shanemarsh28

I can't see this working unless they can find a way of generating the electricity needed for flight (or most of it) on board... hydrogen fuel cell? 

Humm.. the piper manual didnt specify a servo type so I went with the standard s3003's. Ill see how she flies on those. Hope they will be ok.

I wouldn't let "adults game" stop you. Your an amazing pilot!

See you Sunday! 

Ahh Yes.. my credit card company is feeling the strain! The current bill for the twin is near as makes no difference £1000. I won't be building another model like this for a while that's for sure  Lol sounds like you make a better account than I do though. I totally forgot about the servos thinking .. Ahh there just 10 quid a pop. As you say.. £120 later!

In some ways, building Artfs like this I think is the eaaiest but by far the most expensive way of doing it. 

I think you'll have bags of fun with an AcroWot. The covering is a bit pants (decals fly off in the breeze) but other than that.. well built. Did consider one and may still get one if anything ever happens to the Bullet.

2 hours ago, Pilot Ben said:

One of the best things to see on Wednesday! I'd be careful with hobbyking extension leads though I've had lots of problems with them so now don't use them. The best ones are from T9 they are twisted servo leads. Brilliant and strong and yet fairly cheap to buy.

I think I'm going to have to wait till Christmas now before I buy my next plane.

Due to some reasons I won't be getting the Tucano but I will say it'll be as quick but yet much much cheaper!

 

Are you going up on Sunday?

 

B

The door has been going all day! Just the servos left to arrive.

Thanks for the tip on the hobby king leads. I wasn't planning to use them. I got a few extension cable but I'm expecting to have to make some of the wiring myself. Time to dust off the soldering iron

Aww I was going to ask if you were too build the Tucano.. I will look forward to see your next project whatever that turns out to be!

Yes! I'll be there Sunday all being well. Early weather forecasts look fantastic

It feels like Christmas has arrived

Oh wow! That is a beauty

12 minutes ago, ChasePlane said:

Don't want to duplicate what other club members have so is going to need a lot of thought.

Needs to be something unusual. So not a p51, Spitfire, Cub or anthing like that. 

Heres an idea - Lockheed P-38G?  https://www.motionrc.com/products/flightlinerc-p-38l-lightning-pacific-silver-pnp

I think I can get it done. If I start after the weekend it gives me a two week build! (well actually less than that because mother in law will shout at me if I leave a model plane on her glossed dining room table for any longer than it has to be!)

May pop up on the Saturday before (all being well) on the 30th September to run the engines in. 

6 hours ago, ChasePlane said:

So you have until the first Sunday of the month to complete it then. is it a job for Funfly James by any chance

Yes I hope so, if he's happy to

9 hours ago, Pilot Ben said:

Wow Shane looks like when I get hold of my savings book

And now I know where all the X6R receivers that T9 have gone!!!!!

 

I've spent a LOT of money - seveal hundreds of pounds more than I planned to but I think almost everyone has a special plane in their feet and this will be my special plane I guess. It wont be an everyday flier but hopefully one I bring out on the calmer days and use at the odd display (when I finally work out my B cert).

I only got two receivers? Richard must be running low on stock! haha

1 hour ago, ChasePlane said:

You've had the kit for 2 days now, is it ready yet i'd love to see you maiden it on Sunday.

Em x

Wish it was! Twin Sync has arrived from the Netherlands today - very happy about that. I always get a little worried when ordering expensive things from abroad - never quite know if it's going to arrive so I'm delighted it did. 

So .. it's turning into a MEGA build and this evening I was in need of some retail therapy so I went a bit mad with the credit card!

I ordered:

• 11 servos (RC Model World) (Might be one short - not 100% sure)
• Two Smart on-board glow drivers (Hobby King)
• Navigation & Landing light set (Hobby King)
• Fuel Tubing (Hobby King)
• Two FrSky X8R receivers (One to bind with channels 1-8+telemetry and a second to bind to channels 9-16) (T9 Hobby)
  Richard assured me this dual receiver setup is best - I did ask him about all the  SBUS options available before deciding on this)
• Altimeter (Variometer) (T9 Hobby)
• Servo tester (T9 Hobby)
• 30 Min epoxy (T9 Hobby)
• Male & Female servo plugs (T9 Hobby)
• Two ASP 61 FS four stroke engines with baffled silencers (Just Engines)
• Rubbing Alcohol (Amazon)
• Gorilla 5 min epoxy (Amazon)

So I think I've got most of it now. This will be a semi scale with all the trimmings  

Will need to think about batteries but I'll wait until I start the build and I see how much space there is in the fuselage etc pick the right shaped/sized batteries then. I'm sure I'll need at least two - flight pack and a second for onboard glow/navigation lights etc.

With some luck - all will arrive this week and I can start the build after the weekend! #excited!

PS: I won't maiden this plane - I'd prefer someone with far experience than me to take it for it's first flight.

Oh I nearly forgot.. 

Two 12x6 props.

On 01/09/2017 at 10:16 AM, Pilot Ben said:

I think they're for display only!

 

I'd hope so. On the first fire I bet the gold with either go green or fall off!

On 31/08/2017 at 6:41 PM, Pilot Ben said:

Surely you could set it up so that the rudder is synced with the throttle? That way regular up/down is thrust and left/right is differential thrust so in flight you just trim it and takeoff just use rudder as normal. All it would need is 2 Y-leads and a bit of mixing?

This might have been suggested already but I didn't really get all of that KISS stuff

 

B

 

 

That could be an option I'm really not sure. I've heard of people mixing the rudder with the trottle on twins so that manuverbility in the air and ground handling is improved.

After a play with Ians twin on Sunday, and chat with Rob at Avicraft who has flown the Piper Commanche before, I have decided to go ahead with the build. I've also ordered the optional retracts and twinsync. Not 100% sure if I will use Twinsync in the final build but I do think it's worth the time to see how viable/reliable it is. If I decide not to use it and go for the Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) approach, I should be able to return it or re-sell it on ebay.

I'll keep you posted on the build

Okay thanks for clarifying. If I do decide to build it, I'll be sure to post my progress here

Thanks for your help!

1 hour ago, Bravedan said:

Differential thrust management does not "detune" an engine! You do not tune an engine with throttle.

I have a feeling I've not explained what I mean properly - sometimes getting what's in my head out into words I find difficult ..

What I mean is - Assuming that you have two identical engines, idential throttle setups and the barrels are opening and closing exactly the same distance, no two engines will run exactly the same. It's my understanding that manufactuign tolerances ensure that even identically setup engines will run differently. 

This must mean that when it comes to fitting them in a plane together, there will always be an engine that runs faster than the other. In other words, one engine will be stronger. 

In my research, I discoveved that the most common way to combat this is to RICHEN the stronger engine and theirby reduce peak RPM so that at peak power, the RPM's are more or less the same. In my mind, if you richen an engine from it's peak you have intentionally de-tuned it, hence the term. This is the part that I don't like and wish to avoid. I'm sure it would introduce other problems - a rich engine can be slower to pick up from Idle (as an example).

So - the idea of using Twin sync is that the contol board will make independant and slight throttle (not mixture) adjustments via the servos. This way it wouldn't matter if the peaks or performaces are different, the control board will match the RPM's of both engines together and as each engine will have the same sized prop, the thrust of each engine will be (in theory) more or less eqal throughout the entire throttle range.

I hope that makes more sense.

What a fab kit .. looks great! 

As far as it goes for engines, (Funfly) James introduced me to the Laser 70 and it's an AMAZING little engine. I put it in the Bullet, started it, ran a single tank of fuel through it and in the air it went. Sturdy and faultlessly reliable - I've not even needed to alter the mixure. If you're looking to venture into 4 strokes I can't imagine any engine that's easier than that. The instruction manual for the Laser is also excellent. It comes with a lot of information on how to cowl it properly and ways of mouting the engine within different shaped cowls avoid overheating. The 70 is the smallest four stroke they do so maybe the Laser 100 or 120 might be better for the Tucano: http://www.laserengines.com/product-category/products/single-cylinder-engines/. Worth a look.

As far as landing it at Fickleshole, my gut says it will be fine. I've seen plenty of larger/heavier planes than the Tucano happily land on the strip without issues. 

KISS is the way most people do it and it might be OK. 

I see so many horror stories online where they have the simple two channel setup for the engines but no matter how accurate you are, the engines will almost never be in sync. So you either have to put up with the sound of the engines running out of sync (and the associated thrust differences) or you have to detune one of the engines to try and get them to match. For me, in a plane where it's critial for the engines to keep running the last thing I'd want to do is detune an engine. Some have used throttle curves but that sounds really hit and miss. One thing is for sure - if I do decide to build a plane like this I won't do it lightly. Test - test - test. and then test the test

Weight looks like it would be OK and it has flaps so that might help a bit with takeoff and landings. Segaull say it should be around 4.8-5kg + fuel and they recommend 46-55 sized two stroke Glo.

I will ponder some more ...

As some of you might know, in the next stage of my flying I'm looking to find something scale and I have an idea. 

I want to build something that's a bit special - a proper build if you like and something I'm considering a twin engined passenger scale plane. I have the Twin Piper Comanche in mind because it's available as ARTF by several manufactures including Seagull so parts "should" be easy to get. 

Over the past few days I've scoured the internet for issues with twins and predictably it's always the engines that appear to be the issue. Engine reliability is key. Worryingly, it seems common practice to match the engine RPMS by richening the faster engine. Leaning out the slower engine would be  big no no - unless your a pilot that enjoys deadstick landings. I feel unhappy about using mixture to match the the engines because it always leaves you with engines that are not tuned optimally - one engine will always be rich. Also engines that don't power up evenly will cause takeoff issues.  

So this is what I have in mind:

• A scale airframe build with nav & landing lights /flaps / retracts
• Two electrical systems - independant flight battery / aux battery (for retracts/lights/fuel pumps etc..)
• EITHER  suitably sized petrol  or glow (4 stroke). I hate the sound of a two stroke twin!! eerrge ... Before you ask,  I'm not interested in an electric twin
• Twinsync to balance the engines: http://www.wolfmodels.net/wrctwinsync_manual.pdf. This system controls the throttle servos with magnet based RPM sensors. Twinsync also has a safety feature that during a deadstick, it brings the running engine to idle until you do something. The idea is that it prevents uncontrolled flat spins, yaw or roll and allows you to control the aircraft in a similar way to any other deadstick landing (provided you keep the engine at idle).
• **geek alert** Two double throw RC switches that interrupt the servo signals from Twinsync linked to a three way switch on the transmitter. This idea would allow for easy engine tuning on the ground (with both engines running) but would require at least 5 channels to setup (Engine port, Engine starboard, Engine Main (with throttle curve for Twinsync), Twinsync AUX(on/off) and finally a channel connected to the double throw switches that allows either Twinsync output or direct transmitter output for each engine. With some mixing, in theory it would then be possible to switch the throttle between the port side engine (while the other is running at idle), starboard engine (while the other is at idle) and both engines synced together from the transmitter. This in my mind resolves ever having engines that are not properly tuned.

Now .. if all that makes your head hurt I'm sorry.

Regarding the field - we have a short ish runway and twins obviously have a high wing loading, a bit more weight and therefore need more space to land. I'm concerned about the length of the runway for this type of aircraft. Has anyone flown a twin out of Fickleshole before? Basically I want to ask if there anything I need to consider outside the usual site rules (weight/noise etc)? Speaking of which .. Is it likely I can get a 4 stroke twin to run within our sites noise limits?

Like I said - I want to build something special and although I might be flying into the deep end it sounds like one of those "Ultimate" type of aircraft to me IF I can get it right. I found a video of what I'd hope the finished plane to look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x7htUmEG1I

Please let me know your thoughts (don't be too brutal haha)

13 hours ago, Trevor said:

The other advantage of cycling them occasionally is that you can tell if they are giving full or sufficient capacity.  Sometimes they appear to be fully charged but only give a few hundred maH instead of the 1000maH or more they should give, which can catch you out after a few flights

I've got a couple of old RX batts that are that I dont fly for that very reason. They look fullly charged and they peak but after only 10 mins or so in the plane, the voltage drops so low that receiver actually powers off! Completely drops dead. They were left in a case for about 4 years fully discharged. I've ordered a proper NIMH/Lipo charger this weel so i'll will try cycling them a few times but my gut says they are fit for the bin  

Haha! I shall find out I guess at some point as I've never owned one but I do prefer the more realistic sound compared to the 2 stroke. 

On 09/04/2017 at 10:07 AM, Pilot Ben said:

Still all good, Shane?

Yes! Sorry for my late reply - only just seen. Despite my initial thoughts those brass clamps seem OK. Had to add quite a fair bit of weight to the front end though - found the kit to be very tail heavy. Anyways James very kindly maidened her for me a few weeks ago and I also had a couple of flights - really enjoyed how it flys. Looking for a third plane now . Not 100% sure what to get yet but thinking of a mid/low winger something like a Acro Wot XL with a nice 4 stroke in the front.

Oak tree landings

To crimp brass tube onto wire is never easy, and CA isn't great on brass tube where you cannot clean it well or on spring wire. I usually use a specially blunt pair of side cutters if I'm going to crimp but these days usually wick flood lead based solder inside the tube with a very hot iron. I only go back the once, no more.

Ahh! I didn't think to use solder. I will try that. Thanks for the tip!

If there is a lot of space for a Rx battery (you have not said what type but assume NIMH) I use Velcro on battery and location, and ALSO a well glued in velcro strap. I have seen people use double sided foam tape with just its own adhesive and that makes me cringe as batteries can get warm enough to weaken that adhesive. Are you using a switch?

Yes I am using a switch that I have now fitted. As it happens, when I checked the CofG the plane was so tail heavy I could balance the battery on top of the nose cone and it still wan'ts far enough forward. So what I've done is padded out around the fuel tank and it will sit on top. The wot4 has a catched door above the fuel tank i think should do a nice job of holding everything in.

Trust me Shane the crimp will hold up! Just to see how strong a setup really is I got my old Cougars rudder setup and it took my weight whilst suspended from a beam!

HAHAH! That's good to know. I'm going to solder it together just to be on the safe side but it's good to know it's strong. Just didn't feel strong when putting it together!

It might also be worth reinforcing the u/c. Rods old wot 4's undercarriage came of all the time! It may just have been that model but I don't think Rod would repair something badly

I did wonder about that too - only two screws? A hard landing would pull the pre installed captive nuts right out of the fusalarge. I was thinking of removing the film behind and bonding the metal undercarage to the bottom of the plane. The screws then just have minor support.

I use the cheapish fuel tubing from just engines or the super expensive Weston uk stuff. The just engines stuff is ok but wears out. The Weston stuff is mazing but you get what you pay for

Cool thanks for the tip!

 

Any more questions re anything wot 4 or boomerang?

 

 

 

Nope all good I think! I just need build a new wing for the Boomerang that came this week. (Sorry Steve, I tried to repair the damaged wing but it was far beyond my skills. So for the sake of £30 and a lot of grey hair I simply replaced it for new ). The wot4 is nearly ready to go. Just needs CofG, rates, failsafes and the things mentioned above sorting out and it should be good to fly

Thank you all for your help!

Hi!

Over the past week, in addition to rebuilding the Boomerang I have been building plane number 2 of the fleet! I chose a WOT 4 Mk2 (Nitro) and I've got a couple of questions about the ARTF kit that I hope you might be able to shed some light on.

Compared to the Boomerang Kit which I've built two of now (as a result of a very minor crash), my overall thoughts on it so far are not great. I have no idea how they are in general but lets say I think they made my kit on a Friday! The covering is not great at all! Not sure if any of you have had the same issue but I have been busy with the iron sticking it all down and trying to remove as many air pockets between the balsa and the skin as possible. Happily at least nothing was missing from the kit. Not very encouraging to open the box and the first thing you see is bubble wrap wings!

Anyways - my first question relates to the pull pull system for the rudder. Putting it bluntly, I don't think it will hold up to the job! The threads don't hold unless it's tightened up all the way (meaning no adjustment) and although I've now installed it as per the instructions (Including adding some CA on the crimp), is the cable not supposed to go through the brass clamp three times? I also see two holes (see pic). The only trouble is the clamp is not wide enough to pass the wire more than twice. It's holding tension and working but I''m not sure if it will pull apart in the air?

20170228_002501.jpg[/attachment]

If anyone can explain also why there is a wooden elevator push rod in this kit? It took me 3 hours to get that in place because thy distruction manual said I should fit it after installing the rudders pull pull cables. The air went blue let me tell you!

Please let me know your thoughts and if you can answer those two questions above that would be fab!

PS: Anyone wondering about the engine trouble/deadstick and ultimate crash of my boomerang a week or so ago .. the engine trouble was caused because the fuel pipe had split where connects to the clunk. When I took the tank apart, the clunk had broken free! That will teach me for using the wrong sized pipe!

Okies so it seems it does still work in Phoenix 5.5l

The directory has changed though. Please download and extract into: Documents\PhoenixRC\Downloaded\Sites\User-made\

** ANY MODERATOR **

Please can you update my permissions so that I can edit the origional post of this tread. Thank you

Oh I meant to say .. download the ones in the Zip file. Ignore anything that says source.

 

 

 

Thank you. I guess it's what happens when a newbie starts learning to fly and reading the forums

 

OK! I have managed to find the last release. Sorry for the delay. It's available for download here:

https://code.google.com/archive/p/camfc ... /downloads

As you'll see from how old this post is, it's not been touched in years so I have no idea if it will still work correctly! I've re-joined as a member this year so I'll be firing up the simulator this evening (once I've charged my transmitter!) and have a go myself.

Assuming all is well - happy flying!