(2) POLYURETHANE FOR FOAM WINGS.
(3) PATTERN 140 2 Strokes - SUPER TIGRE 2300.
(4) INSTINCTIVE RUDDER - How to practice using the rudder.
(5)
MAKING A CLEAR CANOPY.
(6)
ENGINES YS 140 4 Strokes vs Super Tigre 2300
(7)
PAINTING ON FILMS - The clearcoat question
PUSH
ROD SUPPORTS.
ORIGINAL
MESSAGE.
From:
"Dave Reaville"
24-Dec-98 5:40
Subject:
[Pattern] (Pattern) Push Rod Support
Resent-From:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
To:
<nsrca-list@eskimo.com>
Merry Christmas all,
Need advice on supporting the push rods on my
elevator setup.
I've just completed my Olympian and have seen
several posts regarding the idea that the pushrods should be supported
due to
the length. I have not seen this support
system on any aircraft in our area and am curious about the application.
If it's a good
idea to do it, how is this best accomplished
given the geometry of the setup? (My setup is a JR 4000 (w support
arm), Hang 9
metal arm & ball links (top/bottom)
1/4 in X 33 in
carbon fiber pushrods to 6/32 elevator bolt)
Thanks
Dave
REPLY
(1)
Hi Dave,
If one has never had a problem with push rod
vibration and failure they will wonder what all the fuss is about. Those
who have
had problems never use the system again.(ie they
use a system directly mounting the servos at the tail with short connectors
etc.).If you can look down the back of the model
with the engine running and throttle through the range check out the standing
waves in the push rod. I suppose it will depend
on the degree of engine vibration damping you have in your plane. 4 strokes
are
worse tan 2 strokes. The failures are usually
catastrophic and result in the loss of models as usually the elevator is
the one that
goes.There may be many cycles of vibration before
a failure occurs. The rod may out last the model but I recently saw an
elevator rod fail at the junction of the push
rod and the wire connector to the servo on the third flight! The builder/pilot
was the
most experienced F3A guru in Australia.This had
never happened to him before so I suppose you can say it was just bad luck
but it was preventable and he has gone back to
servos down the back as far as I am aware.
Where I fly most of the mammoth scale aerobatic
fliers use rear mounted servos because of length and vibration. Now Pattern
planes are getting long too and I know now why
the pilots of bigger planes use this method.
Solutions are :
(1) To support the rod along its length. Mk have
a bell crank and 3 bearing system that supports the rod on rollers (but
I saw
this fail in the above case because the rod near
the servo was not supported, support was only at the rear). The alternative
is to
make up balsa-foam-balsa sandwiches to use as
bulkhead like supports for the rods. Sleeves made of tubing similar to
the
Sullivan type flexible control rod outers can
be used through the foam to give smooth movement though the foam. A friend
has
used a plastic U shaped brackets ( similar to
the the metal brackets that electrical conduit is fastened to walls with
but only in
miniature of course ). These were bolted down
either side of the rod to prevent movement. I think he made these up himself
as
I have not seen any commercially available in
Australia anyway this worked fine.Parts of steerable nose gears for sports
models
may have a part similar to the bracket used but
the hole that supports the gear wire may be too small for the push rod.
There may be rod systems with components for
supporting the rods commercially available but I have not seen anything
in
Australia.
(2) An alternative is to make a hatch nearer
the tail where the servos can be mounted and have very short push rods.
Ron
Chidgey uses this in his Typhoon plans.( the
balsa built up version).
2+2 planes have long tail moments and unsupported
push rods vibrate. Work hardening can occur at connection points at the
servo linkage or where the rod meets the wire.
Mk make push rod ends that are tapered and fit neatly over the ends of
the
push rods. This may help prevent the problem.
Most pilots probably will never have pushrod failure
problems but they do exist. Everyone who doesn't support them is taking
a
risk. The problem is a real one.I have heard
of 2 crashes this year due to the problem. Both were F3A experienced
pilots/builders.
Regards Hanns Lim
Hanns Lim
email: doogie@tig.com.au
url http://homepages.tig.com.au/~doogie
REPLY(2)
Points well made, Hans. I too have observed
the recent demise of a FAI model of a VERY experienced builder due to cyclic
fatigue of the pushrod material. It was
the hard, brittle steel type.
A couple of thoughts - maybe
the metallurgists will come in on this. My impression is that most
failures of the
"work-hardening" variety have occured on either
A) Soldered brass threaded parts where the threads end and the smooth
bore begins or B) VERY hard steel
pushrods....
My solution, which has worked
now for over a thousand flights on a few models....Use the "softer" 2-56
wires with
SOLDER SPLIT couplers to join them so the brass
or other type of solder on threaded couplers can be avoided. I think
the
softer mild steel does not work harden....but
I'm no metallurgist.
I tend to agree with tail-mounting
of things, except for the obvious CG problems which CAN crop up, and the
variations of
two elevator servos (now not so much of a factor
due to high end radios building in tx software specifically to do this
properly)....ah, for an easy answer!!!
Bob Pastorello - faipatrn@flash.net
REPLY(3)
Hi Bob,
The crash I saw occured due to this very reason.
It was at the junction of the carbon push rod and a brittle steel wire(piano
wire). Softer mild steel would take a longer
time to work harden and become brittle but all metals are susceptable to
cyclical
fatigue. The internal stress after fatigue can
be relieved by annealing( heat to allow crystal structure to regrow and
allow slow
cooling) but as far as I remember from school
metal work mild steel could work harden. But don't quote me on this. I
am sure
someone out there is an engineer/metallurgist
who could put me straight.
Yes there may be a CG problem with rear servos
and everything needs to be planned from the start if rear servos are going
to
be used. The onboard radio equipment needs to
be shuffled around. I managed to get the CG right without adding nose weight
on my DESAFIO S.
One interesting thing to note know some guys use old push rods from previous aircraft. Mmmm could be a big problem here.
Hanns Lim- doogie@tig.com.au
REPLY (4)
From: RE Pushrods
Chris_L._Lauritzen@svm.com
25-Dec-98
This is one of the reasons why I use a pull-pull
setup on the elevators and
rudder.
REPLY(5)
So let's open the thread to the pros and cons
of pull pull. I know several
reputable fliers who swear by and AT pull pull
setups for varying reasons.
Ron VanPutte, Sam Turner, you're out there....you
advocate pull pull; Eric
Henderson et al, you're out there with solid
pushrod designs....
Somebody convince me my trim
and travel accuracy, and control surface
damping will be the same on pull-pull elevator
as a solid pushrod...
Bob Pastorello - faipatrn@flash.net
REPLY(6)
I will offer my two cents worth here....
The airplane should be considered as a whole,
not just the components. There are several elevator control systems that
will
work well. The system that Dave Guerin specifies
on both the Hydeout and the Prophecy is the Dave Brown push rod. It is
supported at both ends and a Hyde 140 engine
mount is specified. Obviously, Dave feels his practice to be the
best overall
solution. Some flyers opt for a center bearing
support for the push rod. If you are going to use this control system,
you must
have an airplane in which vibration has been
carefully controlled. The airplane needs to be built to balance with the
servo
amidships. The aft end of the push rod is extended
to a piece of brass tubing in the tail post or in a small former just aft
of the
control rod exit. Eric Henderson described the
small former aft bearing support in the K-Factor last spring. Dave adopted
it
and it has proven to be beneficial. This system
is as heavy as a two servo setup in the tail, so it is not recommended
if the
airplane is already heavy. The push rod weighs
about the same as another servo! The maintenance on this system is
limited to
inspecting clevis locks and clevis pin wear.
Many (but not all) of us feel there is an advantage to keeping the weight
to a
minimum at the extremes of both pitch and roll.
If the airplane needs weight in the tail to set the correct CG, it might as well be something useful like servos.
If you are pressed for weight considerations,
the cable system is the best solution of which I am aware. I find it a
bit tedious to
keep inspected and adjusted but like nearly everyone
else I always use it on the rudder. My experience with this system has
mainly been observation of other flyers.
A servo for each elevator half does not work well
on a pattern ship because the differences of the two servos is detectable.
I
have no argument with tail mounted servos in
Giant scale airplanes.
Keep a watchful eye on the control surfaces during
run up & preflight. If someone else manages a lower vibration level,
don't
hesitate to imitate!
From: John Ferrell <johnferrell@sprintmail.com
<25-Dec-98 .
REPLY(7)
Hi Bob,
I have used pull pull for years and thought
it was the way to go
till I installed a push rod a few years back
the big diffrence is in the wind , on a pull-pull
set up the elevator
halves can move independently of each other ..and
thats what we are trying
to avoid.
Although it is lighter it can`t match the solid
no slop setup of a pushrod
you just have to support the pushrod in at least
two places and a third one
being on the servo.
BRYAN H
From:"Bryan Hebert" <patriot@eatel.net>
25-Dec-98 2:10
REPLY(8)
As good as our planes fly the little offset that
could happen should not be
noticeable, and if it does the pilot should be
able to compansate for it
right? Are we getting to technical with our stuff?
I have seen top flyers
in my area win with what could be considered
sport planes, I myself have
flown a GP Supersportster in masters and placed(not
win but placed); so
again I wonder if we are getting to technical?
Well if nothing else it
gives us something to talk about............
Merry Christmas
Chris_L._Lauritzen@svm.com> 25-Dec-98 3:18
REPLY(9)
All,
This debate could go on forever. There are good
and bad attributes to either
of the type designs. I think that you have to
look at the particular model
that you are building then decide on the type
elevator control system your
will use. On the other hand if you are locked
in on one particular type
control system or the other you better be very
selective in the aircraft
that you choose to build. For example, I know
of one model that should have
nothing but a pull-pull system unless you want
to add a ton of lead to the
nose. It's so tail heavy (fixed wing location)
that even a pushrod system
requires some lead in the nose.
In executing either of the designs we need to
know the weaknesses and design
around them.
I happen to be a fan of pushrods but am acutely
aware of what can happen if
you have a poor installation. Besides the metal
fatigue that was mentioned,
you can get into a elev flutter situation if
the installation is improperly
designed and executed. Eric Henderson had an
article in K-Factor last year
showing his tail end pushrod bearing location
which considerably improves
the pushrod design. Most older designs show a
brass tube bearing in the
rudder post which is about 3-4 in. aft of where
the metal pushrods are
attached to the CF pushrod. He puts a little
former at the aft end of the
pushrod fuselage exit holes which considerably
reduces the unsupported
distance. Some folks use 4-40 pushrod ends on
the CF shaft which also
contributes to the stiffness. A center support
would probably be nice but,
there are a ton of airplanes flying without one
so it would be hard to find
an absolute requirement for doing this.
The main reasons that I am a fan of pushrod elev
systems are the following:
1. I hate fishing the cables
through the fuselage tail end. Two for
rudder is bad enough much less an additional
4 for the elevator.
2. I don't like long servo
cables required for the aft servo
installation, nor the potential complexity of
installation (in some cases).
That's just my opinion and everyone has one. Do
what ever works for you but
find out the weaknesses of the system and design
around them. Maybe we could
get some of you experts to expound on the weaknesses
for each type so that
us lesser knowledgeable folk could learn from
this.
Ken Blackwell
KBlackw@snowhill.com
REPLY(10)
Another alternative is to use a pull-pull system.
Though the cables can vibrate the weight, and therefore the mass, is much
smaller
that a push rod. Another advantage is that the
individual cables will expand and contract at the same rate and as such
are not
effected by temperature fluctuations. I've used
this method on my last two planes and found it to be better than anything
I have tried
before.
Gene Maurice
NSRCA 877 Masters
From: "Gene Maurice" <maurice.gene@worldnet.att.net>
25-Dec-98 10:02
REPLY(11)
John Ferrell wrote:
I will offer my two cents
worth here....
The airplane should be considered
as a whole, not just the components. There are several elevator control
systems that will
work well. The system that
Dave Guerin specifies on both the Hydeout and the Prophecy is the Dave
Brown push rod. It is
supported at both ends and
a Hyde 140 engine mount is specified. Obviously, Dave feels his practice
to be the best
overall solution. Some flyers
opt for a center bearing support for the push rod. If you are going to
use this control system,
you must have an airplane
in which vibration has been carefully controlled. The airplane needs to
be built to balance with
the servo amidships. The aft
end of the push rod is extended to a piece of brass tubing in the tail
post or in a small former
just aft of the control rod
exit. Eric Henderson described the small former aft bearing support in
the K-Factor last spring.
Dave adopted it and it has
proven to be beneficial. This system is as heavy as a two servo setup in
the tail, so it is not
recommended if the airplane
is already heavy. The push rod weighs about the same as another servo!
The maintenance on
this system is limited to
inspecting clevis locks and clevis pin wear. Many (but not all) of us feel
there is an advantage to
keeping the weight to a minimum
at the extremes of both pitch and roll.
If the airplane needs weight in the tail to set the correct CG, it might as well be something useful like servos.
If you are pressed for weight
considerations, the cable system is the best solution of which I am aware.
I find it a bit tedious
to keep inspected and adjusted
but like nearly everyone else I always use it on the rudder. My experience
with this system
has mainly been observation
of other flyers.
A servo for each elevator half
does not work well on a pattern ship because the differences of the two
servos is detectable.
I have no argument with tail
mounted servos in Giant scale airplanes.
Keep a watchful eye on the
control surfaces during run up & preflight. If someone else manages
a lower vibration level,
don't hesitate to imitate!
From: John Ferrell <johnferrell@sprintmail.com>
26-Dec-98 1:51
REPLY(12)
Dear John,
Have used all types of systems for elevators
control systems pull pull , push rods and 2 elevator servos in the tail.
I have found no such problems in pattern
with using 2 servos, one for each elevator providing one uses high quality
servos. I
use the JR Super Servo series where the
servo is constantly maintaining position even if it is not told to move.
No matter how well supported if "
I "used a push rod with "y "connectors to each elevator half I still
get independent
movement in the elevator halves.This is
I must say almost impossible to pick but I know quite a few international
fliers and
they state they can pick the difference.
Everyone can test how their system is
performing by turning on the radio and grabbing the 2 halves--- lift one
up and the
other down. They move right!!! If they
don't at all then you have got the perfect system. Try the same with pull
pull and you
will get the same result. By the way those
of you who use the pull pull system the best way to minimise servo wear
is to run
the main cables to a bell crank or wheel
then run connections/ cables etc to the servo. This way one can tighten
up the wires
with out putting excesive force or wear
on the servo bearings. There are other systems around that fasten into
the top of the
servo and mount to the servo mounting
plate. These can also be used to solve this problem.
The system I use is the servos are directly
connected via MK ball race horns( there are actually bearings in the connectors
and horns)(There are no free play or wear
problems) through MK machined aluminium connecting rods to the servos which
have ball race connectors as well. There
is no!!!!!!!!! free play or movement at all. If there is ther is something
wrong.These
servos ie the NES 7000 or 2000 series
have no play and they constantly self centre. The only disadvantage is
the current
draw is considerable. The PCM 10sx I use
can be programmed to accurately control these servos with extemely high
level of
accuracy. If cheaper servos or systems
are used may be there will be problems.I can only speak for my self and
what
equipment I have I have used.. The CG
problem with tail mounted servos is of course a problem but it usually
can be solved
by careful planning. If there are considerable
problems with balancing then the designer and kit manufacturer has to get
the
blame. A good well designed kit should
have no such problems especially in pattern kits where the engine size
and weight are
pretty standard.Manufactures should take
balancing into account if they know what they are doing.
Before using ball raced connection systems
I found that after only 2 or 3 flights there was wear in the plastic control
linkages(very slight with very minimal
play) especially in the 4 strokes and I did spend the money to get the
proper engine
vibration minimizing systems.After using
the MK system there was no play and no wear. I don't have any business
dealings
with Mk but their fittings are very well
designed.
I have found no such problems with the
1 servo per elevator control system in F3A planes and I can pick the difference
in
stability if I don't use it.In fact there
has been a gain in degree of precision of control in the elevator. I did
make a reference in
an earlier email to the list about how
I set up the servos for this system. If you are interested look under the
MY HANGAR
section DESAFIO S model of my web page
at http://homepages.tig.com.au/~doogie
I do use a pull pull system for the rudder
because I have found this to be the lighter than the push rod system and
superior to
the single arm from a tail servo. The
reason for the later is that I find a detectable difference in the
rudder response. ie the
rudder works better when the servo pulls
it than when it pushes it. I find this problem with push rods too.
So I use a combination of systems.
This is what I find works any how. I hope it may be useful to others.
Best wishes and Christmas greetings,
Hanns Lim
email: doogie@tig.com.au
REPLY(13)
Thank you for taking the time to share
your work with us. We all seem to agree on the objective, we just disagree
on how to
achieve it! Your extra effort to conceal the
servos in the stab is certainly an example of high quality craftsmanship.
I will have to
take a closer look at the MK hardware. I especially
value the matter of maintenance reduction.
As a kit manufacturer (Prophecy & Hydeout)
I am painfully aware that the fact that what we are shipping currently
is a lot
better than what we shipped last year at this
time. I continue to adopt ideas from others that contribute to the success
of my
airplanes. Unfortunately, that means admitting
the previous models were less than perfect.
I also offer a warning to all that will listen
that the advice I offer is what I have gleaned from others. My personal
skills as a
Pattern Flyer are quite coarse. About the only
thing I personally contribute is the availability of kits and I am not
satisfied that I
am scoring 10's there! I still cannot offer them
out of inventory consistently, they cost too much and prototype work shows
there is room for performance improvement.
From: John Ferrell <johnferrell@sprintmail.com>
26-Dec-98 1:51
REPLY(14)
Hello all;
Long unsupported pushrods are bad
news for several reasons not the least of which is the low natural frequency
as everyone seems to have noted. And, it naturally follows that the
deflection seen when the long unsupported pushrod deflects harmonically
can lead to fatigue in attached components. A long unsupported pushrod
also acts as a simple pinned end column, therefore requiring much larger
stiffness to resist buckling than is required to transfer the axial load;
the push if you will.
The posted responses to this question
are more or less correct from an engineering point of view except for the
confused terminology. Work hardening and metal fatigue are not the
same thing, although work hardening does make both brass and steel more
brittle. Music wire is work-hardened as it is drawn which is the
main reason that it is so stiff and springy. Unfortunately it is
very notch sensitive, so if threaded would be prone to fatigue failure
at the thread. The same applies to brass. The common garden
variety threaded rods sold by DuBro et al are mild steel which are not
hardened at all. There is a degree of work hardening in the threads
when they are rolled but it is of little significance.
So that all leads to what to do about
your pushrod(s) right? Well you could install servos in the tail
but that has its own set of problemselectrically and vibration- wise.
If one thinks of the fuselage of an aeroplane as a tuning fork, it is plainly
seen that the tail has the greatest displacement for any dynamic disturbance
caused by the engine or by buffet of the tail itself. (let's not
launch into that largely misunderstood control surface dynamic response
often mislabeled as flutter) It is therefore not a great idea to
add lumped masses to the tail section of a model if it can be avoided.
A better idea and a more elegant
solution in my opinion is to use pull-pull setups on both elevator and
rudder as the cables have very low mass. This means that the forces
generated when they are excited by vibration are small. Or, and this
is what I would recommend for the elevator, you could simply use linear
supports to raise the natural frequency of the pushrod, reduce its tendency
to buckle and come up with a much more effective system. One midway
is good; two so as to introduce two nodes in the pushrod (at roughly the
1/3 points) would be\ better. Eric Henderson showed a rather neat
little set-up on page 7 of the March 1998 K-Factor. If you don't
happen to have such a large number of servo bearings around, visit the
R/C car section of your local hobby eporium and have a look at the bearings
available. You will find lots of possible options. I am using
teflon tubing bushings in place of the ball bearings on my current project
since the forces involved are miniscule and of no consequence to a 100oz-in
servo. What about weight you ask? The supports and the pushrod,
which now can be somewhat lighter, will weigh less than the extra servo
at the tail and the mass will be distributed along the length of the tailcone,
minutely reducing the pitch polar moment of inertia of your model.
Oh, one other thought, I agree whole-heartedly with the guys' recommendation
to not use soldered brass couplers on any control surface related pushrod.
They are too brittle and fatigue rapidly.
Cheers, Ken
From: "K.L. Langille" <klangill@iosphere.>
25-Dec-98 2:44
REPLY(15)
Another alternative for long pushrods:
Sullivan Precision Rod. Typical outer
case, with inner carbon
fiber composite push rod. Comes in
36 and 48 inch lengths.
Inner rod is black, and accepts 4-40 threads.
Doesn't seem to be temperature - trim sensitive.
For those who care, the carbon fiber composite
inner push
rod is not conductive as checked with an ohm
meter.
Ron Lockhart.
From: Ron Lockhart <RONKARENLOCKHART@compuserve.com>
25-Dec-98 3:45
REPLY(16)
Hi,
Just while we are on the subject: Someone said
that using 2 servos
on the tail wasn't good for pattern planes as
there is a difference in the
servos' travel. Is that really true and really
interferes on the flying? I
was thinking to use 2 BB servos in the tail of
my next airplane, but now I
have doubts... (The CG isn't the problem) I'm
not a FAI pilot (yet) but I
need precision on the maneuvers!
Another
thing. That old fight: Futaba x JR x Airtronics x ... (I'm
not talking to the manufactures but pilots) -
Who flys? You or the equipment
itself?
Bruno jholanda@elogica.com.br
REPLY(17)
Richard - you may have good luck with the minis
. My own experience shows
that these small servos (around 40 in oz
ea_at best), ar not as good at
following the minute thumb tweals on the sticks
as --say-- a very good
single 100 in oz servo - and a suitable pushrod
setup. Dick
From: Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net>
16-Dec-98 0:25
REPLY(18)
Bruno,
I have been flying using dual servos on my pattern
models for the last 6
years, and have NEVER had a problem!
Tony
From: Tony Stillman <tstillman@pcola.gulf.net>
REPLY(19)
Dear Bruno,
Have used dual servos with no problems and a
gain in resolution of elevator control.
Have used all different types of control systems
and settled for the dual servo method.
My method of how I incooperate the servos is
as follows.
> Here is an idea of how to make neat elevator
servos that will perform
> flawlessly, accurately, avoid any push rod
flex problems and pushrod
> failures. I know of 2 world champs competitors
who have lost aircraft
> this year due to elevator pushrod failure.
The tail moments are
> increasing in 2+2 aircraft and vibration of
long pushrods causes
> linkage/ push rod vibration wear. If you do
use push rods make sure
> they are well supported along the fuse length.
(A trap for newbies and
> often the experienced forget as well.) My method
keeps the servos out
> of the oil and dust. It also helps reduce drag
not that that matters
> much to most of us in F3A.
I used this method on a Desafio S I made
a few years ago. The servos
were JR Super servos NES 2000. You need a very
good precise servo even
though the load is halved. The direct short MK
arms give absolutely no
play.The servos are normal size not micro servos
and with the
configuration they will fit into the normal stab,
but just. There was no
need to increase the thickness of the stab and
thus tail plane
characteristics were not changed. I haven't seen
anyone use this method
before. I like trying to find new and improved
ways to setup each of my
pattern planes. It worked for me, it looks neat
and the servos are
easily accessible.The servos I used are mixed
from 2 separate channels
to an elevator channel, using a 10sx. I can actually
fine trim any roll
tendancies if needed. Alternatively I suppose
a "Y" lead would work as
well. One word of warning keep the any internal
aerials away from the
long servo cables or use shielded/earthed cables
that are commercially
available to avoid interference problems. I personally
have found no
problems if one keeps the aerial 10 cm away from
the wires ( in theJR PCM10SX ).
For more detail checkout my web page in the MY
HANGAR section under
DESAFIO at http://homepages.tig.com.au/~doogie
> Regards Hanns Lim
Ps I get sick of servos and things hanging out
of the planes. You
wouldn't see such things on a real aircraft.
Some of the most beautiful
model aircraft I have seen have bulk servos and
holes all over them.Keep
them as aerodynamically clean as possible.email:
doogie@tig.com.au
From: Hanns Lim <doogie@tig.com.au>
17-Dec-98 22:50
POLYURETHANE FOR FOAM WING CONSTRUCTION
ORIGINAL MESSAGE
From:
MDRCHEF@aol.com
07-Nov-98 14:31
Subject:
Re: [Pattern] Polyurethand Glue
Resent-From:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
To:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
I just sheeted my first wing with some of the
polyurethane glue by Probond.
It seems to have worked very well but I noticed
in the instructions that
porous surfaces should be wiped with a damp cloth
about 1 minute before gluing
since curing requires moisture. Any thoughts
or experiences on this? Also
should I consider spraying the sheets with hairspray
first like suggested when
using resin? Mike Russell
REPLY(1)
I've used Vern's hair spray technique with resin
on my last few planes. I
have had nothing but good results. And
like they say, don't fix it if it
ain't broke.
Tim From: TBruzewski@aol.com
07-Nov-98 14:40
REPLY(2)
I have used Probond and Gorrilla glue on several
occasions. I recently lost
an airplane due to a aileron control rod failure
and the wind sheeting was
still very tight on the skins. I really
like the expanding capabilities of
the glue.
From: LFalsetto@aol.com
07-Nov-98 14:47
REPLY(3)
Poly u glue is activated by moisture
. If the pieces to be glued are dry
there will be no cureing . Poly u is also a very
toxic glue and must be used
with extreme care . Good ventilation is a must
and care should be taken to
insure that it does not make contact with the
skin . The exposure to Poly u is
cumulative , that is each exposure to it
adds to itself as it never leaves
your body. Good work habits and proper use will
insure that your results with
Poly u are positive , but please be aware that
this glue has its hazards and
care must be exercised .BTW , You can tell when
someone has been sloppy with
using the glue as it discolors the skin to a
poopy brown and must wear off .
Also as the poly u cures , the moisture you introduce
causes the glue to
expand as it cures thus forcing the glue into
the pores of the material to be
joined. thus if you use too much you will find
that the excess squeezes out
and must be removed after it dries . Kinda messy
.
From: MSotom4766@aol.com 08-Nov-98
0:10
REPLY(4)
I find that the glue really foams and expands
and I have only put down a very
thin layer. It seems to set more slowly
than epoxy but this allows it to
penetrate deeper into the balsa sheeting.
Mike (had to correct the spelling
in the subject line).
From: MDRCHEF@aol.com 07-Nov-98 15:06
Subject:
[Pattern] Waterborne Polyurethane
Resent-From:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
To:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
Hi all. I need some comments regarding the use of
waterborne polyurethane to attach lightweight glass cloth to
balsa wing/stab surfaces. I bought some Parks Waterborne
Polyurethane from Lowe's and tried attaching some 2/3 oz/sq
yd glass cloth to some 1/16" balsa samples. It is very thin
right out of the can. I brushed it through the cloth with a
small, soft brush. The cloth smoothed out and was flat
immediately. After drying for about an hour, it was
completely dry and the glass cloth seemed to stick very
well, at least as good as thinned 30 minute epoxy. Why/why
not use this stuff?
Ron Van Putte
REPLY(1)
Ron... I am finishing a twin Cessna for a little twin engine playfulness..
I
would like to know how this stuff holds 2/3 oz. cloth in an inside
/ outside
radius ???? Is it a glue ??, Do you have any information as to how
it acts /
reacts as a base for primer / paint.???
John
From: "JUSTJOHNF" <JUSTJOHNF@email.msn.com>
21-Dec-98 9:16
REPLY(2)
Ron,
This sounds like a good application.
One thing that I would wonder about would be the water causing the balsa
to
swell and warp. Sounds like you had no problems with this. Another
question
that you will be able to answer is how well it sands...in preparation
for
primer/filler. Then, how do primers, especially, epoxy primer bond
to the
stuff.
I think everyone would like to know how you come out with this. I have
some
balsa/glass/paint projects that I am planning. Keep us informed on
your
progress.
Thanks,
Ken Blackwell
KBlackw@snowhill.com
REPLY(3)
Kenneth Blackwell <KBlackw@snowhill.com> wrote: "One thing
that I would wonder about would be the water causing the
balsa to swell and warp. Sounds like you had no problems
with this. Another questionthat you will be able to answer
is how well it sands...in preparation for primer/filler.
Then, how do primers, especially, epoxy primer bond to the
stuff. I think everyone would like to know how you come out
with this. I have some balsa/glass/paint projects that I am
planning. Keep us informed on yourprogress."
I'm surprised that there's not more out there on the subject
regarding the use of waterborne polyurethane. I am
encouraged enough to try it next on an elevator (balsa
covered foam) to see the result. I'll let everyone who's
interested how it turns out.
Ron Van Putte
From: CMFB02B@prodigy.com (MR RONALD E VAN PUTTE)
22-Dec-98 0:22
REPLY(4)
I've seen ProBond used. The people I know who have tried it used
it for
sheeting the wings and it worked great with no distortions. Little
weight
was added and it appeared to sand OK. Mike Harrison is using
it on his next
wing for the laminating on advice from Chidgey.
The cores I've seen looked great. More info is needed.
Don
From: "Don Ramsey" <donramsey@mcia.com 22-Dec-98 1:46
ORIGINAL MESSAGE
From:
"David R. Gundling" <102731.640@compuserve.com>
Tue 3:03
Subject:
[Pattern] Instictive rudder
Resent-From:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
To:
All <nsrca-list@eskimo.com
Does anyone know of a good rudder drill? I try
and try but still find
myself flying the Sportsman routine while merrily
leaving my left thumb off
the stick (I do put it back on for throttle management).
I need to find
some way to get the idiot flying the ship to
instinctively keep his thumbs
on the stick and give the right rudder commands
either upright (no real
problem)or inverted (hopeless). Any ideas?
Dave.
REPLY(1)
My two cents worth:
Four of the Sportsman (soon to be Intermediate)
center maneuvers can be readily
adapted to rudder drills. The objective is to
fly them one after another
without leaving the maneuver and to be able to
move the whole maneuver in and
out a prescribed amount. If you have a caller,
have her call the direction and
the amount of the correction. The easiest
is the three loops. Remember to keep
your wings level and make the changes with the
rudder. Don't forget to pay
attention to centering too!
The other three maneuvers useful for this drill
are the cuban eight, the
reverse outside and the square loop. Get real
comfortable with the reverse
outside before you use it in a rudder drill.
A lot of good airplanes are lost
on this maneuver, including one of mine!
It is tough to see the effects of rudder in the
turnaround maneuvers, that is
why the emphasis is on the center maneuvers.
In actual contest flying a measure of aileron
is used to maintain track in both
pushes & pulls. This seems to be a popular
downgrade to the unschooled judge
who takes points for "wings not being level".
The only reference for
downgrading "wings not level" that I have found
is in the avalanche and I think
there could be better wording on that. Sometimes
getting it right is not
enough, you have to be able to fly what the judges
want!
From: John Ferrell <johnferrell@sprintmail.com
Tue 12:06
REPLY(2)
When you are inverted, move the rudder stick
in the direction you want the
inboard wing tip to move. Try it first
with your plane sitting inverted in
your flight stand and I think you will see how
this works.
Tim Boyer
From: Temjboyer@aol.com
Tue 19:01
REPLY(3)
Hi David,
If you remember when you learnt to fly the major
hurdle was getting the
aileron inputs correct when you were flying towards
yourself ie. to get
the plane to straighten up when you started to
fly towards yourself and
not spiral it into the deck. I am not saying
everyone has this problem
but most do for a short time at least.
Well I don't know about how you learnt,
but I learnt by doing FIGURE
EIGHT'S HORIZONTALLY.
WELL DO THE SAME FOR RUDDER.
Horizontal rudder exercise (1)
Well, apply this to learn how to use your rudder.
If you have a
reasonable well trimmed pattern plane it should
be able to do flat
rudder turns without dropping or raising the
nose or without much roll
coupling.
Just start by flying level at a safe height and
perform flat, big
horizontal eight's in front of you using rudder
only, but relax the
sticks to neutral in the cross overs so you will
need to think before
inputs for the next half of the eight. Enter
the eight's from all
directions and fly left to right and right to
left.
Then when you good and don't make mistakes upright
do it all again
inverted.Do this high in case you get confused.
Vertical Rudder exercise(2)
The best way I found to practise vertical rudder
control was to do a
particular stall maneuver. Figure M with 3/4
rolls in the up and
downward leg rolling in the same direction. Each
pass gives you the
chance to do a left or right stall turn with
the plane facing you and
one facing away from you( easy). Also there is
a lot of chance for
correction with rudder in the up and down legs
of the M.( This maneuver
is harder to perfect than it seems at first).
The rolls in between help
to confuse a bit and put you off tract especially
in cross wind but
skill at rudder control will keep you online
even in the wind. In this
figure M you have to do the stall turn
under a bit of pressure and the
rudder inputs soon become instinctive. This maneuver
is not recommended
for the raw beginner as it has a reasonable K
factor and there is a bit
of inverted pushout at the bottom of the middle
on the M. Practise it
from left to right and visa versa.
These two maneuvers are all that is need to get
you use to rudder
control. I have found the controls I use the
most are the throttle and
the rudder. I don't know what the others think
but the rudder probably
gets used the most.
Practice makes perfect.
Regards, happy safe flying,
Hanns Lim
doogie@tig.com.au
PS your fingers should be glued to the sticks
at all times even in snap
releases. Don't get into the bad habit of flying
with fingers off the
sticks( Its just as bad as looking away from
the model when you fly.)
REPLY(4)
Hans,
Thanks a bunch. I'll try it. The inverted stuff
seems to be my main hangup.
Dave
From: "David R. Gundling" <102731.640@compuserve.com>
Tue 13:38
REPLY(5)
As John Ferrell indicated in his post, Cuban
Eights are one of my favorites
maneuvers for practicing rudder. Make them really
BIG and do them cross wind
on purpose. Do a dozen or more Cuban one right
after another and try to keep
them ALL in the same place. It takes some of
us longer than others to get the
instinctive rudder under control. I had a 3-year
layoff (after flying pattern
for 10 years) and the rudder instinct took almost
2 years to return.
--
Exiting the Box!
Jim Johns, N0DVJ, AMA 9520, NSRCA 469
e-mail: jjohns@southwind.net
The Prairie Pattern Page
http://www2.southwind.net/~jjohns/rcpattrn/prairie.html
REPLY(6)
Nik Middleton wrote:
>
> At 02:52 PM 12/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >Thanks for the reply. Each of the maneuvers
you mention requires rudder as
> >a step to execution. Thus no problem. The
problem is the reflexive stuff.
> >You do an inverted Cuban 8 and the thing
is heading in or out. A bit of
> >rudder is indicated, obviously, and my thumb
is as likely as not off the
> >stick or being used only for throttle management.
It's the reflex I want.
> >
>
> They way that I'm starting to get the 'reflex'
is to always try and correct
> the track without the use of ailerons.
I also go outside and practice
> inverted flight in my mind. I imagine
a plane heading off track. I then
> say 'left rudder' without thinking about it.
I then analyze my choice and
> kick myself if I was wrong.
>
> I found that I had trouble with say the Cuban
eight where I was throttling
> back as I came off the top and needed
to adjust using rudder. I could do
> the throttle or the rudder, but not both.
I choose the rudder, as I became
> better at the rudder, the throttle has easier
to work in. But it's all
> practice. But.. The mind games did help,
and you can do them no matter how
> bad the weather is.
>
> Just remember, it's like flying towards you.
It's tough at first, but you
> probably don't think about wing corrections
now. If you had to think,
> you'd be to late. Rocking the wings helped
me, doing the same with the
> rudder works too.
> Nik Middleton
> Spinmail THE Internet <-> MS-Mail and News
Gateway
> http://www.spinmail.com
> Spinmail(R) is a registered trademark of Spinmail,
Inc
REPLY(6)
I did do an article on that -- but it may have
been in the sport mag I wrote
for --The drill was mentioned here - It is really
a deceptively simple one -
practice sliding the model - whilst holding the
wings level -- first - from
end to end of the box - then reverse etc.-
The results take time and many sessions, for
the mind to lock in -and -if you
rely on "remember to push to the Error
side" method for selecting correct
rudder -- you will surely err-- reason being
that rudder must become as
ingrained a response as elevator input -- IF
you really want to get
proficient-you must learn to fly REGARDLESS the
state of trim or inherent
couple in a model. An old friend once told me
(and this guy really was good)
"just fly it" when I asked him how to trim for
various maneuvers. He could
fly any mode and used no HI/Lo rates etc--
Tho this kind of skill is rare , The idea has
merit - for example - I still
get questions concerning "how much right thrust
is correct". Once you get
comfortable with constant rudder flying , you
will find that NO offset works
very well-and , in fact you will not even notice
it.
Another drill that helps is learning to fly using
a tray - if only to find
how much "English " you put on the TX as you
fly- A strap is very helpful -
and is my own favorite - but I have seen too
many different approaches to
holding/thumbing etc to say one method is superior-
Bottom line - A well practiced flyer will
usually beat a flier who relies on
special models,trimming .etc--because he
simply learns to deal with ANY
situation.
From: Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net>
Tue 15:21
REPLY(7)
David R. Gundling wrote:
> As a matter of fact I just spent a month
trying to get a SIG fun
> fly profile ultimate bipe to fly like my Runaround.
Never made it but did
> noticeably improve toward the end. That thing
really demands a lot of
> rudder input constantly if the maneuvers aren't
set up just right.
> Unfortunately I'm getting quite good at setting
up and thus lessening the
> need for signifigant rudder input. Drat.
It's a complete myth and a BIG mistake to believe
that you can somehow
obviate the need for rudder (or other control
input) by some magical
set-up, design, maneuver entry or aircraft trim.
We all know pilots who
waste so much time trying to find the "perfect"
design or reach a
perfect state of trim or radio programming that
they don't have time
left to learn how to fly. Not the best approach,
IMHO.
The two MOST common reasons that you need rudder
or other corrective
inputs are (A) Pilot error, and (B) Wind. Any
competent modern pattern
plane with adequte (I didn't say perfect) trimming
will fly without much
need for corrections that the pilot or wind didn't
cause. Some maneuvers
are so long and complex that it's extremely rare
NOT to need corrections
even with low wind and perfect entry. (e.g. Cuban
8's, Fig.m with rolls,
Square Loop with rolls, etc etc)
As for special practice, you've had lots of advice
Dave. Follow it all.
(grin). If you practice enough you will gain
an almost reflexive
response. I'm not sure I believe that we can
ever gain more than a
conditioned response. The last guy who told me
he never thought about
inputs and had his "head in the airplane" crashed
big time when I had
him roll inverted and then told him to do a 4-point.
(Turns out he'd
never done a 4-point from inverted before, and
thus no conditioned
response. Wrong rudder both knife edges). He
was unharmed, so must have
pulled his head from the plane just before impact.
(vbg)
When upright, steer the far side with the rudder.
Inverted, steer the
near side. (Most excellent and helpful advice
for heli pilots too, BTW).
This is a helpful crutch for those early stages
of developing the
conditioned response, just as you did for using
ailerons when the plane
was coming towards you. At least it's a fixed
wing, so you don't have to
worry about the throttle reversing when inverted,
and/or the aircraft
moving backwards or sideways for any extended
period.
d'hawk
From: DBEST@wtp.net Wed 6:21
REPLY(8)
Nik Middleton wrote:
>
> At 01:21 PM 12/29/98 -0600, you wrote:
> >When upright, steer the far side with the
rudder. Inverted, steer the
> >near side. (Most excellent and helpful advice
for heli pilots too, BTW).
> >This is a helpful crutch for those early stages
of developing the
>> I don't follow the above, can you expand?
Can I expand? Sheesh...that's like asking Carlton
if he has any advice
on radios. (grin). Anyhow...
When upright, the FAR side of the plane goes the
direction you push the
rudder stick. e.g., going away the nose (far
side) goes to your right
when stick goes to your right. Coming at you
the tail (again, the FAR
side) goes to your right when stick goes to your
right.
Inverted, going away from you the TAIL (near side)
will go right when
stick goes to your right. Inverted coming at
yourself, the NOSE (again,
the NEAR side) will go right when stick goes
to your right.
So - When upright, steer the far side with the
rudder. Inverted, steer
the near side. (Also works on vertical lines.)
This short, simple "mantra" has kept my heli out
of the dirt many, many
times while working on nose-in landings and inverted
hovering.
d'hawk
REPLY(9)
From: "Gene Maurice" <maurice.gene@worldnet.att.net>
Wed 13:1
When the plane is right side up you're moving
the nose with the rudder, i.e.
left rudder, nose goes left,. In the inverted,
you're moving the tail of the
plane around, i.e. left rudder moves the tail
to the left. Works for me
(sometimes!!!).
Gene Maurice
NSRCA 877
ORIGINAL MESSAGE
From:
"Koenig, Tom" <Tom.Koenig@actew.com.au>
17-Dec-98 15:43
Subject:
[Pattern] Clear canopy?
Resent-From:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
To:
"'NSRCA'" <nsrca-list@eskimo.com>
Hello all,
I would be very grateful if anyone out there could
tell me what material
is best suited for making a plug, from which
I will be vacuum forming a
clear canopy. This will be for my next F3A model.
I'm intending to use Jellutong timber. This is
a very tight grained
timber ( and easily carveable ). With what do
I prepare the surface so
as to withstand the heat from the heating elements
in the vacuum
machine?
I'm after a dead smooth surface so that my canopy
will not have any
grain marks from the timber plug.
As for the actual canopy material, is clear PVC
the best suited or is
there another more suitable plastic ?
Is an aluminium plug my only hope?
Thanks in advance and Merry Christmas to all.
Tom
REPLY(1)
Hi Tom,
Re clear canopy.Remember the Flamingo-had a clear
canopy? Willie and I
used wood that was easy to carve(anything that
is easily carved will do.
Simply used auto spray putty or primer to fill
the grain and minor
imprefections and sand smooth-you can then paint
with auto motive paint and polish.
The better you are at sanding and polishing the
smoother
it looks. We got 8 canopies done for the Flamingo
and didn't pull of any
spray putty/paint off. The day before Willie
tried to form one without sealing
the grain ie" barewood "and it looked aweful(
a grainy textured canopy-may
be your into that effect, it looked ok except
it was textured).I will
check on the plastic we used.It was not PVC.
A friend of Willies who
does vacuum forming for a living knows what plastic
to use for this
purpose. I could also ask what the pros use to
form on . The size of you
canopy will be important as you need to select
the right thickness of
plastic. Obviously the deeper and bigger the
canopy the thicker the
material needed. Make the block a bit bigger
than what you will be
drawing to so that you will have the same thinkness
all around the edge
when you finally trim the canopy off. Let me
know what size canopy you
are making. I have some leftover plastic and
can give you a rough idea
of the thickness if it is about the same size
as the Flamingo canopy
35cm*10cm*10cm--used 0.6-0.75mm thick sheet.
Will contact you with the
info about what the plastic is called.>>>>
(PET- G)
I have a Typhoon canopy and the thickness of
the unstretched sheet is
similar.
Regards Hanns
Merry Christmas.
Ps Is it a new Design?
doogie@tig.com.au
REPLY(2)
From: Boomer <boomer@ukiah.nrl.navy.mil>
18-Dec-98 1:23
There's a couple of ways you can do this.
First, if you want to spend the
money, there is a special casting epoxy you can
get from CIBA-Geigy that's
made for making plugs. It's a high temp
type of epoxy, with metal filler
in the mix to spread the heat evenly through
out the plug. But, it is a
bit expensive. And you have to by it by
the case, which is a mix of
hardener and resin. The case will run you
over $100 US. The other way you
can go, is to head down to your local arts and
crafts store, and pick up a
product called casting plaster, or casting stone.
For a one off project,
this may be the way to go. Or you can just
carve a plug out of basswood,
then use wood filler to get the surface grain
filled, then cover with about
7 or 8 coats of clear dope, snading with 600
grit between each coat. After
the last coat is on, let it harden for a few
days, then take some rubbing
compound for the final polish. I use .040
PET-G for my canopies. You can
order the small sheets from someplace like Acu-Vac,
or any of the
manufacturers of vacu forming machines.
Otherwise, you have to order the
plastic in 8 foot sheets. Hope this helps.
If you have any more
questions, drop me a line.
Mark Wendt
REPLY(3)
From: Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net> 18-Dec-98 0:03
Tom - the wood you are using ,makes a great plug for making
the tooling
for a vacuum formed canopy. but not the best material for vacuum
forming--If you are only after a couple - read up on drape forming---The
best material currently available is PETG-- If you are after a quantity,
send the plug to a professional vacuum forming operation -- Lanier
, for
example
REPLY(4)
From: "Karl G. Mueller" <kmueller@netcom.ca>
18-Dec-98 2:16
Tom,
You don't need to do any finishing on the plug it self, since it is
not
going to be
heated at all. I usually make my plug from cherry wood and make it
smaller
by the thickness of the material used to draw the canopy. Draw your
first
canopy and leave
it on the plug. This now becomes part of your plug and will give you
the
smoothest surface possible. Apply some wax to this. Now you can draw
as many
canopies as you need. You will get good, clear canopies.
Hope this will work for you.
Karl G. Mueller
SUPER
TIGRE (2023, 2300, 1.4)
The
new 2 stroke 140's have come.
Trends
are turning full circle.
Here
is a cheap but good quality engine with longevity.
It
seems an ideal choice for Pattern.
From: Luckymacy@aol.com 6:10
Subject:
[Pattern] pictures: ST2300 in Saturn
Resent-From:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
To:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
http://members.aol.com/Luckymacy/saturn.htm PICTURES
OF ST2300 IN 2M MODEL FROM LUCKYMACEY
Ron Ellis's 2m model modelling debut :
Here's Sam Turner's new Saturn which Ron is borrowing for a while and
test flying. Ron flies FAI and the ST2300 pulls it
through the maneuvers easily. The Tiger just drops into the engine
cutout and is hard mounted. No regulator or pump. Ron says
he doesn't notice the forward fuel tank location and doesn't notice
the engine operating differently between the beginnig and the
end of the flight. Starts with a simple hand flip. But don't tell anyone.
The darn engines cost under $200 and are hard enough to
get as it is - I'd hate to see demand go up as price surely will too!
Only drawback is the stock muffler is too loud.
> OK I know that this has been hashed over before, but I would
like to know
> what the collective thoughts are about the new St2300. I am not happy
with
> the YS engines overall, they have great power but I find them very
> temperamental. Now I am not new at flying, been doing it for 25 years
> (flying pattern 23 of those years). I just prefer a two stroke over
a four.
> I know the 2300 does not have a fuel pump but what about the Cline
system?
> Mounting holes? Close to YS? Prop? Fuel?
>
> Not looking to start a huge thread I am just wondering what to do
for next
> year.
>
> Chris
ORIGINAL MESSAGES
From: Luckymacy@aol.com 09-Nov-98
I'd like an update from those who've been using this engine (I lost
some of my
old email that I had saved on this engine setup so I need to get it
back
anyway).
mount used
relative amount of vibration
muffler used
quiet pipe used
header used
db of stock muffler
ease of fitting engine/stock muffler to existing kits
fuel used
plug used
prop used
average peak and idle rpms
weight as compared to a YS140
any added fuel pump/regulator
fuel tank size and how many average minutes of flight
does it lean out noticeably as the tank gets lower
engine break in procedure
flying qualities as compared to the four cycles
any other points of interest I forgot and anyone have a picture on the
web or
have one they'd like to put on a web site.
thanks in advance,
REPLY(1)
From: Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net>
23-Dec-98 2:24
Direct comparison-bare engines weigh the same --a power improving exhaust
system on the TIGRE weighs 7 ozs- total- and extends 18" from spinner
backplate
to end of muffler.
Unless you put the tank back a foot -the exhaust pressure works perfectly
On Magnum Heli +- using the add on exhaust system and a
17x12 APC (8000 rpm
on the ground)-- we get a very quiet engine - in the air - seems as
quiet as
anything heard at pattern contests- but we are working on an even quieter
system - this one is in the mid 90 db range. No solid numbers because
we are
flying in cold air and have not gone thu the proper test comparisons
This setup will run from an idle to full rev with no delays- -hovering
can be
easily done as the throttle response is very fine .
Bottom line- the overall performance is as good as any YS 1.4 I have
run----fuel consumption - about the same .
Differences - vibration is extremely low with this setup - we mount
it solid-
perhaps an isolation mount will reduce noise some - have not
tested that yet-
Other points-- the engines swing 18x8 APC over 9000 on the ground -
very noisy
setup - but ballistic verticals- at 11 lbs the models will do vertical
snap
rolls and point rolls and appear to recover or lose very little speed
- this
big difference came about with the new exhaust system which gives a
net
improvement of 200 over open header - The stock muffler is a
additional drop
of less than 200 in most prop sizes.
The side exhaust outlet is a plus in my book - as the models we fly
are quite
large in cross section so the bend in the header uses up header
length- We are
using Mac product headers Three bend radii are available
about $30.00 list. a
large tubing is used which increases exhaust system volume and cools
the system
better. I think this helps.
Personally , I am satisfied that it is a viable engine for FAI competition.
I do not represent any Tigre sales group-But I have two now and will
outfit my
new model for FAI with another
REPLY(2)
ROpgenorth@aol.com wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I've had very good luck with my ST2300, I've got about 15 gallons
through it
> and it's a sweetheart! Nice low idle, easy starting, good smooth
response and
> great power with a 16x10.
>
> I'm using mine in a 12lb airplane and the tank is about 3" behind
the engine.
> A friend of Dick Hanson's has one in a Cap 232 with stock muffler
and the tank
> is 14" behind the engine with no pump. I have not heard reports
on one with a
> Cline or Perry pump but I'm curious.
>
> Sam Turner has one in a Saturn, solid mounted. I'm keeping
an eye on his
> progress, I'd like to be flying one in pattern this year, but waiting
till the
> experts sort out the best mount, pump and exhaust.
>
> Rob Opgenorth
REPLY(3)
From: Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net> 23-Dec-98 10:25
Rob- for your own use - you will most likely find that no special stuff
is
required--We have extensively flown 11 lb models - with the original
exhaust - and
up to18x8 props --Other modelers around the globe are using special
exhaust
systems to further quiet it - but for any decent 10-11 lb model - a
totally stock
setup is very good -We are simply ratcheting the performance up a little
at a time
to see what is possible - The model you mentioned is a12.25 lb Cap
- Our own 12 lb
300 EXTRA is also 2300 powered-- no pump-- we are flying four
planes all ranging
in weight from 10.25 ---12.25 lbs--and testing various exhausts systems
and carbs
- so far no pumps or regs req'd . One flyer uses a Cline reg
on his EMC2 - so
that the tank can go waaaay back - He says it works perfectly.
REPLY(4)
From: "Bob Pastorello" <faipatrn@flash.net> 23-Dec-98 11:46
HERE GOES!!!
I'm the somebody flying FAI with the ST2300 in my
EMC 2. It works well
enough to my satisfaction that I have removed all mounting stuff for
the YS.
This past weekend, rotated the Imitiation Hyde mount I built to allow
the
side exhaust with a header to be in the middle of the belly pan.
This puts
the head out of the fuse side at about 7:30 when viewed from the front.
Which makes EVERYTHING important immediately accessible.
I'm using the Cline regulator system because I kept
the tank on the CG.
It needed it. The EMC is pretty long from carb to wing tube,
and the ST
would not draw reliably on muffler pressure only. With my current
setup, it
has worked flawlessly, never sputtered or died. Transition is
very good
through the midrange, and I only had to put an OS F plug in it to make
that
happen.
Power. With the stock muffler, which I am
still using internal to the
belly pan, the motor will pass 96 db per the rule book with the 17
x 12N APC
turning at 7300. This is completely enough thrust to climb out
of the top
of the box on takeoff. And way too much power for the FAI sequence.
With
the huge prop, witnesses time my up and down lines and report VERY
similar
up and down speed.
Yes, they seem to be back-ordered. Yes, it's
okay, because the power is
worth the wait. Yes, I'm not sponsored or involved commercially
with anyone
about this setup. I'm just cheap. And expect value for
the
investment....this motor can blow up and self-destruct, and I can REPLACE
it
for the price of a top end and piston/sleeve rebuild on a YS....
So there. I said it.
Awaiting flames from anti 2 C folks...my Santa suit
is flame-retardant.
Happy Holidays!!
Bob Pastorello - faipatrn@flash.net
Original
message:
From:
"CharlieP" <paska@ibm.net>
Thu 11:12
Subject:
[Pattern] Clearcoat Question
Resent-From:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
To:
"NSRCA" <nsrca-list@eskimo.com>, "IMAC" <imac@smtp2.cerf.net>
I've seen vague references but don't remember specifics: is it
possible,
practical, prudent to clearcoat ultracote wings, particularly when
several
layers/colors and trim tape are used?
I would appreciate your typical unleashing of the knowledge floodgates.
Charlie
Anchorage, AK
REPLY 1
From: Herb Kurlan <hkurlan@preftech.com>
Thu 11:44
Subject: RE: [Pattern] Clearcoat Question
We have painted trim colors on Ultracoat with PPG two part autopaint with great success. Use Plastic Prep on the Ultracoat so it accepts the paint. You will find that you are adding quite a bit of weight which maybe a factor.
Herb
REPY 2
From:
Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net>
Thu 11:51
Subject: Re: [Pattern] Clearcoat Question
Charlie -- just dunk the whole plane into a tub of clear -then hang
out to dry--
REPLY 3
Hi Charlie,
Not familiar with Ultracote brand.... is it a smooth film or weave
type?
Have used Profilm/Oracover and Moneykote...(prefer the Profilm/Oracover)
for years and I have painted directly onto the iron-on with no prep
or
need to sand the surface. Just make sure there is no grease on the
surface. The paint I use is Glassurite or Sandox basecoat followed
by
the 2 K clear.(no undercoat) Have never had the paint delaminate....even
after midairs..If the paintscheme extends right to the edge of the
wing
I extend the clear around the TE or LE to cover the seam of the film
under the wing to fuel proof it. As for weight the base coat is very
light. The clear is the main weight component.It can be thinned and
polished. I usually don't paint the whole wing just 1/2 mm past the
basecoat color them later lightly polish the edge down. Gentle heat
from
a protected iron doesnt seem to affect this paint ( a protective cloth
cover for the iron shoe is usedeg. think topflite put a iron sock out
fro sale).The only thing I find is that the film may lift a little
after
the line masking is removed. This can be ironed down with low heat
usually with out affecting the paint but make sure it is dry first..
I
have only had experience with solid sheeted balsa wings with this paint.
Sheeting over covered open structures may cause cracks and crazing
if
the film is slack. I have seen friends paint directly onto supermonokote
over open structures eg. the Bucker Jungmann and Jungmeister on home
page in my friends Hangar section. These planes are over 10 yrs old
and
have been flown regularly every weekend. No probs with the paint pealing
of even in the hot Australian sun. see
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~doogie
One thing I am warey of is to clear over decals and stick-ons. they
look
great but if you have to repair the area they can cause a mess.
As for weight savings I personally believe that there are savings when
compared to the glass cloth and paint method at least under my
experience. May be there are folks that are expert fibreglassers who
can
glass and paint a wing lighter than filming.
Also I find that the unsightly small stess cracks in the paint around
servo bays etc. in glassed and painted wings can't be seen in the filmed
wings.
Most people think that I paint the entire wing as if you are careful
it
looks painted unless one specifically checks for seams under the
wingtips.....one could paint over these as well but beware of shrinkage
after a few years.
The other suggestion is to film structure first before painting so
that
the paint can seal joins eg at the junction between the horizontal
stabiliser and the fuse.( I paint as much of the fuselage as I
can....personal preference I don't like filming fuselages.).
The current planes I fly.... Desafio S and Flamingo have had painted
profilm wings and stabs. The Desafio S turned out at 8.8 lb ( most
painted models I saw were 10-10.5 lb with less intricate color schemes
and the Flamingo 8.5 lb....both had 120 4 strokes on board.
The purists may laugh and say this method is unprofessional and has
problems but it works for me. Most will film everything including the
designs on the wings or will paint everything. I use both......I have
actually seen a crash where a built up wing was covered in 2 colors
but
the guy forgot to cover the TE color first before doing the color at
the
LE.The wind caught and lifted the film and the whole of the underside
of
one wing pealed off but not completely causing a horrific spiral
into
the deck.(He doesn't use multiple colors on the wings anymore.)
What are the experiences of others in relation to this topic?
REPLY 4
From:
"CharlieP" <paska@ibm.net>
Thu 14;32
Subject:
Re: [Pattern] Clearcoat
Question
Thanks Hanns. UltraCote is your Oracover - some rolls even
stamped
Oracover.
Charlie
Anchorage, AK
REPLY 5
From:
"CharlieP" <paska@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: [Pattern] Clearcoat Question
Hell of an Idea. I assume you are recommending Imron?
Charlie
Anchorage, AK
YS 140 4 cycle VS Super Tigre 2300
Here are articles from the recent NSRCA email list on the Performance of the new ST2300 compared to the YS 140 FZ.
Mail 1
From: EChapkis@aol.com Fri 10.20
Subject: Re: [Pattern]
ST 1.40 VERSUS YS 1.40FZ
In a message dated 1/14/99 6:00:53 PM Eastern
Standard Time,
valudex@telusplanet.net writes:
<< Heres the results of bench testing these
engines against each other. To
compare apples to apples - The Super Tiger
2300 was set up with a Bolly
EQ140 pipe and custom manifold(pipe set
to 600mm (piston side to pipe
internal reflector baffle). The tuned pipe
was adjusted until we had a
torque curve very similar in shape to the
YS140FZ. On the YS a Hattori
#675 was used with a custom header.
The ST2300 used a 16 by 14 APC with the
YS140 using a 16 by 12 APC, both
running on 10% nitro. Fuel tanks
were mounted 16 inches away with the
ST2300 unit having a "Cline" unit in the
fuel system(this is needed).
Both engines were run inverted.
ST2300 weighs 31 oz.
mounting hole pattern 60 mm by 25 mm by 4.25 mm
holes
YS140 weighs 30.8 oz mounting
hole pattern 58mm by 25mm by 5.1 mm
holes
Results are; (these numbers are approximate
- so don't jump on me)
ST2300@6000RPM=340 OZ PULL/2.1 HP
FUEL 50 CC/MIN
YZ140@6000 RPM=275 OZ PULL/1.7 HP
FUEL 45 CC/MIN
ST2300@7000RPM=370OZ PULL/2.6 HP
FUEL 60 CC/MIN
YZ140@7000 RPM=280 OZ PULL/2.0HP
FUEL 52 CC/MIN
ST2300@8000RPM=375OZ PULL/3.2 HP
FUEL 67 CC/MIN
YZ140@ 8000RPM=275OZ PULL/2.2 HP
FUEL 59 CC/MIN
ST2300@9000RPM=340OZ PULL/3.0 HP
FUEL 55 CC/MIN
YZ140@8725RPM=265OZ PULL/2.0 HP
FUEL 62 CC/MIN
As can be seen, if the Super Tiger is set
up properly it will be quite
useable in pattern flying. (at $200 versus
$500 in costs for the YS - it
appears to be a real bargain..........IF
YOU CAN GET ONE ! >>
Did you do any noise measurements?
Evan
Mail 2
From: Tony Frackowiak
<frackowiak@qnet.com>
Subject: Re: [Pattern] ST 1.40 VERSUS YS
1.40FZ
This test is not comparing "apples to apples".
Running the two engines on
the same fuel is not necessarily valid, they
are different engines and may
require different fuels, or at least, an optimum
set-up for the fuel used.
The data seems really incorrect. Was the same
prop used throughout these
tests? If so, how can I expect to believe that
the motors turned more
RPM's, but pulled less?
I'm not saying the 2300 might not be a good choice,
but this test seems
poor at best. And BTW, add the cost of a Cline
unit to the Tigre cost if
your going to compare.
Tony Frackowiak
Mail 3
From: Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net> Fri 13:38
Subject: Re: [Pattern] Re: Re: [Pattern] ST 1.40
VERSUS YS 1.40FZ
Real world running on the Tigre setup for IMAC . This is not a single
engine case
study---------We have been running four (4) of these Tigres on models
weighing
10--to 12 lbs 1000-1150 sq in- locally and they were all used in direct
comparison
vs. YS 1.4 . -Three (3) of those -- Fuel used has been Magnum
Heli plus and
Magnum +2-. In flight comparison on the same models (we switched engines)-
the
STOCK Tigre bested the 1.4 YS engines - on any of the fuel combos--We
then shifted
to a different exhaust system on the Tigre --Originally the stock muffler
was
used- The new system is a Mac header -- list $30.00 and two different
mufflers -
the .60 size VTech and the old ST muffler having a stinger out the
back. Both very
inexpensive systems - we put a 2" length of YS header pipe in
the stinger of the
ST muffler to reduce the outlet (aprox 5/16" dia) No pumps or regs
needed. This
system provided a dramatic boost in power -- with no side effects --
all of the
engines throttle quickly and smoothly from a very slow idle to
full power - in
any attitude . (as does the YS1.4).This is in 40-50 degree weather
- The St
engines are all hard mounted. No vibration problems whatsoever-For
the RPM
conscious -- these engines all turn a APC 17x12 at aprox 8000
and the 18x8 APC at
about 9000- one engine turns a little more - but has the .050 dia larger
3250
carb. Frankly we do not care whose engine is your present favorite
. What we are
certain of at this time ,is that the performance of these engines was
a real
surprise to us - and better yet ,an incredible bargain. for models
weighing up to
13 lbs the Tigre and the modified exhaust system is a steal.
Mail 4
From: Jim Johns <jjohns@southwind.net>
Fri 13:53
Subject: Re: [Pattern] ST 1.40 VERSUS YS 1.40FZ
Ok, Dave, Lets add it up.
YS 1.40 L $520
Hatori Header 54
Hatori FAI muffler 156
------
$730
ST 2300
$190
Macs Header 30
Bolly Pipe 120
------
$340
Cline Fuel System 70 (I couldn't find a price,
so this is a guess)
-----
$410
Bully 1.20LS $250
Bully 1.45 $300
Macs Header 30
Macs Header 30
Bolly Pipe 120
Bolly Muffler 120
--------
-------
$400
$450
However, according to Dick Hanson and Sam Turner, there doesn't seem
to be a need for the Cline fuel system on the
ST2300. I'll give you my opinion soon. Mine should be here next week.
If the Cline system is required, it's still over $100 less
than a YS 140L alone.
I'm currently running a Bully 1.20, and it absolutely does have much
more power than any YS I've every flown, including the
140FZ. And it does it on 15% fuel and hand starts with 1 flip. Works
for me.
Mail 5
From:
zimpro@juno.com (DENNIS A HUNT)
Sat 0:26Subject: Re: [Pattern] St2300
ST stuff. My God. Without question, the
most reliable power I have
had. Period. My 17 x 12N at 7300 on Magnum 1/2 (that's
my watered-down
Mag
1 for winter, about 17%) is straight up rolling out of sight from
takeoff.
There is absolutely TOO much power to fly FAI at
a respectable
distance
if you go full bore anywhere. I consistently fly the entire sequence
at
1/2
or slightly more. Even that weird 45 up thing with the half loop....
Exhaust recommendation - use a Hyde mount for the
YS...the beams are
the
same. Use the Cline system - it allows the tank to stay on the
CG. Get
the
Mac's header (short one)....THEN ****ANY**** of the current crop of
larger 2
stroke pipes, like the Bolly, the big OS, or whatever....they all work,
and
will pass noise. The STOCK muffler passed with the 17 x 12N as
above.
But
barely.
Rotate the motor about 35 degrees past inverted,
the header will
point
straight back down the tunnel. The rest is routine.
Hope all of this helps....
Tell me more about the Viper...
Mail 6
RE HEADER AND MOUNTING OF ST 2300
From: "lucky macy" <luckymacy@hotmail.com
Fri 15:15 Subject Re: [Pattern] St2300
Dick, in a pattern plane, if you want to run inverted, which of the
mac
headers is the right one for the ST2300 of you want to wrap the header
completely around the cylinder back to a pipe tunnel?
Mail 7
From:
Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net>
Sat 0:56
Subject:
Re: [Pattern] St2300
Resent-From:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
To:
lucky macy <luckymacy@hotmail.com>
Lucky--I do not have any info on a "S" type header for this engine -On
the
positive side - tho- If you mount the engine at "8:00", you get some
nice
fringe benifits--
1-excess fuel is easily discharged out the exhaust port- greatly reducing
any fuel lock up problems if you do a screwup on fueling or statring
and
flood the engine
2-attaching the plug lead is simpler
3-the carb c/l is raised -making the tank-to-carb relationship easier
to
align.
Mail 8
From: edwardm@us.ibm.com
Sat 1:01
Subject Re: [Pattern] St2300
I have one question. When using the ST 2300 with the Cline System, what
are
you using for pressure tap, muffler OR crankcase pressure ?? If crankcase
pressure, where on the engine are you tapping ??? Thanks, should have
my ST
2300 next week. Ed.
Mail 9
From: Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net>
Sat 1:39
Subject: Re: [Pattern] ST 1.40 VERSUS YS 1.40FZ
Nik - I really do not expect to see the Tigre being on many of the the
winning models in AMA pattern this year. And it has nothing to do with
it's performance .
First - many pattern fliers already have their models and engines picked
out for this season.
Secondly- sponsored fliers will not be using them.
Thirdly - the follow the leader fliers will not change their choice
of equipment until the" big"winner shows up with a different product.
Fourth-the nay sayers will do their best to poo poo a different approach,
such comments as -- Yeah- but what about reliability, --I hear you need
special carb stuff - etc-etc.
My personal observations over the 20 years I have flown pattern bears
this out- when we started flying 4 strokers in 1984 in pattern - it was
dismissed as an abberation-notwithstanding
the fact that the power levels available even then far outdistanced
the tuned pipe .60 engines.
My own experiences with four stroke engines has been excellent- the
reason I shifted to the Tigre in this size model is that pound for pound,
this new engine beat the sox off the setups I
was running and it did not hammer the airframe .
The very low price of the 2300 scares off some folks -for sure - as
they equate price with quality - -and that is a durn good rule of thumb.
After running a handful of these engines and keeping in constant
touch with others running them -- I am convinced that quality , at this
point is a non issue.
I tore down one of my engines to look for signs of wear or odd wear
patterns .
I do not recommend that anyone who is not familiar with engines do
this tho-as the sleeve fit - piston/ring fits are all very close -
What I did note was the following: The ring end gap is very small and
is aligned to a piston pin. the crank did show that it was not hard push
fit in the bearings -
the crank is deliberately set up for end clearance - to avoid side
loading the bearings - The intake porting is highly unusual in that the
fore and aft intake ports are each stepped to a
different height! A really strange looking directional porting - This
is , I think probably the reason that the engine gives very good fuel economy
for the power output--many two strokers
really blow a lot of raw fuel out the exhaust.
The ring turned freely and the staining patterns on the piston below
the ring showed that sealing was excellent --also there was no evidence
of piston rocking - or scuffing. very minimal
piston top carbon buildup and none in the head.
This is , I am sure also due to the fuel that I run and that
I run the engines rich. I use Magnum Heli + -but I know that other major
brands work well because the first engine is run on
other fuel-works very well - just a little less poop.
The ST carburetor is the victim of a lot of bad press- most of it highly
undeserved. My past experience has shown that -Tigre users are told to
use "Tigre fuel"- a very low oil/nitro
blend - Run lean - this setup will wear out any engine of this type
.Also the low oil low nitro fuels are critical to getting a needle setting
which is "broad" and has smooth transition.
The Helicopter boys really fought this condition -back when --and the
Heli blend fuel works great in this engine. The perceived torque is smooth
- right off the bottom of the power curve.
Presently I am looking at other two strokers in this size range .It looks like we may have some really nice new toys at hand!
Mail10
From:
"Bob Pastorello" <faipatrn@flash.net>
Sat 12:05
Subject: Re: [Pattern] ST 1.40 VERSUS YS 1.40FZ
Not to be rude, nor offend anyone, which is not my style nor intent......
UNLESS you have RUN the ST 2300, personally, or
observed it's
performance first hand, it is very easy to deny performance quoted
on this
list by various folks.
I would suggest that getting one's OWN ST thereby
removes all
questions....it did for me. And there likely was NOT a more die-hard
YS
user than me.
Oh, BTW - the Cline system is the way to go here, as has been
said many
times.
And - there ARE solutions being worked on for the
noise....noise was
solved on every two stroke that ever gained "approval"....maybe that's
the
part that's missing here. Since it hasn't been "approved", it
won't work,
is too noisy, and doesn't really produce the reliable power that current
owners are enjoying.
Anyone is welcome to my home field in Oklahoma to
watch and fly it !!
In a gen-u-wine- pattern airplane....
Oh boy.
Bob Pastorello - faipatrn@flash.net
Mail11
From:
Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net>
Sat 14:31
Subject: Re: [Pattern] ST 1.40 VERSUS YS 1.40FZ
Holy Smoke - If you are basing how this engine performs, based on watching
one
engine- then please reserve judgement for a second opinion-The throttle
response
of the engine can be set up to be every bit as effective as the big
four
strokers -as far as having to "wind up " to be effective--- I would
have made
the same opinion- IF I had not spent a lot of time flying a number
of these
engines - in really heavy models (relative to FAI weights)-- When one
does
hovers , it takes a responsive throttle to juggle the power correctly
- On My YS
1.4 and 1.2 engines - of which I have had many, this maneuver was fairly
easy to
setup - due to the excellent throttle response-- As soon as I noted
that this
new engine was a little "flat" in this response, I simply opened
the low end
mixture a little --and "bingo" the response was right there. My own
YS 1.4
engines were supurb in throttle response - beautiful engines-The big
difference
we found tho was that this engine simply put out much more power -especially
after adding a inexpensive exhaust system- I have not played with a
"Super
Silent" exhaust system--yet-as the engine can easily be made to operate
in the
low "90's" db range --and for me -- that's fine. As far as the right
"pipe"
setup - I really can't get excited about muffler systems which cost
as much as
my engine! Look at the positive side here - performance per $$$ spent
is a very
big issue with many fliers - and there is a very strong possibility
that the
power race may change from being a dollar race .After all- NOBODY has
the only
show in town for long.
Mail 12
From:
Dick Hanson <dhmodels@concentric.net>
2:54
Subject:
Re: [Pattern] Re Pattern ST 140 Verse YS FZ 140
Resent-From:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
To:
nsrca-list@eskimo.com
Jeff & Del Payne wrote:
Hi, all. I must say the test is not even close to
being accurate as two differt props are used and we all no how sensative
they are to props
and fuel don't we. Now on the other hand, if price is
the problem well it wins hands down. But ask yourself this, if you
are a full on pattern
flyer why are all the top dogs still running 4 strokes, as the
OS 140 has been arround for some time now. This engine is very reliable
and runs
well with the carby modification. It still comes down
to power delivery, the 4 stroke has a much smoother torque curve hence
allows the
engine to accelerate better from any throttle setting.
Now the two stroke has a more erratic curve. Say it produces maxium
torque at 6000rpm
but a 1000rpm either side of this, it may loose 50% of its torque.
Hence you may have noticed that you quite often have to wind them up a
little on the verticals. I'm not saying that they don't go up
but they don't seem to accelerate as well. I guess they require
a different flying
style. Another example is the YS120 SC verse the FZ140
on the ground same props and fuel the SC is as good or better but in flight
the FZ
eats it. This is because the engine is camed to produce
its HP and torque at a lower RPM. This is why I still think the 4
stroke has the edge.
I own a FZ140 and its been a dog of an engine and still is.
But still I persist, but still I would be lying if I said that the new
generation two
stroke had not crossed my mind a couple hundred times . Regards
Jeff, Australia.
The torque comparison of the 2300- vs the FZ- seemed like a cause for
concern -until I flew a few different setups - Honestly
- this business of "having to rev up the 2300' just simply is not so--
I do a lot of goof off flying - in close - just tickling the
throttle to do small rolling figure M - hover --etc.-- stuff -my
previous models equipped with the YS were very good at this -
so I wanted to compare this characteristic- -IF the 2300 is set too
lean-it is flat in low end response - strange- but set for a
slightly fat low needle -and with the high needle set for full power
with the model held vertically, the "torque" seemed every bit
as responsive as I got on the 4 strokers - Only real difference - I
could do the same stuff on a bigger and 2 lb heavier model! I
used Magnum #2 in the YS engines - and Magnum Heli+ in the Tigre.
--
Dick Hanson
5269 Lucky Clover Lane
Murray, Ut 84123
801 261 1402
Mail 13
From: EChapkis@aol.com 4:46
Subject: Re: [Pattern] Re Pattern ST 140 Verse YS FZ 140
In a message dated 1/17/99 10:54:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dhmodels@concentric.net writes:
<< The torque comparison of the 2300- vs the FZ- seemed like a
cause for
concern -until I flew a few different setups - Honestly - this
business
of "having to rev up the 2300' just simply is not so-- I do a
lot of
goof off flying - in close - just tickling the throttle to do
small
rolling figure M - hover --etc.-- stuff -my previous models
equipped
with the YS were very good at this - so I wanted to compare this
characteristic- -IF the 2300 is set too lean-it is flat in low
end
response - strange- but set for a slightly fat low needle -and
with the
high needle set for full power with the model held vertically,
the
"torque" seemed every bit as responsive as I got on the 4 strokers
-
Only real difference - I could do the same stuff on a bigger
and 2 lb
heavier model! I used Magnum #2 in the YS engines - and Magnum
Heli+ in
the Tigre >>
When I flew Sam Turners Saturn with the 2300, I expected the typical
spool up
of a 2 stroke. It didn't happen. Throttle response was
fine. Actually, I
flew the manuvers as if there was a 4 stroke in it. No problems.
Evan
Mail 14
TO BE CONTINUED