Conference vmszoo::rc

        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

    
    	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.
    

    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

    Also, see note 342!
    
    Which ever way you go:
    	1) GET AN INSTRUCTOR...
    and 2) Good Luck!
          
    Frank.

    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

    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

    
    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

	     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

    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
    

    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.

>                       -< 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 / \     

================================================================================

  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

  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 / \     

================================================================================

    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
    
    

    
    	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.

	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

    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
    

	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

    
    	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

    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

    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
    

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.

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.  

    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
    

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

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. 

                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

    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
    

        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

    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

    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

    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

    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
    

    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---        ---------------------------------

    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

    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.

        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.

    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
    

    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)

    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

    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).  

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.

    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)

    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)

  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
    

    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
    

    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 

    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)

    
    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  
     

    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)

    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.
    

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.

>>    .......................  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.
    

    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
    

    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)

    FWIW, Duke Fox died a week ago last friday, ~ 71 yrs.
    

    
    Sorry to hear this. The guy was quite an institution in the modelling
    world.

  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

    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
    

    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
    

    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)

  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

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.

    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

    re the battery:  what it says is "30 a.h. (amp hours?)"
    
    

    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

    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)

    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

    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
    

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---------------
################################################################################

    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

    
    
        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

    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