RE: MYSTERY BRUSHLESS ESC 60A & 80A
If you have the low voltage version of the Pentium 100a, use this manual: [link=http://www.hobbywing.com/upload/manual/ESC_e.pdf]100A manual[/link] If you have the HV ( high voltage ) version use this manual [link=http://www.hobbywing.com/upload/manual/ESC_HV_e.pdf]High Voltage version.[/link]
Posted on: 11/20/2009 4:42 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Brushed/Brushless motors, speed controls, gear drives"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9268098

RE: Edge 540 25 45
Yeah, that sounds like a good match for that FS30. The Falcon .25 should be a blast for you to fly.
Posted on: 11/20/2009 4:38 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9268086

RE: Extra 330L-EP Extreme 3D RC Acrobatic Plane ARF
I would doubt you would need or want anything over 30oz/in of torque. It is only a .25 sized plane, and a standard or mini servo should have more than enough torque to handle the control surfaces even at full deflection. Metal geared servos are also overkill, so a fast mini or standard sized servo is more than adecuate for speedy response, and for lightness I'd favor the mini servos. - You asked about the Yak versus this plane. This plane is heavier than the Yak because of the all plastic fuselage. There is less ply in this plane than the Yak. On both planes I recommend applying epoxy on the gear mounting area ( as with most ARFs ) to strengthen it. I typically use triangle stock to add more shear strength to the entire gear mounting area. One caveat... The rudder area appears to be hollow, and CA hinges are provided for the rudder. That means there is not a supporting wood structure for the CA hinge to grab onto on the rudder side. You could insert wood, toothpicks, pin/post type hinges, etc. to take care of this, but everyone should be aware of this oversight. While the rudder itself is strong, the hinge mounting points ( 2-3 ) need a bit of TLC.
Posted on: 11/20/2009 4:36 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9268079

RE: Edge 540 25 45
That engine and a 9x7 or 9x8 prop should make the plane scream. If you get one, make sure you: - Leave enough cable in the booms to pull out the servo and replace it if needed. - Change the orientation of the tank, so it faces forward. - Use about 1/8" to 1/4" spoileron mix for landings - Harden the landing gear mounting areas with copious amounts of CA. - Make sure that when the plane is on the ground the wings have a postive AOA. I dislike the "L" landing gear orientation, used. It puts a lot of leverage on the gear, pushing them back. The torque then acts upon the relatively small piece of metal inserted into the wooden block. Over time the gear enlargens the hole. I've resorted to epoxing in brass tubing to keep the hole intact, but this did not work. I would have preferred that the "L" face front to back, which would have eliminated this tendancy AND it would provide for better gear springiness for hard landings. One way to ameliorate the torque damage is to bend your own gear and put a sping loop into it. That was my biggest bugaboo with this plane, but it is not too dramatic. The plane itself flies GREAT. With the .28 2C engine it should be quite speedy with good verticals. I think you'll enjoy it after you get the hang of it. You need to let it build up airspeed prior to takeoff, and not let the plane get too slow. I will FEEL very mushy if it is flying too slow, though it does not tend to drop a wing hard. With the spoilerons landings are a breeze. It comes in nose high looking like a jet. Keep throttle on until the wheels are about to touch. Chop the throttle just before it touches down and let the nose drop by itself. Once the nose starts coming down, hold the nose up and it bleeds off airspeed well. I have a blast with the .25 and in some ways ( for me ) it is better than the larger models as I can easily drag it out to the field without dismantling, etc.
Posted on: 11/19/2009 1:49 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9265361

RE: Edge 540 25 45
Oops I mistook the engine for a two stroker. I've flown the plane with a 2 stroke engine of about this size. I'm afraid that it would be a underpowered with a .30 four stroker. That would be akin to putting in a .15 size two stroker, which will make the plane's performance relatively anemic. I've also flown the plane with motors, and I shoot for at least 600-780 watts of power, which is right in line with the .30-.32 two stroke performance.
Posted on: 11/19/2009 12:26 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9265188

RE: mini servos in .40 sized plane a no-no?
Are you SURE you do not mean "MINI" servo, not MICRO servo? A 9g 12oz/in MICRO servo is pretty small. Mini servos on the other hand, are often used on 40 sized planes. Most of my small 40S Ultimates use Minis to drive up to four control surfaces...
Posted on: 11/18/2009 6:10 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9263632

RE: Edge 540 25 45
I've flown the Falcon with this engine, and I think it is just about perfect with that combination. If you go that route, remember to make the tank face FORWARD. I have been waiting for the little Extra too, thanks for pointing it out. It looks like the Chinese are beginning to ship again.
Posted on: 11/18/2009 4:22 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9263354

RE: mini servos in .40 sized plane a no-no?
[quote]ORIGINAL: JohnBuckner Micro's of which Hitec HS 80,81 and 85's are. May not be appropriate on most airplanes of that size [/quote] And not even for things like the throttle. The vibration from the motor onto the linkage can shatter the teeth in a mini servo.
Posted on: 11/18/2009 4:16 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9263335

RE: GMS 47 = garbage
Eh, if it is garbage PLEASE send it to me. I'll take it off your hands! I second BigMustafa's comments... ... And ( knocks on wood ) I haven't had problems with the remote needle, though I periodically check the tightness, fittings and also replaced the tubing. I also use filters on my engines. I'll trade a used Evolution 1.00 NX for an equally used or unused GMS 1.20 anyday. All of my Tower Hobbies engines run very well after break-in too.
Posted on: 11/18/2009 4:12 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9263328

RE: Engine Only Starts UPSIDE-DOWN???
Once you have the plane tuned PROPERLY in the upside down position, the siphoning rate when upright should drop to a point that it becomes far less problematic. I had the same problem with mine as reported with the inverted engine, but once the engine was fully dialed in, it ceased being an issue... that is unless I forget and leave the throttle wide open with the engine off for long... In the latter case fuel siphons far too quickly and starts dripping out again. Normally on the UCD, the plane sits slightly nose high which helps to offset the tank-height difference when the plane is on the ground. By the time the LS needle is closed for good idle, fuel siphons at far LESS than a drop every 5-10 minutes, and you can eliminate that by shutting the throttle to cut-off and leaving it there, when not flying the plane.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 12:55 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9260276

RE: Edge 540
If you can keep the wing loading low ( to prevent the Edge from dropping a wing at stall ) and dial down the throws, plus get some help transitioning to tail draggers ( buddy box ) then yes, I'll bet you can deal with an Edge. With some HELP at first. Most of the Edge's I've flown have a tendancy to drop a wing and snap when they get slow, if you go beyond a critical weight. If the plane is lightly loaded as with some of the light ply electrics, they do great. FYI: The U-CAN-DO already mentioned in contrast, though a 3D plane, can land SOOOO slowly that I would put it into the hands of someone coming off a trainer, long before I'd recommend an Edge to that person. The UCD is a VERY easy to land plane and a gentle flyer if you keep the rates way down... but like most 3D planes, it is so lightly built, that it will not last long in the hands of a novice.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 12:48 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9260260

RE: Hangar 9 Alpha 60 Trainer ARF
There is not a lot to say. The plane almost falls together as most of the work is done for you. The instructions are very clear, so there are typically no major problems. I've seen newbies arrive with the plane fairly well put together in their first try. Typically the biggest problem(s) stem from failure to center the servos and align the surfaces properly. You are no so much "building" this plane as you are doing final assembly steps.
Posted on: 11/16/2009 7:21 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9258678

RE: 2stroke idle - a compromise?
The pinch test is particularly good at high throttle settings, but most engines are not responsive to a pinch test at idle. I've seen properly tuned engines continue to run for 15 seconds and more with the fuel line pinched, where-as at high throttle the results are immediate. The rather low and slow fuel flow at idle masks the result of a pinch test. The ignitor removal lets you quickly focus on an approximate setting. Then you can use a pinch test to verify the results. Fully pinched off the engine should run, and then after a while briefly speed up and finally stop once tuned.
Posted on: 11/16/2009 7:18 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9258671

RE: GMS .76
Yes both the TH .75 and the GMS .76 are to use the venacular "stump pullers". I normally can about the same RPM's on both engines using on the same prop, so variance between engines may account for the difference Sourkraut is reporting, though historically ABC's tend to output more power. I also concur on the G90 versus TH .75/GMS .76 performance. I can't say I've had any problems with the remote needle, other than it should be checked for tightness, especially after the first few flights. Likewise for the fittings and the cap bolts all around.
Posted on: 11/16/2009 2:49 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9258057

RE: 2stroke idle - a compromise?
As already mentioned, your low speed needle is set too rich. One great way of determining the correct Low Speed setting, is by the use of your ignitor. Plug your ignitor in, start the engine, run it up and then let it settle into an idle with the ignitor still in place. Let it sit for about 30 seconds. The engine should run somewhat smoothly. Now remove the ignitor. If the RPM's drop after removing the ignitor, the engine is too rich on the low end. Adjust the LS needle until this stops happening. Make sure it has stopped altogether, then richen the low end by about 1/8 of a turn BUT NO MORE. Now you should have a barely perceptable drop in RPM when you remove the ignitor. Run the engine up and down to double check acceleration. That SHOULD now be fine too.
Posted on: 11/16/2009 2:40 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9258029

RE: TW's AT-6 has inherent problem(s) to beware of
Thanks for the heads up! It should be noted by anyone purchasing ARF's that it is a good idea to have an experienced person go over the plane. Ramius obviously has prior experience with planes, so he knew what to look for. A novice may not. This applies to ARFs sold by any manufacturer, and is not specific to Nitroplanes. Always: - Apply epoxy and CA to re-inforce ply, balsa seems and locations where the fuselage contacts the wood. - Apply CA to reinforce and harden areas which will accept wood screws. - Fuelproof firewall for glow planes - Reinforce mounting boxes especially if you will be using a larger or oversized engine or motor. - I advise clear coating ARF glow engine planes with Topflight Clear coat or something similiar to prevent fuel getting under the trim. - Have an experienced flyer look over your work.
Posted on: 11/15/2009 6:07 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9255844

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: bob21 you do not read to well,,, i sent it back i folled those forum also and posted question there too [/quote] Actually I read and write well and somewhat legibly, thank you, and yes I know you returned it. If you had a problem with Multiplayer it was most likely an issue with your router or it's configuration. Unfortunately all of these devices are fairly different, so in some cases it is difficult for people to get help via a forum, in setting up port forwarding. However that said, once the router is set up MP works well, and if you know your router, setting up MP is almost trivial. I saw your posts, and again I'd refer you to Kmot's identical predicament on the KE forums. A simple check mark on his router's configuration page made all the difference, and no one could figure it out, because it was not documented anywhere in the router manual or config page. He too "tried everything", and in point of fact he had everything right!... except one small mark. In your case there was probably something similiar at work.
Posted on: 11/15/2009 1:46 AM by Author "opjose" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254605

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
Check out the KE threads. We've been able to help out most people with port forwarding issues. Almost batting a thousand on this... e.g. Kmot's thread, where he was battling with this. He was in the same boat as you. It turned out that while he had EVERYTHING correctly set up, a simple undocumented check mark in his router's configuration page prevented MP from connecting. Once ticked everything worked. There is even a sticky up now showing how to configure your router/modem for many different brands. Port forwarding is normaly trivial to set up, but small differences from the myriad of router manufacturers complicates things for a few people.
Posted on: 11/14/2009 9:12 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254154

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: Raycamaro Is there anywhere besides Knifedge where I can go to download some of Horizon Hobby planes and helis? [/quote] There are a couple of sites that host a few planes, but for the most part most user created planes are available at the KnifeEdge site. Normally if you cannot find it there, no one has made it yet.
Posted on: 11/14/2009 8:31 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254073

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
An interesting response from someone that doesn't even own the software.... to someone who has tested it on many difference machines ( me ), that include laptops and minimum requirement computers. The veracity of the comment is self evident.
Posted on: 11/14/2009 8:29 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254011

RE: Rant about getting started
Most clubs have a more formalized training schedule where you are all but guaranteed hands on training time. Ours does this from 8:30 to 11:30 every other Saturday when the weather is good. We have several instructors and at least one or two people who do nothing more than help people tune, setup and check out their planes and engines. In attendance is also a co-ordinator for the whole event. This is done entirely on a volunteer basis. You should seek to use the formal training periods, instead of that provided on a more informal basis by individual members. At our club, if you don't like how a particular instructor does things, you can simply walk over to another during the training sessions. The plane that was recommended to you, the Nexstar is a perfectly capable trainer. No one did you a disservice by recommending it to you, though it sounds like you needed some help, which you did not get. - Neither of the planes you mentioned are good "beginners" park flyers, though they may be more suitable for someone beyond the beginner's stage. They lack the forgiving and self righting characteristics needed for first planes.... something that your Nexstar does have. Find yourself the formal training classes, show up with your Nexstar, and tell the trainers about the problems you have had with it. Most club members are happy to help out novices, that is if the novice does not act as if this aid is something they "expect" for showing up.
Posted on: 11/14/2009 8:28 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254064

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: jzrf6c Say what you want about the ramblings in this thread but I saved the cost of a useless update. I learn, here in this thread, that the G5 wont run on most older AMD cpus. [/quote] The software will run on older CPU's that are somewhat beyond the minimum recommended specifications. The problem lies with the installer software. However as pointed out by dbcisco, the affected CPU's are quite old.
Posted on: 11/14/2009 8:05 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9254016

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: erik58 hello- I just found out about the g5 will it work on the early g3? thanks Erik [/quote] Yes if you own G3, you can purchase the upgrade to G5. Please refer to the Realflight web page for more details on the upgrade options.
Posted on: 11/14/2009 5:11 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9253620

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: dbcisco go to the KE forums and see that there are a quite a lot of computers and video cards that meet the advertised minimum requirements that have problems running or not running at all. [/quote] If anyone goes to the G5 threads, they will see that most of the discussions are about setting up routers and modems. Citing sporatic posts on the KE forums is also disingenuous, as there is no point of reference. Even here, you can find a myriad of posts about problems with other sims, put up by people that may be having problems not directly related to those sims as well. Using the same logic, were we to go by the sheer volume of posts here for other sims, it may appear to someone that Aerofly Deluxe is a highly problematic program, or FSOne, etc. using the same touchstone. Yet both work fine as well. [quote]ORIGINAL: dbcisco I have rarely had a computer game in the last 30 years that didn't work on the listed minimum requirements. [/quote] Though that has no bearing on a product you self-admittedly don't even own yet, as the original topic was G5. And btw it works just fine on the minimums.
Posted on: 11/14/2009 5:04 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9253605

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: johndou Okay, I’ll admit it ... I’m not a ''computer gamer''. My ''general'' use computer is not configured as a gaming computer. But, then according to RealFlight I don’t require a gaming computer to run their software. [/quote] That is correct. You do not need a computer with high end "gaming" specifications to run their software. However you DO need DirectX9 compliance, as with ALL 3D programs and games. [quote]ORIGINAL: johndou Generally when I buy a piece of software and my computer meets the ''minimum systems requirements'' I’m able to run that software as advertised. I’m not able to do that with RealFlight. [/quote] Only if you've overlooked something, that made you believe your system meets the minimums. DirectX9 compliance, enough memory and a suitable processor and you're good to go. The problem is with the first item. Video card vendors often pull a fast one on the consumer so to speak. Most people walk into a store and declare "I don't play games".... without thinking. So the video card manufacturers cater to this. They take their older chipsets, dress them up a bit, and sell them to this crowd. Along comes a 3D product that requires DirectX compliancy, and the user BELIEVES their machine is compliant because DirectX is installed. However that may NOT be the case. In the example given which started your quiery, the person is using a video system that was developed for DX7, and later enhanced for DX8. When DX9 came along, the manufacturer took their older chips and sold them to new buyers as a low end/low cost device. So if he runs older software, or normal work related programs he may never notice or care about this difference... Along comes a 3D game, etc... and the buyer is complaining about the software developer, when in point of fact, they were unfortunately not given all the details about their purchase. I've been in stores and seen this happen over and over again. I've even seen the salespeople try very hard to explain this to a laptop or desktop computer purchaser. Ultimately the purchaser tries to cut corners, and refuses to pay the extra 40-70.00 dollars needed to get something better suited to their computers. They go home, never realizing that they've introduced a BIG bottleneck on their own computer. But it is ultimately their OWN mistake. On laptops, it's a BIG mistake since it cannot be corrected later. [quote]ORIGINAL: johndou RealFlight’s ads tell me that I have features like ''depth of field, real rendering, reactive 3D objects, sensory environmental elements, backgrounds that are anything but static'', or ''ambient sound''. I get ''Simulated shadows ... Reflecting surfaces ... and colors with breathtaking accuracy.'' Yet, I don’t have all of these features with a minimum requirements computer. [/quote] Why would you expect to? If you don't have the hardware to support something, there is nothing the software can do about it. If the software attempts to do all of these things WITHOUT hardware, the program would turn into a slide show.... This is true of ANY and ALL 3D software. Some of those features you listed, which are not dependant upon your video hardware, do work even on minimum spec machines. You just will not see them in the same numbers. For example on a high end machine, the computer can instruct the video card to render tens of thousands of trees, dissappearing into the distance. If your video card is not up to it, you may only see a few trees close by. This is all done to maintain that "backward compatibility" that people scream about. [quote]ORIGINAL: johndou The only other experience I have in ''gaming'' is with MicroSoft's Flight Simulator. With that game I'm able to run the software ''as advertised'' with the minimum requirements. [/quote] Actually, sorry to say, but that is COMPLETELY untrue. Try loading up Flightsim 9 or Flightsim X, and all of those features which you named above, that Flightsim9 and Flightsim X also uses, WILL BE DISABLED. This in order to get the sim to run. What is happening, is that you've missed that this is the case. As you said you are not a "gamer", which is why you are unfamiliar with all of this. [quote]ORIGINAL: johndou But, is that the norm for computer games? [/quote] No you are mistaken, the "norm" is DIRECTX compliance. Next time you are in a store, pick up any "GAME" box and look at the requirements. DirectX 9 ( and in some cases DirectX 10 ) compliance is MANDATORY for all 3D games written in the last four years. There are a few exceptions that may also cite Opengl 2.x or above compliancy as well which ads another complicating wrinkle. [quote]ORIGINAL: johndou Am I not able to use the game ''as advertised'' with the minimum requirements? [/quote] Sure you are, you just will not get all of the stuff you would see with the PROPER hardware. [quote]ORIGINAL: johndou With other types of software I am. [/quote] Not true. That is a misconception. Other 3D software does exactly the same thing. Nor can you include 2D software and games into this mix, as flight sims are not 2D programs. BTW: Aerofly Deluxe now has requirements that exceed those of Realflight. Go figure. [quote]ORIGINAL: johndou Do you have a reference to that? Where could someone verify that information if they wanted to and find out just which processors are in question? [/quote] Sure, it's a sticky on the Knifeedge site. Look at the posting at the top of the G5 subforum which talks about the installation issue.
Posted on: 11/14/2009 1:24 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9253267

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: johndou Directly From the RealFlight G3.5 site; [i]Minimum: Allows minimal simulator functionality. Windows Vista*, XP*, 2000*, ME, 98 Intel® Pentium® 1.0 GHz or equivalent DirectX® 9 (or above) compatible video and sound card 3D accelerated video card with 32 MB (or more) RAM 256 MB RAM 2 GB hard drive space [/i] I’m not sure what you mean by ''[i]median requirements[/i]'', [/quote] As you noted above, the "minimum" requirements are a 3D card with 32mb of ram for G3.5 AND Directx9 compliance. In a way this is a misnomer as DIRECTX9 specifies much more than 32MB of dedicated video ram. The original poster's video card only has 32MB of RAM, making it a MINIMUM spec card for G3, let alone G4 or G5, and his card is NOT DX9 compliant, though it does feature shader 2.0 support. So his video configuration does not even hit the mid point between minimal to optimal configurations, making it LESS than a "median" setup. [quote]ORIGINAL: johndou So, in reality you can run G5.0 on a minimum requirements G3.5 machine. But, it’s fairly obvious that you’ll have greatly reduced performance. [/quote] If you dial everything up, yes. However you can reduce the eye candy quite a bit and get respectable performance. Point of fact: G5 starts out with greatly reduced video settings for those people who cannot seem to figure out how to do so. [quote]ORIGINAL: johndou (RealFlight claims that ''Aerodynamic calculations will remain high quality'' yet a view of customer complaints on the KE site indicate that users see a significant reduction in aerodynamic performance) [/quote] There is no valid basis for any such claim as that is completely inaccurate. Physic rendering ( which includes aerodynamic calculation ) is kept a fixed minimums by the sim dependant upon how the user leaves the physics quality settings set. The default is HIGH even for slow systems. Physics accuracy is NEVER sacraficed, instead CPU time is taken away from 3D rendering when needed. Please cite the post claiming this for reference. [quote]ORIGINAL: johndou In which case it’s quite possible that a User with G3.5 would find that running G5.0 on his or her machine would consider the G3.5 version to be a better product for them then G5.0. Unless, of course, they [u]upgrade[/u] their computer system. [/quote] Only in an extreme situation, such as if a user has a seriously antiquated configuration. The majority of G3.5 upgraders are reporting very good results and no perceived degradations, even on older machines. The exceptions ( ironically ) are those who own the processors that have turned up to have problems running the setup.exe file.
Posted on: 11/13/2009 4:09 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9251456

RE: CMP Kunlun Fuselage
Most sailplanes are designed around heavier NiCD battery packs and heavy motors, so if you are putting in a LiPo pack it is not unusual to find that you have to add a lot of weight to the nose to offset the long tail. If possible make the additional weight "usable" weight, by using a larger heavier pack, and moving things as far foward as possible. Also remember that weight added to the nose ( e.g. a heavier spinner ) has a larger lever moment, requiring less overall weight to move the C.G. forward.
Posted on: 11/1/2009 1:11 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9220198

RE: Kunlun
Most sailplanes are designed around heavier NiCD battery packs and heavy motors, so if you are putting in a LiPo pack it is not unusual to find that you have to add a lot of weight to the nose to offset the long tail. If possible make the additional weight "usable" weight, by using a larger heavier pack, and moving things as far foward as possible. Also remember that weight added to the nose ( e.g. a heavier spinner ) has a larger lever moment, requiring less overall weight to move the C.G. forward.
Posted on: 11/1/2009 1:11 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9220197

RE: Real Flight G5...
[quote]ORIGINAL: chevypower1930 Alright.. see you like to argue on here with people. [/quote] You made a statement, I rebutted it with a bit more than just a non-substantive response. Call it whatever you wish, but if someone tells novices to use pure kerosine in their nitro glow engines, I'd be all over them too.
Posted on: 11/1/2009 1:02 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9220169

RE: Real Flight G5...
[quote]ORIGINAL: chevypower1930 Opjose relax.. I just said I hate arguing on rcuniverse with people.. it's just not me haha I agree that both simulators are very accurate and serve there purpose, as well as any other top notch sim.... I just feel that fs one feels more like it feels at the field to ME.. everyone has an opinion [/quote] NOT an "opinion", just point of fact
Posted on: 11/1/2009 12:55 PM by Author "opjose" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9220150