Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Beginners
Reload this Page >

Which is easier/ better?

Notices
Beginners Beginners in RC start here for help.

Which is easier/ better?

Old 08-03-2018, 04:22 AM
  #26  
Sprintracing82
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

That's great news right now. I do t have to buy an different engine. I got the rx plugged in last night and all controls working properly. Next is to get engine running.
I believe this planes original owner was a pro as all the wood inside plane is painted yellow. I got it from an idiot that never flew it. Got it covered in grass by taxing in his yard. I got it cleaned up last night.

what do I do with rx antenna wire? It has two Velcro patches for rx box and what else? Could someone post a pic of the inside fuselage so I can see if I've got it right.

thanks every one for the help
Old 08-03-2018, 04:24 AM
  #27  
Sprintracing82
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Oh and do these things need a air filter?? I was going to hobby shop today to get a prop wanted to know if I need a filter as well.
Old 08-03-2018, 05:10 AM
  #28  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

No filter needed. Your afore mentioned idiot probably could have used one if all he was going to do was taxi around in the yard. But as Hydro Junkie mentioned, you want to make sure the engine is cleaned up good. A stray grain of sand might do some damage.
Old 08-03-2018, 05:55 AM
  #29  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

If the guy you got if from was a fool, I'd definitely have the engine checked out BEFORE trying to start it. It he didn't use after run oil of some sort, you may have an engine with bad bearings, scratched up cylinder walls or...........
As far as a prop, IIRC, you can use an 8X6, 9X5 or 9X6. I know my engine has a 9X6 on it and it has plenty of power to pull a 20 sized plane around.
Old 08-03-2018, 08:11 AM
  #30  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Not to hijack your thread, Sprintracing, but hey, Hydro, I didn`t know there was such thing as a Kadet Jr. That would be perfect for the MDS .18 I`ve had new in a box forever. I should download the plans and have that be my first scratch venture.
Old 08-03-2018, 10:51 AM
  #31  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

The Kadet Jr was a slightly smaller version of the MKII that is no longer in production. It has a 48" span so, if you have or can get plans for the MKII, have them shrunk down to 84% and you can build from the plans though you will need to find landing gear of the appropriate size
Old 08-03-2018, 06:20 PM
  #32  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

Yes, that's a great engine for a PT20. More than is needed for sure, but a well built and reliable engine for sure. And yes, the PT series are all good trainers. But you still need an instructor.
Old 08-04-2018, 08:30 AM
  #33  
Sprintracing82
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I got it fired up last night after cleaning. Has more compression then I would of thought. Glad I left prop off. Needs some adjustment. But main issue was not getting fuel from tank. I'm going to tank apart and check out. Runs good for the few secs it runs.
how do I fix rear tail fin? It's kind of wobbly and loose.
Old 08-04-2018, 07:02 PM
  #34  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

You started the engine without a prop? Never do that. The engine will easily over rev and destroy itself.

It's pretty much standard procedure to replumb the tank on an older plane. For that matter, I do it every other year on my planes.

As for the tail fin, is it the whole vertical stabilizer? That's usually a broken glue joint or actual broken wood. You'll need to see the break to decide the best method of fixing it. That might mean taking covering off. Working epoxy completely into the joint and then making sure it's all pressed tightly together while it cures should fix it.
Old 08-05-2018, 08:30 AM
  #35  
r ward
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I believe the tail fin is just glued to the top of the fuselage on that pane. if wobbly it might be that the covering is the only thing holding it on and upright. that's always a weak spot. I can't count how many wobbly fins I've seen on planes of this design.
a good fix, is to cut the covering at the fuse/fin joint and add a small basswood vertical spar along the entire trailing edge of the fin that extends down along the end of the fuselage. this will strengthen the attachment and alignment between fuselage and fin without adding much weight. then, re-hinge the rudder off that spar. I do that to all my vert. stab mountings. you'll have to readjust your rudder center afterwards, but the should be plenty of adjustment in the linkage to compensate for that spar. make the spar 1/4 inch by what ever thickness the end of the fuselage is and use epoxy to re-glue the new fin assembly to the fuselage.
and as mentioned,....Never,....run an engine without a prop mounted. you are lucky you still have an engine !.

Last edited by r ward; 08-05-2018 at 08:32 AM.
Old 08-05-2018, 06:20 PM
  #36  
Sprintracing82
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I don't think I hurt the engine. It ran for 0.25 secs. I didn't rev it up. I'm not stupid.
Old 08-05-2018, 07:56 PM
  #37  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

I often put tri stock on those vertical stabilizers when a plane needs recovering. Gluing a flat plate stab to a flat fuselage top is really bad structural design. The joint is only as strong as the grain of the balsa sheeting, which ain't very. A much better design is to have it sit down into the structure, glued to a plywood former or bulkhead.
Old 08-06-2018, 05:38 PM
  #38  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Triangle balsa stock is a good idea. When I built the Sig LT40 I heeded the recommendation in the instructions too add on the tail where the horizontal and vertical stabs meet. When you trim back the covering, look carefully for any fuel oil contamination that may seeped into the wood. Back in the old days the fix for this was good old K2R Spot lifter, which would draw out the oil onto the surface powder. I haven`t had to perform this chore in a long time and don`t know if you can even get the stuff any more. Hopefully all your wood is nice and dry.
Old 08-07-2018, 07:03 AM
  #39  
r ward
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I remember that stuff, but as you said, I haven't seen it around for a long time. a good soaking in acetone and a few days drying time in the sun will work pretty good, too. the biggest problem is the reluctance to pull enough covering area because the acetone soak will migrate into quite a large area. the K2R stuff was better for this reason.
Old 08-07-2018, 09:26 AM
  #40  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Pulled it up on the web. Still looks the same. I seem to remember, though, since they banned certain ingredients, it didn`t work quite as well. Kind of like phosphates in laundry detergent.
Old 08-12-2018, 10:45 AM
  #41  
Sprintracing82
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Tail fin is good to go. One question. When holding fingers on dots for CG. Is the fuel tank full or empty, half full.?? I would think if it was full then when flying it becomes empty, plane would then be light in nose.
Old 08-13-2018, 04:05 AM
  #42  
Sprintracing82
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I got my Phoenix rc sim downloaded and played for a little bit. It's easier to fly the other planes on the sim then the trainer. The 40 trainers are harder for me to fly then a 3d 540, or the corsair, or basically any of them. Not to mention controls are wrong o them which is messing with my mind. I think it's just on the trainer, and not on others as some on sim are 3 channel.
Old 08-13-2018, 12:09 PM
  #43  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

The plane should balance or be slightly nose heavy with all components installed with an empty fuel tank. Hopefully there is room to move the battery forward if tail heavy so no additional weight would have to be added to the tail area.
Old 08-14-2018, 03:42 AM
  #44  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

I'll tweak Stickslammer's advice just a bit. Always balance the plane level. You mark the wing where the CG needs to be, then move your battery pack around to get it right. "A little nose heavy" isn't very precise, and will result in a sluggish plane if you marked the CG location in the right place to start with. Every trainer ever designed flies stable at 25%, and most give you a better feel in the air at 26%-27%. So start at 25% since that's definitely safe, and ease it back until the elevator becomes responsive enough on landings that you can flare properly without having to keep power on.
The other benefit to being precise with the CG is that if you have a mishap and need to repair the plane, you won't have to go experimenting again. If you've written down the CG and throw settings, you'll be able to easily restore the plane and get it back in the air with no surprises.
Old 08-17-2018, 08:58 AM
  #45  
r ward
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

the idea about an empty fuel tank when establishing C/G, is that it is assumed a landing will be made with the tank empty (or nearly so) and that is when you want the plane to be the most stable and well balanced. the worst condition is first;...any amount tail heavy and secondly;.... excessively nose heavy. avoid these two conditions at all costs. even a plane that is a few/several ounces heavy from adding balancing weight will still fly decently with only marginal power compared to an unbalanced one.
Old 08-21-2018, 11:16 AM
  #46  
Lee Taylor
 
Lee Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Charleston , South Carolina
Posts: 391
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by patgene920
Generally no, depends on the damage. Building a kit will teach you all the tricks, plus it's very rewarding. Bigger is usually better for training, and get someone to buddy with while training. The DX4 is perfect for that plane.
Gene... What a beautiful trainer. Great job!

Such a weird hobby. We make em beautiful and then tear them up

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.