T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
12.1 | My biased opinion | MURPHY::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Wed Oct 28 1987 10:53 | 9 |
| Re:< Note 345.0 by MPGS::PERCUOCO >
Foam and light balsa are not durable. Ply is! I'm
biased, but my suggestion is to get a PT40 trainer and build it
four channel (with ailerons). I had one flown wertically into
the ground at full power and the fuse needed NO repair. Try that
with balsa or foam.
Anker
|
12.2 | Another biased opinion.. | BAGELS::FAUST | | Wed Oct 28 1987 11:16 | 12 |
|
I agree with Anker, light ply is the way to go. I started out
with a SIG Kadet II which could only suffer so much. My next
plane was a CG Piper CUB made from light ply, and it has stood
up to much more abuse. I buried it up to the leading edge in
semi solid mud with only minor damage, and 3-4 hours to re-install
the servo tray, clean the engine, and add new cowling and
windshield. I've dumped it a few times on my first landings
and I always expected to find it broken, but checked it out,
refuled, and off I go again with no damage at all. Its built
like a brick s#!|| house, and the easy to build.
|
12.3 | PT40 - 2 OTHERS - 0 | MDVAX1::SPOHR | | Wed Oct 28 1987 11:19 | 6 |
| Yes, definitely get a good trainer WITH ailerons. I too am biased,
my PT40 went in vertical from 75 ft. and only damaged the wing and
landing gear. That fuselage is one tough cookie and its simple
to build for a beginner.
Chris
|
12.4 | My $.02 | MJOVAX::BENSON | | Wed Oct 28 1987 12:43 | 7 |
| Also, see note 342!
Which ever way you go:
1) GET AN INSTRUCTOR...
and 2) Good Luck!
Frank.
|
12.5 | $.02 worth from the Desert Rat..... | MAUDIB::CASEYA | THE DESERT RAT RC-AV8R | Wed Oct 28 1987 13:35 | 18 |
| Also, read and digest as much as you can absorb of the "Getting
Started" and other related topics in this notesfile. There's a
wealth of good advice and helpful information in here if you can
devote some time to diggin' it out!
And, if you haven't heard it enough already, get an instructor!!!
Find someone who'll help you over the rough spots of building and
setting up yer' trainer, then help you to learn to fly it. I'll
defer to the local preferences for a trainer but will submit that
the PT-40 sounds like a very good bet, based on the inputs from
other fledgling noters.
One thing more; expect to spend from $300-to-$500 getting started,
assuming you presently have "nothing" in the way of bench-stock,
tools, etc....not an unreasonable initial investment when you compare
R/C to other sports/hobbies.
G'luck and welcome, Al
|
12.7 | Welcome aboard! | LEDS::HUGHES | Dave Hughes (LEDS::HUGHES) NKS-1/E3 291-7214 | Wed Oct 28 1987 16:41 | 22 |
| Welcome as well! I believe from your node name that you're in
Shrewsbury. There are several flyers there, but most of us just
moved over to NKS in Marlboro. We belong to the Central Mass R/C
Modelers club which has a field in Westboro on Rte 9. Unfortunately
it's on state land and is closed for hunting season except on Sundays
until December, so our flying season is about over. That's ok, though,
because you have to build your plane first and it's an excellent
winter project.
We have a lot of beginners, and as a group seem to have adopted
the PT40 as our recommended trainer. We also have a Fabulous instructor
(take a bow, Bill Lewis) who I'm sure will be available in the spring
to show you the ropes.
If you're ready to order right away, Tower Hobbies is a mail order
house that has a sale on a combination PT40 kit, engine, and radio
for $189.97, but the sale ends Oct 31! As Al said, you'll need a
lot of other stuff too as far as tools and parts to finish the plane.
Good luck and keep in touch!
Dave
|
12.8 | Please (har har) don't take this (hee hee) wrong | LEDS::LEWIS | | Thu Oct 29 1987 01:44 | 14 |
|
It was pretty funny reading the first few replies, they seemed to
be rating planes for their ability to take a crash more than anything
else! It probably just struck me funny 'cause it's so late (early?)
and I just got back from playing hockey for a couple hours, but
seriously I just about fell out of my chair laughing - not AT anybody
but WITH you - believe me I've been there!! Durability is DEFINITELY
a consideration, but the PT40 is also a good, stable flier. Hopefully
with a good instructor you'll never have to worry about durability.
By the way Dave, I think that package deal is not available any more.
Apparently Mike Strzepa tried to order it and couldn't.
Bill
|
12.9 | Another vote for PT40 | IDO725::MCKEE | We have the technology... | Thu Oct 29 1987 09:09 | 8 |
| I too am starting out with a PT40. I haven't crashed mine
so I can't comment on the durability. I will say that it was a
breeze to build. My previous experience was C/L, so building a
fusealage was a new experience. From the design of the plane
and the kit, it seems like it would be difficult to screw it up
bad enough to come out with a bad flying plane.
Jim
|
12.10 | more info | MDVAX1::SPOHR | | Thu Oct 29 1987 16:34 | 12 |
| Gosh, I just realized that we are talking crash survivability to
a newcomer. We forgot to tell you that: "it's not if your gonna
crash, but when!"
When I said my PT40 survived pretty well, I should have mentioned that
it crashed due to radio interference. It had nothing to do with the
design of the plane. It is a nice stable plane and slow enough
to recover should you screw up given some altitude.
L8R,
Chris
|
12.14 | Tower Hobbies Address & Phone | LEDS::WATT | | Fri Oct 30 1987 10:54 | 20 |
| Tower Hobbies is a large mail order house that puts out a large
catalog yearly and small sale catalogs several times a year.
Tower Hobbies
P.O. Box 778
Champaign, Il 61820
Phone:
800-637-4989 (order only)
800-637-6050 (order/assistance line)
217-298-3636 (non toll free order line)
217-398-1100 (customer service)
They will give you their catalogs free if you order from them, or
you can pay $3.00 for their catalog.
|
12.15 | More on Tower | TALLIS::FISHER | Battery, Mags, & Gas Off! | Fri Oct 30 1987 14:47 | 24 |
| > -< Tower Hobbies Address & Phone >-
>
> Tower Hobbies is a large mail order house that puts out a large
> catalog yearly and small sale catalogs several times a year.
>
>
> Tower Hobbies
> P.O. Box 778
> Champaign, Il 61820
>
> Phone:
> 800-637-4989 (order only)
They advertise that with the above number you can ask for a free Tower Talk.
I called and asked for it and a catalog - they said no problem and shipped
the large catalogue and flyer ("Tower Talk") in a couple of days.
I have been getting Tower talks ever since - but now I have spent money
there.
_!_
Bye ----O----
Kay R. Fisher / \
================================================================================
|
12.16 | A unanimous decision (so far)... | AKOV11::CAVANAGH | We don't need no stinkin badges! | Fri Oct 30 1987 15:49 | 7 |
| Hey, does everyone realise that this is the first time a new comer
has asked for recommendations on an airplane and everyone agreed with
the same plane?!?!?!? We should put a big red star on our calendars
to 'note' this!
Jim
|
12.17 | CG Falcon 56 Mk II | TALLIS::FISHER | Battery, Mags, & Gas Off! | Mon Nov 02 1987 08:44 | 17 |
| Hey, does everyone realise that this is the first time a new comer
>has asked for recommendations on an airplane and everyone agreed with
>the same plane?!?!?!? We should put a big red star on our calendars
I didn't agree at all. Just being quite because I believe all the
recommendations age sound and didn't want to add confusion.
Sooooooooo since you brought it up - more people have learned to fly on
a Carl Goldberg Falcon 56 than any other plane. There is a reason for that.
It is the Best trainer.
_!_
Bye ----O----
Kay R. Fisher / \
================================================================================
|
12.19 | questions re 4-strokes vs 2-stroke engines | AKOV02::DHUGHES | | Tue Nov 03 1987 17:58 | 40 |
| Well, I am also about to take leave of my senses and enter yet another
hobby....
I have done a fair amount of reading (several mags, several soft-cover
hobby books), and have some questions.
I have read about mufflers and about 4-stroke engines being quieter
than 2 stroke, but until this weekend I had never heard a 4-stroke.
I happened to be driving on route 2 between the rotary and route
111 (Sunday, about 4:30) - I saw a few models in the air, and stopped
to watch. One in particular seemed very quiet (relative to my memories
of control line models, 20 years ago), but it also had a lower pitch.
It had a sort-of "putt-putt-putt" sound (throttled way back), rather
than sounding like a Kawasaki motorcycle at red-line.
Was that a 4-stroke ?? Is it reasonable for a beginner to consider
a .60 4-stroke in a PT-40 ?? This particular plane stayed up a
LONG time (I watched almost 20 minutes, and it was up when I got
there). Do 4-strokes use more/less fuel than 2-strokes of comparable
power ?? It was a high-wing, and the pilot was making lots of approach
passes. It looked like a lot of fun - nice and slow so you could
watch the plane. (I'm not disparaging people who like to go fast,
I just like to watch planes fly.)
It looked like 10-12 guys there - I assume a club. What club ??
Any noters belong to that one ?? I am looking for a club in the
area of Hudson, MA (home) to Acton, MA (work).
Most of the advice here indicates a high-wing, tricycle gear model
as a first ship. I guess that rules out the Piper-cubs, etc ??
I'm looking to join a club, get some advice and maybe line
up an instructor BEFORE I buy any gear, then build a plane this
winter in time to learn to fly next spring=>fall. RC planes are
something I've wanted to do for several years, and this Notes file
has been a lot of fun !!
Dave
|
12.20 | | LEDS::ZAYAS | | Tue Nov 03 1987 18:34 | 33 |
|
Strange no replies to your question... Seems like I beat the
pack so let me try to answer a few. Need a break from what I'm
doing, and this is one fine place to change gears.
Anyway... Yes, it probably was a 4-stroke. I learned to fly with
an FS-40 stuck on the front of a taildragger. It was a pleasure. Some
folk got kind of tired at my longggggg flights, however. And yes,
4-strokes do consume less gas than the 2-stroke engines. They also
make the plane a breeze to clean after flying. And they are quieter.
The FS-40 at idle purrs at very low RPM swinging a 12" diameter
prop.
These engines do have drawbacks, however. They are more expensive
and heavier for a given power output. You've got to set them with
a tachometer (experts can do this `by ear', but I can't). You have
to stay on top of the valve adjustment and lubricate the engine
after a day of flying. I've also had some problems with bad gas
eating the valve seats. Reseating valves after this happens can
be a real pain. If you elect to go this route, try to team up with
an instructor that has 4-stroke experience.
About your comment on the Cub. I think the Cub would make an
excellent trainer. However, for a trainer, I would suggest your
build the Cub (or any other trainer-type) to fly, not to look at.
Build it straight and light and cover it with something. You don't
want your heart and soul into the creation of the thing, it'll just
hurt that much more when you ding it up while learning. Even after
you solo, you want to use that plane to push yourself and I find
that hard to do with something I'm real attached to.
Anyway, that's my 2� worth. I'm sure there will be more to
come from others.
|
12.21 | go for a 4 | KERNEL::DAY | Just playing with my chopper.... | Wed Nov 04 1987 03:56 | 31 |
|
There's no reson why you shouldn't start with a 4 stroke..
They need to be handled rather differently to a 2 stroke, but
nothing to complicated...
On engines with poppet valves (os enya) the vavle gaps need to
be checked every so often. This only takes a couple of mins..
I've never heard of needing a tacho to set them up.. What I do
is lean it out to max revs, then RICHEN it till the revs drop.
Then lean it out a click...
Another great advantage is that you don't need a silencer, this
makes it a lot easier to enclose the engine... How many scale
planes are ruined by having a huge 2 stroke silencer hanging out
of the cowl.
The sound is also far more realistic than the 2 stroke. How
many scale biplanes are ruined by a the sound of a 2 stroke.
A GOOD dose of after run oil is all you should need to prevent
corrosion....
cheers
bob
|
12.22 | Thanks for the info ! | AKOV02::DHUGHES | | Wed Nov 04 1987 08:40 | 19 |
| Thanks for the input.
re .22 I appreciate your comments about building the ship for flying
purposes, rather than strict scale. I can imagine the emotional
pain of putting a lot of work into something that ends up with
"bandages" every time I attempted to fly it - at least for the first
6 months or so. I was just thinking it would be nice if the plane
was "recognizable" as something real - maybe a Cub or one of the
Cessna "sorta" models.... BTW, you mention a problem with 4-stroke
and some fuels. Does 4-stroke use "standard" model fuel ??
re .23 When is the next meeting of the 495th ?? (Maybe we should
follow-up by mail ??)
Any other clubs in the area I should know about ??
Thanks again !!
Dave
|
12.23 | | KERNEL::DAY | Just playing with my chopper.... | Wed Nov 04 1987 08:53 | 21 |
|
I use the same 5% fuel in both my 2 and 4 strokes....There
are so called 4 stroke fuels on the market, bu I'm not sure
what the difference.. Call for the fuel man from Oz.. (Hya John)
Laser reccommend straight fuel for they're engines, virtually
eliminating the need for aftercare since it's the products of
burning nitro that cause the damage...
4 stroke throttle quicker/smoother than 2s, they throw a lot less
crap out of the exhaust than 2s.. They have a lot of advantages.
Granted they cost more, but you get a very reliable engine that
will give you years of good service...
cheers
bob
|
12.24 | | SPKALI::THOMAS | | Wed Nov 04 1987 09:57 | 12 |
|
The only difference I'm aware of between four and two cycle
fuels is the oil content. Most four cycle fuels contain less oil.
Most guys I know that run 4 strokers and have tried the four stroke
fuels have gone back to using standard two stroke fuel. The reasons
are quite simple. They see no reduction in power by using the a
fuel with a little extra oil and they see advantages in heat reduction
with the added oil. You see, oil in fuel has two functions in a
glow type engine. The first being lubricating the engine and second
a method of disipating heat.
Tom
|
12.25 | another guy with my name! | LEDS::HUGHES | Dave Hughes (LEDS::HUGHES) NKS-1/E3 291-7214 | Wed Nov 04 1987 10:09 | 21 |
| re: .21 by AKOV02::DHUGHES
Wow, we really get to confuse them now! I'm Dave Hughes (just like
you) and I live in Hudson (just like you) and I got involved in
R/C planes a few years ago (just a little ahead of you). It's a
great hobby - actually two hobbies: Building and flying.
You know about the field in Acton. I'm in the club that flies in
Westboro (Central Mass. R/C club) and just sent my application in
to the Charles River R/C'ers who have a field in Sudbury that's
close to Hudson. Going down Main Street toward Sudbury, when you
get into Sudbury it's in the US Army Natick Labs base on the left.
There's another club that has a field on 117 in North Sudbury. I
believe you can get membership info from Bill's Hobby Barn II hobby
shop located in the Mill Village plaza on Rte 20 in Sudbury.
We ought to get together some time, we seem to have so much in common!
Regards,
Dave Hughes
|
12.26 | Welcome | LEDS::WATT | | Wed Nov 04 1987 14:30 | 25 |
| Dave,
Welcome to the RC hobby. I am sure that we "experts" can completely
confuse any newcomer due to our varied opinions of what is best.
The choice of engine for a first plane is just such an item. I
will bet that most of the people who are now flying and enjoying
4 strokes had a 2 stroke on their trainer aircraft. I'm not saying
that a 2-stroke is better, but I would get some experience operating
a motor with a 2-stroke before getting a 4-stroker. I say this
because the 2-strokes are simpler, less maintanence, and less
susceptable to failure if mistreated. When you are learning to
fly, the first priority is to get "stick time". It is frustrating
enough waiting to get help from an instructor without having to
fiddle with your engine. I have watched more people spend time
fiddling with 4-strokes. I agree that a 4-stroke is a great
engine to enhance scale realism and they appear to be quieter.
(They are really not quieter on a sound meter.) They are certainly
less bothersome to our neighbors.
Invest in a good trainer and the right 2-stroke engine for it,
get help from a good instructor, and you're on your way to enjoying
a great hobby. Then after gaining experience and learning from
other club members, you will be able to decide for yourself what
to build for a second plane.
Charlie
|
12.27 | less oil in 4 stroke fuel | RIPPER::CHADD | Go Fast; Turn Left | Wed Nov 04 1987 18:35 | 27 |
| Re: .26 (Hi Bob, how ya keeping)
re the fuel for 4 strokes, I recommend people use 5-10% nitro to get a reliable
idle. As I have stated previous adding less than 15% nitro will not increase
the power noticeably.
4 stroke fuels have less oil than 2 stroke fuels. 15% total oil content is
adequate for most four strokes. A good after run oil will negate the erosion
problems of nitro.
I use 10% Synlube FX10 as the oil in my fuel; it actually break's down the
acid and helps prevent rust and erosion in the engine. Other modern Synthetics
may have the same effect, the only one I have tried that is probably the same
is the oil used by Morgan Fuel in Alabama.
I agree with Charlie in -.1, 2 strokes are easier for the novice and stick time
is what you need when you start. The reduced Power-to-Weight ratio of the 4st
as apposed to the 2st can produce a marginally powered model, if speed is what
you are worried about with two strokes they can be throttled back once you are
airborne and that cut's the speed. It is not unknown for novices (and
experienced) pilots to crash the occasional model. The complexity of the four
stroke makes them more difficult to repair and more expensive.
My vote is for a good 40-45 2st for your first engine, get the 4 stroke for
your next model.
John.
|
12.29 | experience with the Eaglet trainer | CLOSUS::TAVARES | John--Stay low, keep moving | Thu Nov 05 1987 15:39 | 25 |
| I started with a Goldberg Eaglet and an OS .25; this is what I'm
still flying, about halfway to solo (had a couple of good flights
this last weekend). I chose the Eaglet/.25 combo because I
intend to stay mainly with small models. This has proven to add
to my difficulty in learning to fly, since the model's size makes
it somewhat touchy. If I were to do it again, I think I'd pick a
Kadet, the one in the .25 engine size range.
But this choice is only because of my goal. Most folks want to
fly much larger planes, more in the mainstream. This is where
most .40 powered ships are. If my goal was to fly such planes, I
would pick either a Kadet Sr. or an Eagle. Despite its
similarity to the Eaglet (or vice versa), the Eagle is a
considerably easier plane for the beginner to fly; this is based
on observation, and on the comments by my instructors.
I agree with the opinions on engines; I would go with OS for the
engine. The K&B .20 that I have has brought me much grief,
though I ran it last weekend on the block and it seemed OK.
Still, I would not risk my first investment dollars on such an
engine again. Finally, one of my reasons for buying the K&B was
that it was so quiet, and seemed relatively harmless. This has
proved to be true, but I would say to any beginner now that they
should "tough it out" and get used to the bigger engines.
They're all rattlesnakes and pussycats at the same time.
|
12.30 | Closing in | AKOV02::DHUGHES | | Mon Nov 09 1987 00:46 | 83 |
| Well, I spent about an hour and a half at Bill's Hobby Barn on
Saturday. Most interesting visit !! He mentioned the PT-40 and
PT-20, the Train-Air 40 & 20, the Sig Kadette II, the Eagle, and
the Midwest Aero-star 40.
When I asked for his (Bill, himself) preference, he said he had
built and flown all of them, and had taught students on all of them,
and it was pretty much personal preference - none was clearly better
than the others. He backed up the majority opinion here, that
experience with a 2-stroke was needed to get any enjoyment out of
a 4-stroke, and for the time being a 4-stroke would just be an
impediment to flying time.
I also watched him with another customer who bought a whole PT-20
outfit as a present for a 13-year-old boy. Bill's prices were a
little higher than Tower Hobbies (for instance), but much lower
than list - much lower thant I expected, actually. And, to top
it off, he threw in about 6-8 items (wheels, props, extra plugs.
etc) gratis. I was impressed.
I also tried to go to Tom's in Chelmsford (never found it, but then
I can get lost three blocks from my own house) and the RC shop in
Framingham. I went past the place in Framingham three times, and
never realized it.
On Sunday, I tried driving past the fields mentioned previously,
in search of planes to watch and pilots/potential instructors to
meet. Is the CMRC field right at the intersection of rts 9 & 135 ??
I saw a nice vacant field on the northwest side of the intersection,
but no planes.... I'm not sure I ever found the Charles River field
in Sudbury. It's the Army facility on the LEFT (?) as you drive
from Hudson to Sudbury ??
(So, you guys don't believe me when I say I can get lost close to
home ? I live about 2 miles from where I think that field is
supposed to be, and I still couldn't find it !!)
So, I went back to to the field in Acton. I met the fellow with
the ship I mentioned back in .21 - the one I thought was a 4-cycle
who stayed up so long. Turns out he was flying a PT-40 with a stock
OS .40 in it. I would never have guessed mufflers were so effective.
I guess the only thing I have to compare it to is unmuffled 2-strokes
running at full speed (from control-line, many years ago). Times
change.
While there, I met one of the instructors - a real nice fellow who
put on a tremendous show with his own pattern plane, then turned
right around and took-off / landed a student's Aero-star !! And he
didn't even walk around the block to sober up !! IMPRESSIVE !
In talking with him, he basically agreed about the various planes
I had seen at Bill's, but he added that he was kinda partial to
the Eagle. (That turned out to be gratifying, 'cause I kinda "took
a shine to it" myself, partly because it is pretty large, partly
because I think it looks pretty with the clear plastic windscreen.
Nobody said this was an unemotional hobby, right ??)
Sooo, barring acts of your favorite deity, I'll probably head back
down to Bill's Hobby Barn II some evening this week.
Now, to ask for some more input.
The Eagle 63 box says an engine in the range .29 to .49. OS does
not make a simple (eg FP) engine bigger than .40, do they ?? Will
the .40 be big enough ?? (Figuring the advice is usually to get
the largest end of the range.) I realize a good pilot could fly
it with old rubber bands, but we're talking here about a guy who has
trouble finding flying fields within two miles of his house, remember?
(Actually, there's an analogy here which hits close to home. I'm
a pretty good amateur musician, and I've watched too many beginners
give up in distress because the so-called "starter" instruments
they had to practice on had so many built-in inadequacies that they
could never hit all the notes, let alone make "music.")
I'll probably go with Bill's recommendation for a Futaba Conquest
4NL/AM radio. By the time I'm ready for anything mare than 4-channels,
it'll be 1991 and they'll all be obsolete !!
Oh, and an AMA membership.
Dave Hughes (number two)
AKO1-2/C14
244-6195
|
12.31 | A .40 is fine for an EAGLE | CSC32::S_SIMON | Scott Simon | Mon Nov 09 1987 08:43 | 31 |
| RE .34
> he added that he was kinda partial to
> the Eagle. (That turned out to be gratifying, 'cause I kinda "took
> a shine to it" myself, partly because it is pretty large, partly
> because I think it looks pretty with the clear plastic windscreen.
That's exactly the reason I bought an EAGLE to learn on. I saw lots of
KADETS around the field, but thought the EAGLE looked more like a real
plane.
> Will the .40 be big enough ??
I put a ROYAL .40 in my my EAGLE (The ROYAL is supposedly a clone of
the OS .40 FSR) and it flew like a champ (that is when someone who knew
how to fly flew it). The .40 was powerful enough to learn on and to do
simple aerobatics, like loops, barrel rolls, inverted flight, stalls
and the like. None of that unlimited vertical power you see from some
pattern ships, but plenty of power for a first plane.
I've had a great time with mine, I think you made a good choice. Oh
yeah, one thing I would do over if I built the plane again, when you
cover the wing, don't follow the nice patterns they show you in the
instruction manual. Instead, make the covering pattern for the top of
the wing different than for the underside. You'll be glad you did when
you're as high up in the air as your instructor will keep you and can't
tell up from down.
Have fun,
-scott
|
12.32 | More... | CLOSUS::TAVARES | John--Stay low, keep moving | Mon Nov 09 1987 10:21 | 20 |
| Sounds like you're getting off on the right foot! I like our
method of going around and getting lots of advice and inputs
before putting down the bucks. Sounds like you're here for the
duration!
The .40 is adequate power for an Eagle up here at 7200 feet, so
it should go like stink at sea level. One of the students put a
.45 in his Eagle and found that it was too much power; that is,
he didn't need it to fly to the capabilities of the bird.
Good comment about covering the top and bottom of the wing
different colors. I wound up putting some strips of yellow
stick-on plastic film (ugh, what lousy stuff to work with) on the
undersides of my wings, and a strip around the aft fuselage.
When the bird is way up there, as instructors are wont to do, you
need all the help you can get to figure out which way its going.
BTW -- My red wing with yellow strips is not enough contrast to
be 100% visible. I would suggest something like red top and
white bottom for more contrast.
|
12.33 | Make sure it's light on TOP | MURPHY::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Mon Nov 09 1987 15:02 | 8 |
| Always make sure that the TOP of the wing on a trainer is
a light color and the BOTTOM is either light or dark. If you do
it the other way round you may find that you can't see what
attitude the plane has. You want as high contrast as you can
between the top and the bottom. My preference is to have a very
light covering both on the top and the bottom.
Anker
|
12.35 | PT40 with/without aierlons?? | TARKIN::HARTWELL | Dave Hartwell | Mon Jan 11 1988 13:16 | 14 |
| I too am a newcommer to R/C..... My wife bought me the R/C unit
and I just bought a PT40, of which I am getting ready to build...
In a couple of notes it was suggested that you build with aierlons
(sp?).... I have the option to do either.... The kit recommends
against them for the novice.. Before I commit myself, which way
should I go......
Also, I live and work in Boxboro, and I am definitely interested
in joining a club.... Looks like the one that flies in Acton will
foot the bill nicely...
Dave
|
12.36 | With | MURPHY::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Mon Jan 11 1988 13:37 | 6 |
| Re:< Note 345.41 by TARKIN::HARTWELL "Dave Hartwell" >
Build it with ailerons. Witout it flies only marginally
easier and you may as well learn to fly four channel right away.
Anker
|
12.37 | WITH | SKIVT::SOUTIERE | | Mon Jan 11 1988 14:33 | 7 |
| I agree! build WITH ailerons, you'll be glad you did. It's a bit
harder going to four channel after you are used to three. The
left hand gets lazy. Besides, Ailerons are more fun!
{just remember to use your dual-rates}
Ken
|
12.38 | with ailerons | MDVAX1::SPOHR | | Mon Jan 11 1988 14:52 | 8 |
| The PT40 was my first plane, I took the advice and built it with
Ailerons. I'm glad I did. It took me 6 weeks and an instructor
(if you don't have one, GET ONE!) to solo. After you solo, the
plane is set to help you advance quickly. Also, I've seen PT40's
built w/o Ailerons, they fly funny, and are quickly converted to
ailerons (you have to buy a wing kit and build a new wing).
Chris
|
12.39 | MODE-I RATHER A THROWBACK TO REEDS....... | WAZOO::CASEYA | THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) | Mon Feb 29 1988 14:22 | 23 |
| Kevin,
Mode-II, by far the most popular and widely used mode, is where
you have ailerons and elevator on the right stick, throttle and
rudder on the left. This is the mode I fly.
Mode-I is a throwback to the old reed days. Since reeds weren't
proportional, the aileron switch was placed on the right side of
the TX while the elevator switch was on the left. This gave the
pilot the ability to "sorta'" mix the elevator and ailerons by
"banging" the ailerons and elevator alternately to produce a more
or less smoothly coordinated turn. This required lotsa' finesse
and most pilots never really bothered much with it...you could see
the sharp, choppy control inputs as the plane turned and this was
known as "bang-bang." When proportional first came out, many of
the old reed pilots wanted the controls on the same side of the
TX as they were on their familiar reed sets. Hence, mode-I is ailerons
and throttle on the right stick, elevator and rudder on the left.
Pretty awkward and unrealistic [to me] but it's all what you learned
on, I guess.
Adios, Al
|
12.40 | duh..... | RAINBO::WIMMER | | Wed Feb 20 1991 11:47 | 26 |
| Not sure where to put this.....couldn't find a "Stupid Questions"
topic. Definitely a "NEW to RC" question, at least on the airplane
side.....
Here's the stupid question. When I cut the slots for the hinges to
connect my rudder to the tail fin piece, I didn't get the alignment
quite right (I hate being so stupid!). Anyway, I stopped by the shop
where I got the kit and the guy told me "no problem", just cut the
slots out a little further to get the right alignment, then pin the
hinges in after you glue them. He suggested either drilling a hole
through the whole works and glueing in a piece of toothpick, or poking
around with a T-pin to locate the actual hole in the hinge and then
glueing in the toothpick.
Now.......here's my stupid question. The instructions for my plane
(Midwest Aerostar 40) say to put on the covering first, then epoxy the
hinges in. If I do that, then the hole/toothpick will show. Another
book I read (Getting Airborne, Harry Higby) shows pinning the hinge
prior to covering, but then I would have to glue them in prior to
covering since they would no longer be removeable.
So.....what is the proper procedure?????
Thanks,
Diane
|
12.41 | Here's my method | ZENDIA::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02 | Wed Feb 20 1991 12:24 | 11 |
| I do it at covering time and I run a strip of covering around the two
surfaces to be joined and then I cut/drill/pin (I use toothpicks
myself) and then I cover the rest of the surface overlapping the hinge
area covering (and covering the toothpicks that I've sanded flush).
This seals the hinge line with a lot less hassle than hinging first.
----------final covering--- ---------------------------------
--+ +-- <= These are the strips
--------- stab ------------| hinge |------------- elevator ---------
--+ +-- <= before hinging
----------final covering--- ---------------------------------
|
12.42 | No Problem... | SELL3::MARRONE | | Wed Feb 20 1991 12:27 | 33 |
| What you've encountered is one of life's nasty little dilemmas.
Another one is "how to get a job without experience, how to get
experience without a job?"
There are two approaches I can offer. One is to disregard the need for
pinning the hinges and just proceed to epoxy them in place _after_
covering. I've always epoxied my hinges in place with nary a problem.
Even with an elongated slot, the epoxy will keep them anchored where
you put them.
Another approach, should you find it absolutely necessary to proceed
with the pinning approach is as follows: Apply your monocote (or
whatever film you are using) only to the narrow part of the two mating
surfaces where the hinge slots are located being careful to leave just
a 1/16 " overlap onto the flat surface. Once this is done, slit the
places where the hinges will go. Next, place the hinges in the slots,
put the two mating surfaces together to chack the fit, then insert the
toothpick in only _one_ of the hinge halves. Now CA this one set of
hings sides in place, thus completing one half of the job. Now
follow thru with the other half of each hinge. When this is done, sand
everything flat to remove any excess pins and glue. Now proceed to
cover the remainder of the surfaces. The trickiest part will be the
edges where it is hinged, but since you can bend it at an angle it will
allow you to wrap about 1/16" around this corner and tack it down
nicely with the iron. I hope I was able to make myself clear about
this procedure.
Obviously, the second approach is a lot more work, and to my way of
thinking, not absolutely necessary.
Good luck with your plane. Hope you're flying soon.
-Joe
|
12.43 | Why do all that work? | LEDS::COHEN | That was Zen, This is Tao | Wed Feb 20 1991 12:37 | 7 |
|
1 Cover all surfaces.
2 Install hinges.
3 Pin hinges (right through the covering).
4 Cut a small piece of covering and apply over the Pin locations.
5 Go fly airplane.
|
12.44 | take apart the hinge | POBOX::KAPLOW | Set the WAYBACK machine for 1982 | Wed Feb 20 1991 13:55 | 3 |
| Even easier: Klett hinges and some others have removable hinge
pins. Assemble model, including dowels thru hinge holes. Then pull
out the pins and cover. It's a snap to reassemble after covering.
|
12.45 | first airplane radio | RANGER::WIMMER | | Thu Feb 21 1991 15:00 | 15 |
| Thanks for all the info......
Another beginner question......I read through a lot of the radio
information, but ended up a lot more confused. Peter, at Pratt's Coin
and Hobby in Georgetown will order me a Futaba radio for $20 over his
cost -- about the same or better than Tower. As he specializes in
cars, he isn't as knowledgable about the airplane radios. So, I can
get an Attack or a Conquest --- not sure what the differences are. I
will probably get FM because of cost, the difference between FM and PCM
seem to about the price of an engine. Am I being stupid?? Will go with
a 4 channel this time, mainly due to price.
Thanks,
Diane
|
12.46 | | ZENDIA::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02 | Thu Feb 21 1991 15:08 | 9 |
| Go with the FM Conquest. There is a rumor that the AM Attack reciever
is going to be dropped from the AMA list of acceptable Rxs. There are
lots of issues about single vs dual conversion that have been beaten to
death in the 1991 radio notes. Your plane will be safer with the dual
conversion FM in some situations
Then there's the issue of a number of Futaba radios failing to pass
the AMA testing at a recent local club meeting (details in the DECRCM
notesfile)
|
12.47 | A clarification | SNAX::SMITH | I FEEL THE NEED | Thu Feb 21 1991 15:23 | 14 |
| Hi Diane,
Just as a point of clarification, the radio's that failed at the
CRRC meeting were the AM'S. These radio's were purchased brand new
and came with gold stickers yet they failed the 1991 test. There is
some controversy over wether the testing was TOO stringent however
at this point in time, I don't trust the company in question any
further then I can throw them on their low end stuff. As far as I know,
their FM stuff has been ok, but I don't trust them. If it were me, I'd
go with another brand like Airtronics, but that's just my personal
opinion. What ever you get, make sure it's at least FM and DUAL
CONVERSION.
Steve
|
12.48 | | RANGER::WIMMER | | Thu Feb 21 1991 16:10 | 9 |
| I was basically looking at the Conquest FM 4NBF, which says it is dual
conversion on the receiver and has the built-in trainer system. The
Attack is $20 cheaper, but I haven't been able to find a good
description of it and what the differences are. I can get the Conquest
for $119, while the PCM is $189. Having taught networking and data
comm, I certainly understand the advantage of a digital verses analog
signal, but am wondering if it is worth the $60 in this instance. Just
getting started with airplanes, I have a lot of stuff to get (e.g.,
engine, field box and all the stuff that goes in it).
|
12.49 | Airtronics si, Futaba no! | CLOSUS::TAVARES | Stay low, keep moving | Thu Feb 21 1991 16:33 | 19 |
| Do take a good look at the Airtronics Vanguard 4-channel radio.
However, I must confess to being a Futaba-basher also, my
rantings on the subject being elsewhere in these files. Also, if
your dealer is a car type, be sure your radio is on the plane
frequency band, 72 Mhz, not on the surface band, 75 Mhz. A flyer
with a radio on the surface band is about a welcome as a flyer
with B.O. (except in Arizona).
I did want to comment on your remark equating AM with an analog
signal, and FM with a digital signal. Actually, both radios are
modulated with an analog signal, which uses the length of a pulse
as the analog of surface position. The system is called digital
because that differentiates it from the horrors that came before
the modern system. PCM is the only truly digital, meaning zeros
and ones, system used, and it is quite different from the common
"digital" system.
Get a good radio, even if it costs a few bucks more...really, its
cheaper in the long run.
|
12.50 | No easy answers - plenty of opinions/options | ZENDIA::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02 | Thu Feb 21 1991 17:26 | 31 |
| The radio is going to be important and it will be one of the few things
that you move from plane to plane. It will be hard to justify replacing
it and there will be times when you want to do just one more thing...
Look at the possibility of getting the 6 channel model instead of the 4
channel. a few extra bucks now will make the radio "fit" longer. Also
notice that many 4 channel systems only supply 3 servos. If you have a
4 servo plane, you'll need to buy an extra one. This further reduces
the gap between the 4 and 6 channel prices (because all the 6 channel
prices are with 4 servos)
The other possibility is to buy a radio that you can "upgrade" in the
future. I bought a JR Max4 FM and it comes with a 7 channel reciever.
Now I can't use those channels with that transmitter but I can use them
with my Max6 that is on the same frequency. I bought an Attack
originally because of the price. It would have worked out better if I
had bought a Max4 FM earlier. Hobbytown USA in chelmsford has the Max4
FM on the shelf for $137.xx with three servos. It has the trainer
system also. (I'm not affiliated, I've just been eying it for my son
;^)
Another thing to consider is what is used at the club you're going to
get instructed at. The trainer system for each manufacturer is
different and in some cases its different between models of the same
(can you say the F manufacturer?) company.
Radios are a religious subject and everybody has justifications as to
why they have what they have. Sometimes it's as simple as budget. An
extra $20 now could allow you to use the system an extra 6 months
before outgrowing it (which you will if you keep with it and start with
a 4 channel system)
|
12.51 | CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON "F" BASHING..... | PNO::CASEYA | THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) 551-5572 | Fri Feb 22 1991 10:01 | 61 |
| Re: .50, Jim,
I couldn't agree more with yer' opening premise. Those are several of
the precise reasons I always advise a newcomer to buy "all the radio
(and engine) he/she can afford/justify up front." Another
consideration is the fact that resale value is better on middle-to-top-
of-the-line equipment.
I also subscribe to yer' suggestion that the newcomer buy whatever
equipment is favored at the field/club/area he/she expects to be flying.
This not only assures a level of compatibility and a knowledge base on
whatever the favored brand is, it also insulates the newcomer somewhat
from prejudiced criticism from unthinking old hands. Just walk onto a
field as a stranger with a Fox engine in some nondescript airplane
controlled by an unpopular (with that group) radio and watch (listen
to) the groaning and carping begin. A beginner doesn't need that and
should select the acknowledged favorite equipment in his/her area...
at least for the first plane or two. Once the newcomer has become
somewhat proficient, he/she can feel freer to go off on his/her own
with equipment selection.
Seeing through this notesfile that JR is a preferred brand "up East,"
I'd certainly echo yer' recommendation to consider purchasing JR.
However (and please don't take this as flaming...I'm not the least
excited about this), there's been considerable Futaba bashing going on
of late and, in its defense, I'd just like to add the statement that
the BEST radio in the world is THE ONE THAT WORKS, regardless of brand.
I, personally, have flown Futaba exclusively for more that 10 years now
and have YET to experience the first failure of any kind (other than
normal battery pack replacements). On _MY_ home turf, JR rates towards
the bottom of the preferred radio list and many of my active scale
peers have, sold their JR gear and switched to Futaba (Gene Barton is
the most recent of my personal acquaintances to do so and now flies his
magnificent Skyraider with a Futaba 9VAP 1024 PCM radio).
Of all my immediate flying buddies, only Chuck Collier flies JR and our
observations of his experiences with the brand, especially the servos,
convinces us that we're just tickled to death to remain with Futaba.
Other drawbacks, such as the fact that, for the most part, local radio
service folks won't work on JR, requiring them to be returned to the
distributor for maintenance, and the fact that, unlike Futaba,
accessories are _not_ readily available of the hobby shop shelf and
must be ordered by mail are additional arguments in favor of "that F
company."
So, there ya' go; the favored brand in one area is a bum in another...
it all depends on which area yer' gonna' be flying in. And, the
recommendation for a beginner to fly whatever radio is preferred in his
area remains a good a valid one. How 'bout we all be honest and
concede that _all_ the major radios have their good _AND_ their bad
points; it simply comes down to personal (regional) preference and all
this "F-bashing" boils down to nothing more than personal/regional bias.
Who knows, you may move to another area someday and find yer'self
having to _defend_ yer' favored brand because it's NOT the preferred
brand in yer' new location.
__
| | / |\
\|/ |______|__(o/--/ | \
| | 00 <| ~~~ ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
|_|_| (O>o |\)____/___|\_____|_/ Adios amigos, Al
| \__(O_\_ | |___/ o (The Desert Rat)
|
12.52 | Watch the channel number | ASABET::CAVANAGH | | Fri Feb 22 1991 10:03 | 21 |
|
A couple more comments:
o DO NOT get a radio on channel 20 (it interacts with TV ch 4 audio).
o Your safer is you go with an even numbered channel (22,24,46) as
opposed to an odd channel (23,25....) since the debate over
which frequencies will be allowed at individual clubs is still
in progress. The even channels are here now and here to stay.
Also note that an extra servo can cost $20-$60 depending on the
brand and quality of it. So the 5 or 6 channel radio (which comes with
the extra servo) might end up costing about the same.
Jim
|
12.53 | FM 6?? | RANGER::WIMMER | | Fri Feb 22 1991 10:52 | 11 |
| back a few....I do understand that FM is an analog signal, just
wondering if I should spend the extra money to get the digital signal
in a PCM radio. Now I'm wondering whether it makes more sense to spend
the money on a 4 channel PCM or a 6 channel FM. I think what I'm
hearing here is the latter....
Thanks for all the response guys.....
Diane
|
12.54 | Not me 8^) | SNAX::SMITH | I FEEL THE NEED | Fri Feb 22 1991 11:00 | 32 |
| If someone says XXX company as a whole stinks, that's bashing.
If someone says YYY model by XXX company has a bad rep, I DON'T
think that bashing. Rather it's stating a fact. (assuming the bad
rep can be factually backed up as in the case of recent testing).
For my part, I also specified that the model/models to stay away
from were "strictly AM" and "low end".
The company has very little to do with it. If it were Airtronics, I'd
be saying the same about them. As it happens, I have 4 radio's. Two
Airtronics, and two JR. Except for not having the programability that
the X347 has, I'm equally happy with all my radio's.
Now, that said, I also agree with the last couple of replies. Get all
the radio you can afford right now. Better to have it and not need it,
then want it and have to buy a whole new radio to get it. If you stick
with it, you'll be surprised at how soon that can be.
You said you raced cars before getting into planes. I did too. How many
times did you see a new person show up at the track with some real
piece of junk (from a toy store) and think there going to race with it.
Sad part is, they probably paid a pretty penny for this piece of junk.
For not too much more money, they could have gotten a "real" car that
can be repaired, upgraded, etc.. So, going with the low end because
"they were starting out" didn't do them any good.
I think you mentioned looking at the Futaba 5 channel PCM. I'm not sure
what model that is, but to my knowledge, there has never been a problem
with Futaba's FM and PCM radio's working in today's environment.
Steve
|
12.55 | No, no, Attack is a model, not a philosophy ;^) | ZENDIA::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02 | Fri Feb 22 1991 12:32 | 34 |
| Just to clarify things and reply to Al.
My own experience has been with the low end Futaba stuff. I'm sure that
things would have been much different if I had had $400-$500 to spend
up front but I didn't (and still don't) I know several people very happy
with the mid to high end stuff. I too like the availablity of accessories
and that's why most of my additional servos are Futaba (which only require
a slight trim to the connector to work with the JR stuff) My comments were
on comparing the low end and what I would have done differently and why.
Diane's question was about the Attack vs Conquest and I brought up the
recent rumor about the Attack being dropped from the accepted list. I just
felt that under the $200 budget limit I had when I was buying, there were
smarter ways I could have invested in the lifespan of the systems I chose.
Servicing is a consideration that needs to be addressed too. I haven't had
to repair any of the new radios yet so I have no data there.
Futaba make fine radios but their cost cutting in the low end missed
the mark in a few places (single vs dual conversion, tighter specs,
etc.) No manufacturer is perfect. I just stated my opinion about
how/what I would have done differently. JR isn't widely available here.
You mostly have to go through the national mail order places to get
what you want. Getting a 7ch Rx with a 4ch system that is then
compatible in PPM mode with everything up to the top of the line was
the point I was making since I've found that to be a significant
advantage WITHOUT having to modify the Rx to have access to the
additional channels as has been talked about in some of the "hidden
radio features" notes. It must save money to produce a smaller number
of Rx models and ship them out with multiple systems.
Disclaimer: All opinions stated are my own and are based on facts that
I've experienced. Any resemblance to the real world are purely
accidental.
Jim (a modeller on a budget)
|
12.56 | Another newcomer input.. | WMOIS::HIGGINS_G | The Jungle VIP | Fri Feb 22 1991 13:57 | 46 |
|
Re: Diane
I like you am in the same so called, "beginners boat", with RC
equipment and where to put the gieda. And were both reading these
replies here and wondering about our decisions on what to go with.
I've hooked up with a few people here in Westminster that are being
a big help in helping me get started. FWIW, I'll list what I'm going
to purchase and the reason for it.
GP's PT40 Trainer w/O.S. .46 SF Engine
o The PT40 seems to be a pretty logical choice for me.
The club I'll be joining and the people I'll start
getting instruction with have experience with the PT40.
The engine selection was a bit different. Keeping the
budget in mind, I'll most likely be moving the engine
from this plane to my second one when the time comes.
If I was to buy the recommended OS .40 FP engine and
try to move it to my second (probably a sport model),
the performance would be likely marginal at best. When
I understand engines better and know what I'm doing I
could probably install a used engine back into the PT40
and get away with it cheaper later.
Futaba 6NFK 6ch/FM
o Radio selection based on building the PT40 4 channel,
consistent with the people I'll be flying with, and
don't want to outgrow the radio to quick. I don't
understand the differences between FM and PCM and
to be honest I don't care at this point. It seems most
people once into the hobby have more than one radio
anyway so I could move to a 7 ch/PCM or whatever as
I develop and understand things a bit better.
This file and the people in it have helped me greatly with
understanding my new hobby, however it is also capable of confusing
the hell out of a newcomer. Maybe by next year, I help confuse a
newcomer too !! 8^)
George
|
12.57 | I'M WITT'CHA, AMIGO..... | PNO::CASEYA | THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) 551-5572 | Fri Feb 22 1991 14:15 | 35 |
| Re: .-1, Jim,
Yer' tone sounds defensive and it needn't be as I agree with almost
every rationale, every point you make. I agree that Futaba could've
done a better job of informing folks of just what they were buying in
the low-end sets but will suggest that model-to-model incompatibility
has approached nightmarish proportions with other radios from 'Companies
"A" and "J" too." If there was a conscious effort on the part of _any_
manufacturer to deliberately mislead people in order to sell less than
acceptable equipment, I find that unconscienable and definitely don't
support that action. But, I also believe in Caveat Emptor and am
immediately suspect of any deal that appears too good (cheap) to be
true...too often that's exactly the reality of it!
I should also mention that all my Futabas are mid-to-high end radios
and I should qualify that that's where my experience base eminates. I
would no more encourage a beginner to purchase _any_ mfgr's bottom-end
equipment than a cow could fly, simply because I could never really
really trust any of them. I reiterate that a newcomer should buy _all_
the radio he/she can afford/justify up front...the savings in busted
airframes, engines and radios down the road _more_ than makes up for
the initial cost differential. By "all," I mean 6-channels and PCM if
at all possible. Within this envelope, brand names become rather
insignificant as they're all pretty darn good at this level.
We're both saying pretty much the same thing and I assure you I took no
offense and intended none in return. I simply felt Futaba was catching
an awful lot of negative press of late and felt compelled to present a
case for the other side of the picture.
__
| | / |\
\|/ |______|__(o/--/ | \
| | 00 <| ~~~ ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
|_|_| (O>o |\)____/___|\_____|_/ Adios amigos, Al
| \__(O_\_ | |___/ o (The Desert Rat)
|
12.58 | narrowing down | RANGER::WIMMER | | Fri Feb 22 1991 18:37 | 23 |
| I've got the Tower ad from the March RCM in front of me....
I can get two 6 channel radios in the same price range:
1. Airtronics VG6DR -- FM,dual rates for aileron and elevator, servo
reversing, smooth, open gimbal sticks, NiCds, charger, and switch
harness. Comes with four #102 servos, and is compatible with existing
Airtronics Systems. $159
2. Futaba 6NFK -- FM, adjustable sticks, servo reversing, dual rates on
two channels, an full NiCds, plus retract switch (???),four S148
servos, R127DF dual conversion receiver, and trainer system. $169
I stopped at George's Speed and Hobby shop on the way home and asked
what people in the area use (Cape Ann RC Club), and the response was
50-50.
Recommendations??? Are there any differences in servos or receivers in
terms of quality? If I go with the 6 channels, I can't really afford
to make the jump to PCM ($70) right now since I still have to get
engine, field box, etc. One issue the guy in the store brought up was
that Airtronics doesn't change their connectors while Futaba does.
|
12.59 | after months of analysis | ABACUS::RYDER | perpetually the bewildered beginner | Sat Feb 23 1991 06:48 | 37 |
| re .-1
I bought the Airtronics VG6DR FM radio, and I'm glad I did.
My first radio was a used Futaba. I never had a problem with it, and
I liked Futaba [preventive maintenance] service. But after watching
the market for a year or so, I decided to invest in Airtronics. I have
since sold the Futaba at a low price to a guy who is probably still
happy with it.
I then bought the Airtronics Vanguard 4 channel FM for $110, just ten
dollars more than the low end Futaba. The receiver that comes with
the Vanguard is a beauty --- 6 channel (even with the 4 channel TX),
dual conversion, and tightly narrow band.
My next purchase was the 6 channel Vanguard on the same frequency.
[Buying multiple radios on the same frequency is a strategy with pros
and cons and should not lead to a digression here.] The receiver is
identical to the other. The transmitter has more features than the
listing you quote. There are two channels with discrete controls; one,
labeled "retract gear" has two positions, and the other, labeled "AUX",
has three positions. This TX has more features than I have yet used.
Both transmitters have provision for a trainer cord, and I immediately
bought one. I no longer *need* it myself ["Ha!", says Jeff, my
instructor.], but it is handy for the first flight of a new or rebuilt
plane --- I can learn to handle such a plane while Jeff can be ready to
bail me out if I fail. I have used it often to give newcomers stick
time on a slow, forgiving plane I fly. Well worth the money.
I have since ordered two more Vanguard receivers [without transmitters],
again on the same frequency as the first two. My next system will be a
top-of-the-line Airtronics or JR compatible with all these receivers.
The system after that will be on a different channel; the eggs are
getting crowded in the basket.
If all my gear were to be stolen, I would repeat this again exactly.
|
12.60 | a curse on both your houses | ABACUS::RYDER | perpetually the bewildered beginner | Sat Feb 23 1991 07:05 | 10 |
| >> ....................... One issue the guy in the store brought up was
>> that Airtronics doesn't change their connectors while Futaba does.
Originally I too attributed this to Machiavellian marketing. I have
since concluded that it was more likely just being dumb. And, it turns
out, Futaba does not have a monopoly on dumbness. Coherent product
planning is not an attribute of this marketplace.
I have heard that all new design Futaba gear has the same connector.
|
12.61 | got the Futaba | RANGER::WIMMER | | Sat Feb 23 1991 16:52 | 12 |
| Well, I ended up ordering the Futaba. I was leaning toward the
Airtronics, then when going through some of the boxes I had stored my
car stuff in, I found the extra Futaba servo left over from installing
a speed control in my car. I anticipate putting one in the new truck
also. I went and checked this servo against the ones that come with
the airplane radio.....they are the same. So....I went with the Futaba
since I will have at least two extra matching servos.
Now, the next issue is the engine...........
Diane
|
12.62 | STICK WITH NAME BRANDS OF GOOD REPUTE..... | PNO::CASEYA | THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) 551-5572 | Mon Feb 25 1991 10:16 | 55 |
| Dianne,
Congratulations on ordering yer' new radio. I know you'd have been
pleased with either system but I heartily endorse the selection of the
Futaba. BTW, what Alton suggested in .-2 is true, i.e. Futaba used to
use two main connectors, one for AM radios and the other "J" type for
FM...nowadays, all Futaba connectors are of the "J"/FM type.
Compatibility was never a big deal anyway as Futaba adaptor pigtails to
adapt one type connector to the other are readily available. If you go
far enough back, you _could_ find a third (early) type connector but
these are pretty rare anymore and yer' not likely to run into any of
them. Finally, as Alton again suggested, connector incompatibility
is/was not the exclusive domain of Futaba; every major radio I know of
went through it for some period but, hopefully due to consumer
pressure, this has nearly become a thing of the past.
As to engine selection, remember that a bad engine will crash you
almost as quickly and surely as a bda radio. Again, I encourage you
to go O.S...the extra few bucks are well spent in terms of keeping you
airborne. Broken in, handled and maintained properly, an O.S. engine
can provide virtually a lifetime of reliable service. I _would_,
however, recommend you go with the SF series with the ball-bearing
supported crankshaft as I believe this to be superior to the cheaper
bronze bushing supported crank. A bushed crank engine _can_ perform
well but is especially vulnerable to dirt (from crashes/noseovers) and
mishandling which happens to be the typical milieu of the beginner.
However, other good engines are available and I wouldn't hesitate to
recommend such brands as Enya, Super Tigre and Webra. Sadly, these are
all foreign made engines but, as is true with radios, U.S. manufacturers
have failed to keep pace...I'd buy American in a heartbeat if I felt
the same performance, quality and value could be had but such simply is
not the case at the present time; a very sad commentary on the country
that was once the hands down leader in both fields. Whatever your
choice, I strongly urge you to avoid the "bargain engines" and those
imported from Red China and/or other Communist bloc countries including
Russia itself. This has nothing to do with politics; again, it's
simply a matter of performance and quality for the dollar, not to
mention parts/service complications.
Some will argue that the domestically made Fox engine is a good buy
but I don't recommend it as, in my opinion, Fox has _never_ learned how
to make a carburetor and _MUCH_ time is spent/lost fiddling on the ground
which makes it a poor coice for a newcomer regardless of the ads to the
contrary. Fox was/is a world leader in U-control engines (I flew
nothing but Fox in my ukie days) but has never achieved the same success/
reputation in the RC engine world. If he ever does, I'll switch over
happily but, again, in my opinion, that day is not here yet so I can't
personally recommend his engines, especially to beginners.
__
| | / |\
\|/ |______|__(o/--/ | \
| | 00 <| ~~~ ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
|_|_| (O>o |\)____/___|\_____|_/ Adios amigos, Al
| \__(O_\_ | |___/ o (The Desert Rat)
|
12.63 | What will happen to his company? | ELMAGO::TTOMBAUGH | A Fistful of Epoxy | Mon Feb 25 1991 10:38 | 2 |
| FWIW, Duke Fox died a week ago last friday, ~ 71 yrs.
|
12.64 | A loss for the modelling world. | KNGBUD::SNOW | | Mon Feb 25 1991 10:46 | 3 |
|
Sorry to hear this. The guy was quite an institution in the modelling
world.
|
12.65 | OS is the best bet for a beginner (IMHO) | ASABET::CAVANAGH | | Mon Feb 25 1991 11:20 | 9 |
|
Diane,
I think most of us will back up Al's recommendation of the OS engines. It
is a very reliable brand (all sizes) and there are a LOT of 'experts' in
the area that can help you with the setup/break in/maintenance/etc...
Jim
|
12.66 | SF? ABC? | RANGER::WIMMER | | Mon Feb 25 1991 12:11 | 20 |
| Engine question #1: Should I get the .40 engine or should I go ahead
and get the .46? Is there a big difference? I know I'm supposed to
stay low power in the beginning, but I'm also wondering about the
comment George made about moving to the next plane and being
underpowered.
Engine question #2: I'm looking at the O.S. section in the Tower ad in
RCM. There are several types of .40 or .46 engines. Don't know what
the difference is:
.40FP ABC RC w/ muffler $69.99
.40SF RC w/muffler 132.99
.46SF-P RC w/pump 174.99 (!!)
.40SF ABC RC w/muffler 137.99
.46SF ABC RC w/muffler 144.99
.46SG ABC Reverse w/muffler 144.99
Thanks,
Diane
|
12.67 | field box | RANGER::WIMMER | | Mon Feb 25 1991 12:17 | 26 |
| Field Box stuff.....
Friend gave me a 12 volt, sealed battery,30 a.h. Battery is almost
new, was an extra for a power backup system for a computer. Is it okay
to use??? It's about the size of a motorcycle battery.
Tower has a package deal on a field box....$79.64 for a Hobbico box,12V
field batter,12V charger,Heavy Duty 12V starter, Deluxe Power Panel and
Locking Glow Plug Clip.
Omni Models has the following package deal for $99.99....
Royal hd electric starter
Royal 12V fuel pump
Thunder Tiger sealed 12V battery
Thunder Tiger charger
Thundr Tiger flight box
Thunder Tiger locking glow plug connector
Tower's sounds like a better deal, my main question is, am I getting
poor quality stuff in a package deal like this that I would have to
upgrade??
Thanks,
Diane
|
12.68 | VETO THE PUMP....... | PNO::CASEYA | THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) 551-5572 | Mon Feb 25 1991 14:12 | 24 |
| Dianne,
My suggestion is to go for the .46 SF for $144.95. It _never_ hurts to
be a little over-powered...you can _always_ throttle back but you can't
throttle up with an underpowered ship. The difference from .40 to .46
is fairly significant and the .46 would be a bit more desireable in a
next airplane where more performance is desired. BTW, I'd steer
completely away from pumps, were I you. For starters, they're simply
not necessary, they make the engine that much more "fiddly" to
handle/adjust and, bottom line, they're just one more thing to go wrong
and keep you grounded. Just locate and plumb yer' fuel tank properly
and you'll never have the slightest need for a pump.
Flight Box & Field Equipment: I have no experience with the Hobbico,
Royal or Thundertiger brands but always suggest that you get what you
pay for. However, I see a lot of this equipment on the field so it
apparently works. You might want to look at the equipment posted in
the for sale topic today.
__
| | / |\
\|/ |______|__(o/--/ | \
| | 00 <| ~~~ ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
|_|_| (O>o |\)____/___|\_____|_/ Adios amigos, Al
| \__(O_\_ | |___/ o (The Desert Rat)
|
12.69 | Keep it simple and inexpensive | ASABET::CAVANAGH | | Mon Feb 25 1991 14:44 | 24 |
|
Diane,
If you want to save a couple of bucks I would recommend you go with
a manual pump (like a Six Shooter or similar) instead of the electric
fuel pump, and a ni-starter. This eliminates the need for a power panel
and actually gives you a little more freedom at the field. The ni-starter
is a self-contained glow plug driver you can carry in your pocket. If
the engine quits on the flight line you don't have to carry your plane
all the way back to your flight box to restart it. The manual fuel pump
adds a small amount of inconvenience (you supply the power instead of
a battery) but saves money.
If you use an electric starter you can hook it up directly to the
battery (again no power panel).
I took the approach of going with manual everything (no elec. fuel pump,
no elec. starter) to keep costs down until I was sure I was going to stay
in this hobby. The manual items also provide a good backup system for
when the electrics fail.
Jim
|
12.70 | A vote for the .40FP | CLOSUS::TAVARES | Stay low, keep moving | Mon Feb 25 1991 14:52 | 33 |
| Dianne: if you're choking a bit on the price of the .40SF, please
let me recommend the .40FP. I had a bit of trouble with mine at
first, because it required an extended break-in time...see my
notes in the engine topic about this.
When it got about 2 hours running time it woke up and started
pulling like a good horse. So despite my original dissapointment
on it in the earlier notes, its turned out to be a great engine,
which I knew it was from the start.
Do find a friend with a test bench to run the motor in.
It will give you some experience with the engine and it will also
get it loosened up. See my notes for more info on this.
Contrary to Al's advice, I personally don't see the value of a ball
bearing engine, given the extra price. The FP will run well and
give long service in the context of learning to fly. It will
keep you happy well into your advanced trainer stages, and will
serve you after that too. Let your next engine be a ball bearing
or whatever. If you stay with the hobby, you'll want another
engine in time.
Not on your list is a charger for the field box battery (BTW its
3.0A, not 30A, or if you hope to carry it, it'd better be!) This
function may be accomplished by the charger in your list, but I
can't guarantee it.
Do I remember that you bought the PT40? Excellent choice, for I
have not yet been able to wreck it! Do build the tail light,
taking care to put a nice symetrical airfoil shape on those solid
balsa tailfeathers they give you. I threw those out and built my
own out of sticks, but this is a little advanced for a beginner
and I would not recommend you attempt this.
|
12.71 | The other side of the coin | LEDS::COHEN | That was Zen, This is Tao | Mon Feb 25 1991 15:24 | 32 |
|
Hmmmm...
I'de recommend the less expensive engine. All the OS .40 sized motors
are good. They'll all fly the PT40 just fine (none of them will be
underpowered). You're a new RCer who's going to have to learn things
the hard way. Things like how to maintain your motor, how to tune the
motor. A few unknowing lean runs can hurry an engine to an early grave.
You're certainly likely to mash it into the ground a few times while you
learn. You'll have to fix the motor, or replace the motor as a result of
your learning process. Less expensive motors are less expensive to
repair, and when you trash 'em to the point that they can't be repaired,
you don't feel so bad throwing them away. Also, you may find that the
next model you build won't be a .40 sized ship. You might want a
smaller plane, or a larger plane, or a 4 stroke. The most ideal
approach is to spend as little as possible, without sacrificing your
likelyhood of success, and, once you've learned something about the
hobby, go out and buy the better/faster/stronger components.
By way of example, I went to learn to Golf two years ago. I didn't go
buy the most expensive equipment I could. I wasn't all that sure I'de
really like it, and I was fairly sure that the equipment was going to
take some abuse during the learning process. I bought what seemed to be
a reasonable, mid range set of clubs. Now that I know more about the
game, and that I like it, I'm looking to upgrade. Had I spent the extra
money on a higher quality set of clubs when I started out, I'de just be
throwing them away now. Money wasted.
Randy
|
12.72 | | RANGER::WIMMER | | Mon Feb 25 1991 15:42 | 3 |
| re the battery: what it says is "30 a.h. (amp hours?)"
|
12.73 | Welcome to the club | SNAX::SMITH | I FEEL THE NEED | Mon Feb 25 1991 15:43 | 18 |
| Diane,
I have to side with Al. Just as with the radio, buy all the engine
you can. It's ALWAYS better to have it and not need it (power) then
need it and not have it. Amost all of the popular intermeidate size
planes (which would be your next step) are the 45,46 size ships. OS
is a good engine, and you can't go wrong with it. Look through the
catalog's and check out the trainer/intermediate type planes. You'll
find that the vast majority of them list engine requirements as either
30 to 45 or 40 to 45. A good rule of thumb is that the largest engine size
listed is the one that will fly that particular plane the best. The
smaller size will fly the plane but performance will be somewhat
limited. Keep in mind that this last statement applies mostly to the
intermediate level planes. An OS40 will fly a PT40 or similar trainer
just fine. Keep looking to the future, and the more versitility you
can buy now, the cheaper it will be down the road.
Steve
|
12.74 | A TRUE PIONEER...... | UPWARD::CASEYA | THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) 551-5572 | Mon Feb 25 1991 16:08 | 22 |
| Sorry to learn of the passing of Duke Fox. He has to pass as a legend
in the model engine field. His Fox .35 stunt engine has been
unsurpassed as T.H.E. ukie stunt engine from its inception in the
late 40's right through today. The Fox 36X was T.H.E. combat engine to
beat in its day and is no slouch even today.
The Fox .59 was really the first practical, throttle-equipped .60 size
RC engine back in the late 50's-early 60's. No doubt about the fact
that Duke did some innovative things with engines. Unfortunately, he
[apparently] didn't really understand model carburetion as his later RC
engines have been lack-luster to mediocre at best.
I hope someone will keep Fox engines going as it has truly been an
institution and deserves to be kept alive. Fox could easily reassert
itself again with just a little more work/thought in the carb department,
giving the foreign engines a run for their money.
__
| | / |\
\|/ |______|__(o/--/ | \
| | 00 <| ~~~ ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
|_|_| (O>o |\)____/___|\_____|_/ Adios amigos, Al
| \__(O_\_ | |___/ o (The Desert Rat)
|
12.75 | Go for the .46SF!!!!!! | CSC32::CSENCSITS | | Mon Feb 25 1991 20:34 | 10 |
| Diane,
I'd definitely go with the .46sf. As was mentioned previously, think
of the future. The .46sf is a much more versatile engine and will pull
better than the .40. Naturally I'm alittle biased because I own the
.46sf and love it.
By the way welcome to RC.
John C
|
12.76 | | WMOIS::HIGGINS_G | The Jungle VIP | Tue Feb 26 1991 12:30 | 12 |
| Re: Diane
Hope things are going well in your construction stage. I've just
made my first order to Tower and should be starting my PT40 by
Saturday !!! I haven't ordered it yet but will be sending for the
OS .46 SF with my next order. It seems the masses are split on what
to buy. Just a question of $$$$ I guess. I'm going to squeeze the
budget a bit and get the .46 up front. At least if Deb doesn't catch
me I will !! 8^)
George
|
12.77 | My 2 cents worth | KAY::FISHER | Stop and smell the balsa. | Tue Feb 26 1991 16:05 | 57 |
| When I purchased my first RC plane the owner of the local hobby shop
said to get the OS .40 FP. He said that it didn't make since to use
an expensive engine for your first engine since there is a high probability
that you would crash it.
Now I would choose the .46 over the .40 but the hobby shop owner gave me
good advice. If you want I will mail you the broken engine parts from
my .40 fp after it smacked the runway in my second summer of RC flying!
Although I agree with everyone else that the .46 is well worth the difference
in price (2 to 3 times) my advice is to get a cheap (but good quality)
engine for the first plane.
Now about that religious radio question.
Everybody agrees that if you buy a JR or Futaba or Airtronics FM
that you will have no complaints with quality and service.
OK - that's the $150-200 price range.
Now for the $350-400 price range there seems to be a consensus forming.
I liked the previous "If all my gear was stolen what would I buy" scenario.
I recommend the JR 347. Airtronics and Futaba are busy making 347 look
alikes but they have failed.
It is the best radio you can get that has memory for 4 aircraft setups
and supports pattern/sport, helo, and gliders.
Now for the $600 range.
JR PCM-10.
It eclipses the Vision, and 9VAP.
It is interesting that none of the top of the line have helo modes
unless you get the dedicated helo version.
Die hard sailplane guys will say the PCM-10 is not as good as a vision
but the only function I can find that it doesn't have is "reverse
aileron differential on crow" which you don't want to know about anyway.
The perfect radio (which hasn't been made yet) is probably a 347 with
more memory (say 20 planes).
This free advice (worth every cent you paid for it) comes to you from
someone who has the top of the line Airtronics (Vision) and the top of
the line Futaba (9VAP) and no JR radios (well I had a single stick
last year).
I could list lots of little things that Airtronics, Futaba, ACE, and cannon
do better than JR but the reverse is also true.
"If all my gear was stolen" I would buy a JR PCM-10.
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
|
12.78 | Good point....but | SNAX::SMITH | I FEEL THE NEED | Tue Feb 26 1991 16:22 | 9 |
| Kay makes a good point on the several crashes you'll probably have.
However, Kay also flies frequently from asphalt runways which are
considerably harder than grass which the Cape Ann field is. You have
a bigger worry with trees there. I stuck an Enya 60 8 or 9 inches
into the ground one unfortunate day and only broke the needle valve.
I still say if you can afford it, go with the 46.
Steve
|
12.79 | My 2 cents | WMOIS::WEIER | Wings are just a place to hang Ailerons | Wed Feb 27 1991 08:04 | 19 |
|
Go for the .46 SF. On a hot summer day, with no wind, and the grass
needing mowing, the .46 will get the PT-40 easily airborne. I have seen
PT-40's equipped with 40 FP's make several takeoff attempts just to get
airborne in these conditions. Granted the 40 FP's may not have been
running perfectly, but most beginners are not experts at tuning
engines. A 46 SF slightly out of tune will still do the job. If you can
afford it, go with the .46, if you can't the 40fp will probably do
the job in most cases.
Regarding the argument about not knowing if you will stick with the
hobby - thats what the "for sale" note is for. My quess is a .46SF with
low time would still recoupe a good portion of your investment, so I
see the financial risk being reletively low.
Just my Opinion,
DW2
|
12.80 | Another 2 cents worth | NAC::ALBRIGHT | IBM BUSTERS - Who'ya going to call! | Wed Feb 27 1991 10:59 | 25 |
| Based on my personal experiences with the O.S. 40FP, DON'T, unless you
desire to practice your dead stick landings. Both myself and others
flying with the FP at my field were frustrated many times when the
ship would get airborne, just to have it die. I think it is just too
fussy for a beginner.
I own two .40 SF's (one is an ABC) and I am extremely pleased with
their reliability. I have not once had a dead stick that could be
blamed on engine (I had a spell where the klunk kept getting stuck at
the top of the fuel tank). I believe there has been other discussions
of the .46 in this conference but the .46 is what I would chose if I
had it to do over again.
I also own a Futaba Attack and two Airtronics Vanguards (4 ch FM and
6 ch PCM). The Futaba is gathering dust. I couldn't be more pleased
with my Airtronics units and I will probably continue to stick with
them for the forseeable future.
If it hasn't become apparent already I have to restate an earlier
comment made here. Most everything involved with the hobby has some
religion attached to it. However, there are many rules of thumb that
could be considered trueisms and this conference is full of them. Keep
reading and you'll eventally figure out whats best for you.
Loren
|