Author Topic: R/C pilots, need your advice (Read 654 times)

SunKing · « **on:** March 22, 2002, 12:06:19 PM »

Short and simple. Im looking at this kit.. what do you think? Id probably go with two .32 engines.

http://www.rc-dymond.com/Electric/Specialty/60612ME110.htm

http://www.rcmodelairplanes.com/ME110.HTM

MarkVZ · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2002, 01:15:49 PM »

The only thing that I would be worried about is the installation of glow engines in an airframe designed for electric motors. You are probably aware of the fact that electric aircraft are generally built lighter due to the fact that they aren't subjected to the vibrations associated with single-cylinder glow engines.

At very least I'm sure that you will end up modifying the engine mounts and nacelles to accomodate the engines. You will most likely have to reinforce the area where the engine mounts are attached to the wings. The wings themselves look fine, as the sheeted foam is very stiff and strong.

Personally I think that two .32's would be excessive. Your all up weight wil be slightly less than the 6 pounds advertised. I think you would be better off with a pair of .25's, but that could just be me. Perhaps you should assemble the airframe, take the all up weight, then decide what you are going to need to achieve the performance you desire.

Have you figured out where you are going to put the fuel tanks? Looks like you may have difficulty in fitting a decent sized tank behind eachof the engines.

Looks like a nice kit. Let us know how it goes.

Mark VanZwoll
http://www.i-star.com/users/markvz

Skuzzy · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2002, 03:07:29 PM »

Lot of problems to overcome when moving from R/C's designed for electric to fuel burning engines.

In this particular design, you will have to go with inboard fuel tanks.
The COG of the plane will need to be adjusted as the gas engines are heavier than the electrics and the fuel tank will not compensate for the weight of the battery pack(s).

The ABS engine cowlings could be a problem. If they are light weight designs they could deform from the heat of the gas engines and may not take the exhaust fumes very well. You could route the exhaust down and away from the cowlings and this would help with the fumes issue.

Loading 11x6 props on .32's could cause some loading problems with the engines and overheat them. You could use a cooler fuel mix to get around that but it may drop the power off.

Technically, it is possible to do what you want, you will just need to sweat the details in a big way.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2002, 03:18:36 PM »

I would not use 11X6 on a .32, thats a .46 prop size.

As for everything else I cant say if I dont see the kit except that you will have to beef it up a lot.

I would rebuild the nacelles from balsa and lite-ply, you'd have to make new firewalls etc.

The foamcore wing should handle the engines fine.

Fiberglass fuse is good too.

And a pair of .32 are not excessive!!

SirLoin · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2002, 07:57:13 PM »

I'd be tempted to put a couple of OS .40 four strokes in there and beef up the wing a bit(add another spar).It would sound so cool!

Voss · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2002, 07:52:30 PM »

I'm surprised that no one seems to have noticed there is a glow version available.

HB engines are the best choice here, SK. You won't find engines by any other manufacturer that run so alike, as HB's (two different engines will throttle up and peak at like levels). That's pretty important (indeed, most important) in a twin. Now, whether you can find them anymore is another thing.

Bench whatever you use before flying.

Good luck!

SunKing · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2002, 08:17:38 PM »

I talked to one of the shops selling this kit. According to them there isn't two versions , it's just what engine you want to drop in the kit, but according to the guy .25's would work fine with no extra work to the kit. Has anyone seen any gas kits of a bf-110 ? I saw one but it was the plans only , way outta my league.

Kieran · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2002, 08:29:01 PM »

Go with the smaller engines- they will be lighter, cooler, and use smaller fuel tanks. Make sure to seal the nacelles completely, fuel leak could be nasty.

Ever flown a twin- especially a taildragger? This could be interesting... Be very sure your engines are in sync at peak when you take off. This isn't like a single, you know, "the engine sounds ok, I'll go". As far out on the wing as those engines are, you may not have enough rudder and aileron at low speed to keep it straight if an engine goes. Engine coughs on takeoff, immediately throttle back and ditch.

edit- for safety, you might want to consider toeing out the engines by a degree or two- that will help in engine out situations.

SirLoin · « **Reply #8 on:** March 24, 2002, 09:26:13 AM »

Might need a fuel pump if tank is below engine centre line and you have to feed from a tank in the fuselage.

Voss · « **Reply #9 on:** March 24, 2002, 01:46:46 PM »

I know what you *really* want:

http://www.hobbybarn.com/HOLLANDP38.HTML

However, you should know that these kits are for very experienced builders, as well as experienced fliers.

Marutaka kits are the new name for Royal kits. Royal kits are precise scale, and they tend to be difficult to fly because of that.

Check out some of the other kits available and then tell me you don't want one!

Unfortunately, I can't find any references to the 1/4, or 1/3 scale Christen Eagle, anymore. Man what a fine kit that was!

eskimo2 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2002, 02:00:50 PM »

Most R/C planes are overpowered to the point of sillyness. I would go with the smallest recommended engine. But then again, I've been out of the loop for a long time.

Cool plane, keep us updated as the project progresses.

eskimo

SunKing · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2002, 02:36:26 PM »

Voss Nice plane, saw that link once. I'd be so scared to fly a cash cow like that. Find me a 110 with that quality now. I think if I get this kit I'll go electric. After the advice from everyone it would be in my best interest to fly this kit the way it was meant.

Voss · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2002, 02:52:35 PM »

Well, when I spend the kind of dough you're talking about, on an R/C job, I go for a kit rather than a pre-fab. If you've had a lot of flight and building experience you could pull off the mod you're talking about, but if you prefer not building from plans... Well, I'd avoid it.

Royal *used* to have two Bf110's available. I've looked all over the web and can't find a hint of one, anymore. Bob Pfeiffer of Puyallup, WA. (heads up Yeager), used to have one on his shelf, but I checked the directory and he's no longer listed (probably retired).

I still get around the U.S. pretty good, so I'll keep my eyes open (a little self-interested anyway), but probably plans are the way to go.

Build on your experience level and eventually you'll have a dream machine. Those 'cash-cows' are the real head-turners, and I know you want one!

I've moved back into Heli's these days. Our local field is grass, so my favorite planes (read P51D) won't hack even soft landings without losing retracts. My Heli don't care!

Maintenance on this beast is running about $300/mo. (even without augers), so Heli's are not for the feint-hearted. Uh, bear in mind, though, that I fly a LOT!

Good luck, mate!

SunKing · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2002, 03:10:31 PM »

"Well, when I spend the kind of dough you're talking about, on an R/C job, I go for a kit rather than a pre-fab"

i'd love to build this kit but those two links are the only 110's I've been able to find online.. If anyones sees Bf-110 plans floating around please post the link to this thread.

Kieran · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2002, 04:36:05 PM »

Here's what I'd suggest; build a test ship first. Get a Midwest Ugly Stik and hang two .20's on the wings. Fly this around to get the feel of it. You can set it up pretty much the same way you will have the 110 (taildragger, twin tails if you like, landing gear on the nacelles). Find out what you're going to have to solve before you sink big bucks into a kit.

I converted a .40 class Ugly Stik; it's easy, and the plane flew well. It was good training for my A-26 I built later.