kthmarks

with a Spektrum DX7. I'm a recovering/convertING CL junkie. I have recently spent much time in front of the computer getting stick time with FS-one. This is my first RC plane. I am a private pilot.....like that helps me much.

The plane is built, the engine broke in per the manuf recommendations (and then some). Yes, I had to grease it to get it in.

I have exhausted the search function on this board (I'm a long time lurker) with regard to setting the Dual rates and Expontential for this plane/radio. The best I've found (D/R) is 100% for High and 66% for low. EXP. however has got me a little worried. I set it to what "feels" right and I'm in the high 60's. I realize at this point I am going only on speculation as I haven't even flown this bird yet but I'm having fun doing the research and welcome the input of a resident expert.

Thanks in advance.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

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


I wouldn't recommend using exponential while learning to fly. As you have stated, more or less, there just isn't any way to know how much is needed. Just be sure to give yourself enough throw on high rates.

I've never seen a model crash from having more control authority than needed (with stock surfaces), but I have seen many crashed, even by good pilots, when not enough control authority was available.

I think you have a very nice engine/model combo there. Radio too.

Good luck and let us know how you fare.


Ed Cregger

Salty25

My Feedback: (9)

I agree with Ed; don't use expo until you've been flying for a bit.

That 62 is going to be a whole lot of power for the Rascal 40. I had one I flew with a OS 48 and a Magnum 52; those engines were plenty of power for this plane. I had to put a glow driver on them to get a low enough idle for a good landing. Without the glow driver it took long approaches at idle to get the plane to slow down enough.

Good luck with your plane. I only have two words for you; throttle.. throttle.

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

I fly my Rascal Forty on a Saito .45

I set the control throws per the manual, and left em' there. I don't bother with dual rates or expo on this plane. I just fly it.

kthmarks

Hey guys, thanks a lot for input....I'll heed the advice.

With regard to the Saito, I broke it in on a test stand. I seem to recall I got a good idle in the low to mid teens. And I'll check out a glow driver. Other than the obvious (doesn't move the plane) what would be a target RPM for idle?

The saito seems to like a healthy dose of wet prime when cold....finger over the carb, apply heat, several turns through till the "bump" at the prop, then she fires right off. Obviously, in this plane, when mounted, the carb is inaccessable. How efficient is wet priming from the exhaust? I'm a seasoned hand flipper and I'm resisting the need to go to the electric starter....old dogs......etc

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

Keith, you're gonna love this plane. I've had two, both had a .56 Saito. The .62 is the same physical size, except for a slightly fatter jug (cylinder). The extra power will certainly not be needed to fly it, but will make it a lot more fun.

This plane will fly at a walking pace, but will also haul butt. I had as much throw in my controls as the hinges would allow, and it was still easy to control. The wingspan controls how fast this plane will roll, you can time it on a calendar.

The elevator has a lot of authority, and it will loop tighter than you'd be willing to believe. The rudder also has a good bit of authority, and the model has a fair amount of pitch coupling when using only rudder, meaning that if you use just rudder, the nose will pitch down unless you counter with up elevator. There is not much dihedral, so aileron-only inputs don't get much turning action, just banking with some adverse yaw, but not quite like a Cub.

I'd recommend about 5/8 inch up and down throw on elevator, about 3/4 inch right-left on rudder; program in some differential on the ailerons, about 5/8 inch up and 3/8 inch down. (All this is low rate) for high rates, just give as much movement as the hinges allow, and I'd also mix about 25% rudder with ailerons for just flying around; put the mix on a switch so you can turn it off until you get used to the rudder.

Speaking of rudder....... check your gear to make sure you've got a little toe-in (equal) to help it track straight. As light as this plane is, and with the power of the .62, it's gonna want to swing left every time you hit the throttle on take-off, so you're gonna need to learn the rudder on this baby.

I don't know how thirsty the .62 is relative to the .56, but I was able to get 30 minute flights on the stock fuel tank with the .56. I never needed on-board glow, but a remote glow plug would be nice, it was a bit of a hassle getting to the glow plug for starting. I used a MA 12-6 prop for the .56, I think a 13-6 or 13-8 would work well with the .62, although the 13-8 might not let it slow down as well for landing. I had good, but not unlimited vertical, I'll bet you can hover (vertical) yours with the .62.

In a 15 mph breeze, I could keep mine in a horizontal hover and let it settle to the ground with a landing rollout of less than three feet.
This is one of the few "non-trainer" airplanes I think you could learn to fly on. It isn't quite as roll stable due to the low dihedral, but has a very slow stall speed. When it gets close to a stall, the wings will start wagging, and it usually would drop off on one wing, so keep it high for a while 'til you get used to it.

This is my take on how it flies, hope it helps you, good luck. Ken

kthmarks

Ken,
Great read....I really appreciate your input.

I studied a few planes before choosing this one as my first. Aside from it's classic lines and long moments, it was the wing more that anything that sold me on this plane. It had all the right dynamics. Then, when the guy at the hobby shop was ringing me up and asked if I wanted a lounge chair to go with it, I knew I made the right decision. And bundled with the .62......I was happy.

Funny you should mention the 13x8. My initial thought was to swing a bigger prop with a little more bite that would induce some drag at lower RPM's vs a shorter prop with less bite that would keep the RPM's up a little more.....I'm now thinking (probably too much as usual) the 13x8 might force an engine out at low RPM's on approach. The glow driver was an interesting option I had not considered. I read where Nelson has a smart one but...another gadget for a newbe to deal with?.....gotta love it. Your thoughts on a good target for idle RPM's?

Also,
If you don't mind, I'd really like to hear your comments on the priming/cold starting of this plane/engine.


Thanks.

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

Keith: If you have some time to kill...........

http://www.rcuvideos.com/view_video....a916edcb6b6392

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

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


No disrespect meant for the gentleman suggesting the use of a glow driver, but you really do not need to use one if your engine is nominal and broken-in sufficiently. While a glow driver is good insurance on a large model where the weight is insignificant, it is too heavy for a .40 sized model. Besides, like I said, if the engine is nominal (normal), the fuel is good and the engine is adjusted properly, they simply are not necessary. Just be sure to use a good four-stroke plug (OS Type-F) and 15% nitro fuel. There is a bit of art required to adjust the Saito low speed needle, but there is plenty of information on RCU on how to do it right. Once adjusted and working properly, if you decide that having an onboard glow system is for you, then go ahead and do it by all means, but your model will fly better without the extra weight.


Ed Cregger

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

Re: Rascal Forty and Extra Weight

Ed, I have a home made glow driver in my Rascal Forty, It includes a micro switch, wiring, an external off/on toggle switch, a battery holder, and a sub-c cell. I have never flow the plane without it, so I don't know what difference it made in the way it flies.

However, I have also flown this plane with a camcorder, 3 feet of coax cable, and an additional external camera lens housed in a rubber housing with a mount attached to it. That extra amount of weight in my Rascal Forty was unnoticeable in the way it flew.

I only say this to suggest to Keith that he need no worry much about the weight of a glow driver system in his Rascal Forty. Other planes may have other situations.

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

I agree with Kmot; this plane can gain a bunch of weight and still float, it has a great wing design.

If anything, the plane would tend to flood rather than be hard to prime. The tank is as high as I'd want it to be relative to the carb height. That said, I have never had any problems with flooding or priming. I'm not much of a stick starter, I usually use an electric starter, but holding your finger over the exhaust and flipping the prop will quickly have fuel coming out the muffler, it primes easily.

What Salty said about using a glow driver so he could slow the engine down is sort of what I was getting at about using a 13-8 prop. As much as this plane likes to glide, my thought was that a 13-8 turning at a "normal" closed throttle approach rpm might still produce enough thrust to make slowing down enough to land difficult in no-wind or downwind conditions.

My .56 idled around 2000-2100 and was fine with a 12-6 for landing. This was my favorite "windy day" plane. I'd take off, buzz around, and bring it upwind with the throttle advanced just enough to prevent a stall. With practice, you could do some fairly high alfa flying, nose up about 30 degrees, not quite a Harrier. Another thing it does nicely is a sort of "cobra", where you come upwind at full throttle, chop power to idle and pitch up (use high rates). It really slams on the brakes. I could also get about 1000 feet altitude and cut the engine, and glide for 5 -6 minutes. With the extra power the .62 will provide, and some practice, this plane should do some wild stuff. It will never be a 3-D'er, roll rate is way too slow.

talking about it makes me sorry I sold mine. I wanted a new radio, and sold it and a trainer to buy it. I've thought about getting the 110 size and putting a G-26 in it. I flew one set up that way, it was a blast.

pdansalvish

My Feedback: (23)

Hi,

My wife and I had a Rascal 40 with a Satio 56. We first flew it without an onboard glow, but the engine kept flaming out on low throttle after a while. I then installed an on-board glow driver and never had a problem flaming out. As for the extra 3 oz of weight, the plane never new it was there. We finally, sold it after having for over three years. I then bought another one. I only recommend two changes to the planes. Add some tri stock around the landing gear plate and replace their metal plates with steal. Have fun...

Dave

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

I'd say good ideas......the metal plates I think Dave refers to are the aluminum engine mount plates; you mount them to the rails on the engine, and then they screw on to the wood rails inside the engine bay. They are bad to stress crack and break at the screw holes. I made some out of scrap steel the same size as the aluminum ones, never had another problem. The difference in weight ws unnoticeable.

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

While I was in the process of comepleting my Rascal, I read every thread posted. I took heed of the landing gear reinforcement and did so to mine. If you watch my video, you will see what brutal strength the landing gear has. It got carried by the wind for around 100 yards, bouncing along on the gear and it even bent the aluminum but the wood did not come apart. [sm=thumbup.gif]

kthmarks

Hey guys....thanks for the many contributions and good advice....nothing beats the voice of experience and I certainly value the input.

I'm probably going to take a "wait and see" approach on the glow driver. Probably due to funding more that anything else. Although I certainly like the thought of having the extra insurance that at low idle (on approach) I'm not gonna get a dead stick.

Kmot,
I saw that video before I made my purchase.....I believe I would left the plane in the car and got out the kite on that day. ;o)

As for the build mods, I did replace the aluminum motor mounts with steel and changed out the mounting hardware with 6-32's. As for reinforcing the landing gear, what is recommended? Aluminum angles running fore and aft and thru bolted? I'm not familiar of pdansalvish's "tri-stock" reference.

k

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

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


Wow, you didn't notice the camcorder's weight? That must be one heck of a good model. I ordered one a couple of weeks ago. It's probably sitting in the basement/garage/workshop awaiting assembly. I wish I had one of those Saito R3 .90 sized radials for the nose. That would be neat. I guess I'll have to settle for one of my four-stroke singles. Life is good.

I just don't like people relying on crutches, that's all. These engines can be adjusted to run well without idle heat. And we all know that any model flies better the less it weighs. It was not my intention to cause worry. As my one brother says, "Take it easy - like a woodpecker with a headache".


Ed Cregger

pdansalvish

My Feedback: (23)

Keith,

What I mean by tri-stock, is go to your local hobby shop and purchase a strip of 1/4 triangle balsa. Cut two pieces the width of the plane and glue to the front and back edge of the landing gear plate on the inside. I believe I used 30 minute epoxy to glue the triangle into place and I also spread it around the on the inside of the fuse near the plate. Just a very light coat.

I hope that helps.

Dave

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

Well, anyone who knows my method, knows I take pics of just about everything!

So yeah, I have pics of the landing gear reinforcement. First pic is factory stock landing gear area. Second and third pics are the added "beef", all epoxied into place.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

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


"Per the manual" is good too. I haven't had that many modern models that have had such recommendations. That or I just ignored them. <G>


Ed Cregger