane weighs in around 4.5#. Whenever I go to the field and fire up my Webra engines, the guys at the field stand
Posted on: 12/23/2010 9:18 AM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10213903

RE: Bad news from Webra
[quote]ORIGINAL: proptop [quote]ORIGINAL: w8ye I thought Horizon dropped the Webra line because they could not get them in the late 90's? [/quote] Horizon was still selling Webras and parts up until a few years ago...somewhere around 2005 or '06...or was it '07? They were having difficulty getting ''product''...so I guess that's why they (Horizon ) stopped carrying them? The signs were on the wall I guess...[8|] I remember waiting for 2 months for a new rod for a friend's .50 that I was rebuilding...that was 3-4 years ago. [/quote] I don't think that is what happened. Around the time Horizon was getting out of the Webra line I emailed Webra about the Speed 50 not being shown as available from Horizon and the 55 as being in stock. they informed me that the 50 was still available and was still being made. I think it was more of a Horizon decision than Webra not having stock for sale.
Posted on: 12/22/2010 1:52 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10212299

RE: Bad news from Webra
[quote]ORIGINAL: Motorboy Kydave.. One moment, you have been aware that there have been several complaints over the flaking nickel coating in the cylinder at the OS model engines that we have not had a Webra model our engines and not much to read about problems with Webra model engines in the forum whether it is of nickel flasing the cylinder or fiddling with the engines?!?! If I bought a model engine I would choose Webra engine instead of OS engine, the reason Webra engine last longer. [/quote] +1
Posted on: 12/22/2010 1:45 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10212267

RE: Bad news from Webra
[quote]ORIGINAL: w8ye I thought Horizon dropped the Webra line because they could not get them in the late 90's? [/quote] It was later than that. It had to be in the early to middle 2000's . I've had my 50 for less than 10 yrs and I got it from Horizon. I wish I had the receipt so I could see when I got it.
Posted on: 12/22/2010 1:40 PM by Author "madman75" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10212254