|
RE: Saito FA180 set-up
I suggest that you use OS F to fix dead sticks. Also try to go 25-30% nitro to get more power. Low end as lean as you can afford. High end a little rich. If your plane is a lot over the 5 Kg. you will need to reduce the weight. Good luck and let us know what you do. VB
Posted on: 11/15/2009 1:38 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9255367
RE: Saito FA180 set-up
What fuel glow plug are you using? What is the weight of the plane with the Saito engine? I don't think you will get more power with the pump. The pump will help to get fuel if you have the tank on the CG. VB
Posted on: 11/15/2009 12:57 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9255302
RE: Saito FA180 set-up
What is the weight with the Saito? Probably the penalty of electric is around 1/2 - 3/4 lb. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 11/14/2009 7:14 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9253882
RE: Saito FA180 set-up
Ulrich, I also tried a Saito engine in pattern. Saito is an excellent sport engine. I was having the exact same problems you are having. After trying and trying decided to get a YS engine. I am not sponsor and I am flying mostly electric now. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 11/14/2009 8:36 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9252839
RE: Canalisers, fins and things, and whirlygigs..
Subscribing. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 11/2/2009 7:52 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9222016
RE: OS 160 and aeroslave
Ampa, Check here: http://www.aeroslave.com/exhaust_systems.htm You can find a link that gives you the data for the OS 160. Just in case 2.54 cm = 1 inch. Good luck, Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 10/29/2009 8:09 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9211768
RE: O.S. 160FX tach numbers?
You are welcome. Check some more from Bob Pastorello page with Jon Lowe's recomendations. This one is good also. http://www.rcaerobats.net/OS160_Setup.htm Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 10/27/2009 7:27 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205378
RE: O.S. 160FX tach numbers?
This is one source: http://www.rcpattern.com/2cycle.htm VB
Posted on: 10/26/2009 10:02 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9204666
RE: Benefits of swept wings?
Didn't the Phoenix models have swept wings? It will be interesting if Mr. Don Lowe could help Todd. Very interesting discussion. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 10/13/2009 9:58 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9171254
RE: Why we don't see pattern planes for gas?
I see that they replaced their own design carburator with a Wabro carburator. That is a good move. I tried the Mintor 110 cc for IMAC 3 years ago and didn't work at all. I recomended to use the Wabro and looks like they decided to do it. Someone needs to try this motor in pattern. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 10/4/2009 1:31 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9145784
RE: Why we don't see pattern planes for gas?
Bterry, Please read this web page for the very simple and interesting conclusion: http://www.smokemup.com/tech/fuels.php One number is BTU/lb and I agree gasoline has higher number. However, the IC engine can convert to power a fraction of those BTU because of the oxygen already available in the fuel. Check the chemical formulas of each fuel. Gasoline does not have any oxygen. It is practically impossible to provide all the oxygen by aspirating air into the engine and this explain why gasoline has the lowest BTU rate production (power) when used in IC engine. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 10/1/2009 6:27 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9139492
RE: Why we don't see pattern planes for gas?
It is interesting to see that a glow engine using 20% fuel is 1.48 (148%) more powerful than a gas engine under equivalent conditions assuming that BTU information is correct. I think the numbers makes sense base on the experience I had flying the same model with all options. VB
Posted on: 10/1/2009 12:49 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9138749
RE: Why we don't see pattern planes for gas?
Dave, There is something that I cannot explain. The practical limit for glow engines is probably around 2 cu.in. Over that displacement the glow engines are not reliable. In contrast, when gasoline engines are over ~85 cc they start to shine vs. glow engine. I have been flying a DA - 100 in the last 3-4 years. This engine has more than 500 flights and still running great. There is something in the combustion process when glow engines are too big (or carburetion) that I cannot explain. That is probably why the glow engines over 2 cu.in. are not popular (besides the cost of fuel). Probably someone expert in combustion could explain. Regards, Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 10/1/2009 10:41 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9138411
RE: Why we don't see pattern planes for gas?
Dave, Probably the reason is explained in this web site: http://www.smokemup.com/tech/fuels.php They compare the gasoline, methanol and nitromethane. Probably the information gives a good reasons why we use nitro in glow fuels. The table 1 gives the total energy that could be delivered by IC engine for each fuel. Clearly gasoline is the lowest one and probably this is a good explanation why it does not work well in small displacement IC engines. Her the numbers from table I: Total Thermal Energy delivered in IC engine (BTU) Gasoline 53,176 Methanol 67,545 Nitromethane 125,412 Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 10/1/2009 9:03 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9138202
RE: Why we don't see pattern planes for gas?
3-4 years ago I put together the Abbra with a 40 cc ZDZ engine. I put together the same model using OS-160, YS-160 and Hacker C-50 since that time. Here is what I found: 1. Gas version was over 11 lbs about 4-5 oz. ES Carbon pipe with custom made soft mount. Initially the engine was hard mounted. The model was almost lost due to flutter in one aileron. The soft mount fixed the problem but added some more weight making practically impossible to get it under 11 lb. The OS model was a little below 10 lbs. The YS-160 was a little over 10 lbs and the electric is ~10.7 lbs. 2. Power. I could not do the Master schedule using the gas engine in the same way I was able to do with all other models. It was very difficult to make the upper radius due to lack of power (or additional weight). The gas engine could very well work for lower levels but I don't think is very practical for Master and F3A. In conclusion, I tried and found that a gas engine is not feasible for pattern (higher classes). However, lower classes probably could do it but the additional work to find equipment could be a problem. I don't have anything against gas power. If fact I fly IMAC plane using 100 cc and I really like it. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 9/30/2009 8:11 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9136999
RE: F3A Judges Corner . . ask a question
I am glad to read all the responds. I will agree that it is very difficult to judge using the video as Don suggested. There is another important detail; the pilot is flying a schedule that we don't know. It will be nice to have videos of known schedules. Of course, I would like to see Sebar snaps in Portugal. Any one got it? I would like to add: 1. It was clearly more difficult to the pilot to show the break going downhill (snap at 2:50). Probably that is the reason why the snap does not show the definitive break. Looks like we all agree that should be severely downgraded. The video perspective was really bad since it is difficult to know if he was trying to do a 45 down. Besides the snap downgrade there was very strong heading and wing position downgrades before and after the snap. 2. Snap at 3:00. The position of the plane makes very difficult to see the break but I will agree that there was a definitive conning. 3. Snap at 3:22 is impossible to judge. I had the opportunity to notice this weekend judging F3A P-9 schedule. The K-Factor of maneuvers #9 (Stall Turn) and #17 (45 down with snap) are the highest so we got to be in the same page judging snap rolls. This is very nice calibration process. Please keep questions flowing. More videos will be great. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 9/28/2009 9:14 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9129506
RE: F3A Judges Corner . . ask a question
[quote]ORIGINAL: mjfrederick [quote]Pilot A. Looks like perfect snap but there was no visible pitch break. It is evident that the plane tail described a cone.[/quote] Tough to judge since there had to have been a pitch break at some point for the cone to have been formed. I'd give it a 9. It is missing one portion that is required. Like missing a point in a point roll. I suggest 4-5 points downgrade since the break could be consider half of the manuever. This is my interpretation after reading the manuever description. [quote]Pilot B. There is a pitch break but shows about 15 degree in yaw and 15 degree in roll at the same time is doing the break. It looks like it was perfect snap. [/quote] Same score as the first one for the same reason. I understand that the break should not have any yaw or roll rotation. Therefore, we could use 1/15. Therefore I suggest two points downgrade. [quote]Pilot C. Shows a clear pitch break but there is a displacement in the direction of the break and yaw of about 1’ = 30 cm. It looks like it was a perfect snap.[/quote] I hate to say this, this one I'd give a 10 per the rules in the sporting code. Let me justify this, and it will illustrate some of the problems I have with the code. The wording ''separation from the flight path'' in the snap roll judging criteria can be interpreted to mean that the fuselage can actually deviate in the vertical plane from the entry flight path prior to the auto-rotation. This of course contradicts what the code said immediately before that regarding constant flight path. Furthermore, you only said there is yawing of the aircraft. Yaw does not indicate that the aircraft deviated side-to-side from the flight path, and could merely have been a wind correction. I agree with you. The plane is stalled so there could be some displacement. No downgrade. [quote]Pilot D. It looks like perfect snap but wan no visible break. There is no evidence that the plane tail described a cone.[/quote] Zero, but keep in mind, the sporting code description of a snap doesn't mention anything about the conical rotation of the tail. The rule said 5 or more points for no pitch break. I will do 5 points downgrade but if you do 10 to all pilots you will be correct also. Keep in mind as well, I'm not anywhere near qualified to judge F3A, I'm just applying the rules as I interpreted them to the situations described. So do I. Let's wait for more feedbback from guys that have more experience. Thanks for your opinion. I believe that this process will be useful to do some kind of judge calibration via opinion group. Vicente "Vince" Bortone [/quote]
Posted on: 9/25/2009 11:13 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9124541
RE: F3A Judges Corner . . ask a question
Please consider this a dry run calibration exercise. No more than that. I expect the high level qualified judges to give us their opinion. I believe this process could help next time we have the WC in USA. If you have any maneuver that you consider should be here, please give us the example. I just landed in KC. I need to get ready to go to Ft. Scott contest this weekend. Planning to give you my opinion on the snaps responds later this weekend.
Posted on: 9/25/2009 6:07 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9123860
RE: F3A Judges Corner . . ask a question
I guess that we have to discuss snaps again. ! Oh no! Consider these cases. What are the downgrades using the current rule book? Assume that the plane enters the snap with wing level and exit level. Pilot A. Looks like perfect snap but there was no visible pitch break. It is evident that the plane tail described a cone. Pilot B. There is a pitch break but shows about 15 degree in yaw and 15 degree in roll at the same time is doing the break. It looks like it was perfect snap. Pilot C. Shows a clear pitch break but there is a displacement in the direction of the break and yaw of about 1’ = 30 cm. It looks like it was a perfect snap. Pilot D. It looks like perfect snap but wan no visible break. There is no evidence that the plane tail described a cone. Please comment downgrades for each case if any. If you have more pilots doing something diferent please add to the list. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 9/25/2009 7:49 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9122492
RE: What is the real story from Portugal?
I assume that snaps are similar to spins in regard deviation from straight line since the plane is stalled. Therefore, some deviation is expected and should be not downgraded. I think there is a comment about this in one of the rulebooks but I don't remember which one. I think it was in the IMAC rule book. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 9/25/2009 6:20 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9122407
RE: What is the real story from Portugal?
Hi Jeff, If we see the break, we are sure that the plane is stalled. If you don't see the break there are more chances that the plane is not in stall condition. Therefore, the judge could downgrade due to the fact that there is a missing component of the snap roll. After the break everything happens so fast that there is no way to see it. Therefore, we should judge the break as a first single component of the snap. If not there will be strong downgrade. I took the time to read the snap roll descriptions by AMA, FAI, IAC and IMAC. It is amazing to read how close all are. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 9/24/2009 8:54 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9121575
RE: What is the real story from Portugal?
If there is not break in pitch the maneuver is missing a component and the judge has the right to downgrade. It is like missing one point in a point roll. I am wondering now if Sebastiano was penalized because his snaps didn't track as well as others than didn't show the break. We all know that it is more difficult to do the snap rolls when the pilot shows a visible break. We also know that maneuvers with snaps have also the highest K-Factor so we need to make sure that we judge this correctly. It is pilot responsibility to show enough break that can be seen by judges. Is this interpretation of judging snaps correct? Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 9/24/2009 6:31 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9121233
RE: What is the real story from Portugal?
I copied this from the FAI rule book: [b]At the start of a snap-roll, the fuselage attitude must show a definite break and separation from the flight path, before the rotation is started, since the model aircraft is supposed to be in a stalled condition throughout the manoeuvre, If the stall/break does not occur and the model aircraft barrelrolls around, the manoeuvre must be severely downgraded (more than 5 points). Similarly, axial rolls disguised as snap-rolls must be severely downgraded (more than 5 points).[/b] I wonder if the judges were downgrading when no definite break before rotation was shown. Just curious how this was done. It is clear to me that we can do snaps rolls without showing a pitch break but the description of the maneuver requires that single element. K factor are high when snap rolls are required so snap rolls are very important portion. If I were judging and I see rotation (roll and or yaw) at the same time the plane breaks I would downgrade but using 1/15 for the amount of rotation and/or yaw. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 9/24/2009 11:48 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9120363
RE: Fort Scott Ks. Contest Sept 26-27
Hello all, I am selling two cases of Cool Power 30% fuel for obvious reasons. I paid $110 per case. I am also selling a pattern plane called E-Evolution for a friend. This is brand new and have JR digital servos no receiver. It is set up for electric (hacker c50) but could be converted to glow. It includes a brand new F3A-long Bolly carbon landing gear that needs to be installed. $400. I could bring it to the contest. Let me know if you are interested. Best regards, Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 9/18/2009 12:43 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9105683
RE: Fort Scott Ks. contest Sept 27-28th
Hello all, Looks like we are ready for your contest. I am going to take the chance to pass the following information. I am selling two cases of Cool Power 30% fuel for obvious reasons. I paid $110 per case. I am also selling a pattern plane called E-Evolution for a friend. This is brand new and have JR digital servos no receiver. It is set up for electric (hacker c50) but could be converted to glow since has pipe tunnel. It includes a brand new F3A-long Bolly carbon landing gear that needs to be installed. $400. Let me know if you are interested. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 9/17/2009 9:12 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9104206
RE: Fort Scott Ks. Contest Sept 26-27
Todd, I am also looking foward to participate. The last contest of this season for me. Vicente "Vince" bortone
Posted on: 9/16/2009 6:14 AM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9099759
RE: A Step Change in Judging - Improvement through technology
Keith, Very nice ideas. In the mean time we could do more judging training to make sure that we are in the same page in regard the rule book and the required downgrades. In order to do this we need to have more flying training. The classroom training is important but we also need more training at the field. The judges with more experience will have more chance to share their knowledge. A good way to do this is to conduct some training before each contest while we wait that the sun moves out. Other idea, judges should compare their score after each fly to comment on the downgrades without changing the scores. I think these ideas will help while we wait for other ways to improve judging. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 9/8/2009 10:42 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9080377
RE: What is the real story from Portugal?
I think the original reasoning was to take care of dead sticks. That could be easily fixed by leting the pilot fly again at the end of the round the manuevers that he could not fly because of the equipment problem. AMA allows to re-fly if the pilots has a mid-air or radio problem. Why not allow the same rule if there is other technical problem that is not under pilots control? In this way all rounds could count for the final score. VB
Posted on: 9/8/2009 4:47 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9079339
RE: What is the real story from Portugal?
Besides flying big, were the champions flying close? I don't like the combination because it is difficult to get good perception of the geometry. I agree in regard that the simplest rule is wing level. Any correction to cross wing by not keeping the wing level should be a downgrade. VB
Posted on: 9/7/2009 11:39 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9077719
RE: THE WC 2009 THREAD!!! its about time!!!
I agree 100%. I am in the same situation but I wish to fly like QQ. I have both and finishing practicing a lot more with the electric this year. For this reason, I improved this year just because I could practice more with the electric. Very simple reason. Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Posted on: 8/31/2009 3:42 PM by Author "vbortone"
in the forum "Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9059331
| 
