Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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
(http://www.ropescourse.org/csunking110.gif)
-
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
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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!
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Might need a fuel pump if tank is below engine centre line and you have to feed from a tank in the fuselage.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
"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.
-
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.
-
Henh.
There's two things electrics can do better than glow, one's Twins, the other is modeate sized Scale models.
I find it pretty funny that you guys are touting glow for this lil scale twin.. motors (not engines) don't suffer from synch problems, nor is 'engine out' ever a problem. Plus, an obechi and foam wing with a fiberglass fuse is begging for a painted finish.. which ain't exactly a 'fuel friendly' material.. all that slimy sloppy mess all over a fine painted scale model.. yuck.
A pair of Phasor brushless motors, and a pair of 7 cell packs will fly that thing for about 8-12 min, with performance that will flat out knock your socks off. A pair of $15.00 car motors with a $12.00 2.51 gear boxes and the same 14 cells will fly it for less than 1/2 the cost of the brushless setup and tho it'll be a mite slower, it'll have even better initial climb performance AND longer endurance.
Batteries ain't just for flashlights and RC10 cars anymore.
Since all you wizards have PC's, if your wondering what electric power setup will work, and how well it will work in most any R/C aircraft setup; you can buy Ecalc2.. a lil software program that works up oustanding predictions on airworthiness before you spend a dime on equipment. Here's a link:
http://www.slkelectronics.com/ecalc/
-
Hang, if I were to cut a vein 35% nitro would ooze from the wound. :)
I won't knock electric, as it is a significant part of the hobby. For that matter, so is free-fllight and rubber power.
Still, I was really disappointed with the lack of electric success in the Heli areas. Sure, there are some out there, but nothing that approaches the performance of a good .61 ABC schnuerle.
Yeah, my truck stinks of alcohol and nitro. I love it! :D
-
Heli pilots don't fly... they just beat the air into submission.
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Heli pilots don't fly... they just beat the air into submission.
;)
Yup, that's true! I've been saying that for more than 25 years! Well, about Heli's anyway. The pilot is still a flier. ;)
The fact of the matter is (ahem - steps up on soapbox) Heli's have greater control over the air. Airplanes don't actually create lift, you know? They create a vacuum. So, they get sucked up. :P