Prop failures
12-19-2011, 03:10 PM
#76
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rose HIll,
KS
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Prop failures
The 55AX on the Deception was leaned-out for maximum performance, but the 61 FX on the Curare was running rich as it was still being broken-in.
12-19-2011, 03:55 PM
#78
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rose HIll,
KS
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Prop failures
The canopy that you did, on the Deception stayed on. It was the canopy on the Curare that departed. It was held on by a strong magnet and by two of those plastic snaps.
I wanted to keep the outside clean and avoid screws. I didn't account for severe vibration.
But yes, the canopy in the pic of the Deception is the one that you did. It looks great, probably the best looking part of the aircraft.
I wanted to keep the outside clean and avoid screws. I didn't account for severe vibration.
But yes, the canopy in the pic of the Deception is the one that you did. It looks great, probably the best looking part of the aircraft.
12-19-2011, 04:46 PM
#79
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Knoxville,
TN
Posts: 1,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Prop failures
Glad the canopy made it ! sorry to hear about the bad luck with the props.... I only use APC..
scott anderson
CPA#2
www.classicpatternassociation.com
scott anderson
CPA#2
www.classicpatternassociation.com
12-19-2011, 06:33 PM
#81
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
RE: Prop failures
ORIGINAL: eddieC
I think that's one-too-many zeroes on that headspeed ! [X(]
I think that's one-too-many zeroes on that headspeed ! [X(]
I was just trying to imagine a heli with rotors turning 19K rpm... and I'm no heli flyer...
David.
12-20-2011, 02:18 PM
#85
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mesa,
AZ
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Prop failures
ORIGINAL: KLXMASTER14
Save the MA props for stirring paint. They have no place on a classic pattern aircraft, just like cheap chinese tires have no place on a Ferrari.
Save the MA props for stirring paint. They have no place on a classic pattern aircraft, just like cheap chinese tires have no place on a Ferrari.
P.S. Nice Curare!
Eric
12-20-2011, 03:41 PM
#86
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rose HIll,
KS
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Prop failures
ORIGINAL: KLXMASTER14
Save the MA props for stirring paint. They have no place on a classic pattern aircraft, just like cheap chinese tires have no place on a Ferrari.
Save the MA props for stirring paint. They have no place on a classic pattern aircraft, just like cheap chinese tires have no place on a Ferrari.
If you feel that Classic Pattern is some sort of exclusive club and only the people with the right equipment are "in", then you are welcome to your opinion. I obviously don't share it. I'm doing this because I like the way these planes look and fly, and it makes me a better pilot to fly these maneuvers. I'm not competing and probably never will. If it will work, and it's safe, and I can get it at the lhs then that's what I will choose. I'm not looking for that last 10 percent as an advantage.
I'll admit that I like to show up at the flying field with a scratch (plans or short kit) built pattern ship because it sets me apart. I'm just not interested in having everything exactly right. I'll leave that to the purists. I like to see these aircraft and I can surely appreciate them, it's just not for me.
12-20-2011, 05:21 PM
#87
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Prop failures
jmb:
I don't think anything was meant as far as an 'exclusive club'.
I really think the OP simply exceeded the 15K limit for the MA 11' prop he was running. Not a crime, but it shows how not everything in our hobby is 'plug-and-play'', where you can bolt on any component and have it work 100% of the time. Modern 2-stroke engines produce more power and rpm than earlier ones, and the MA prop is probably not up to the task. In his case, MA has an 11.5" Formula 1 prop that may load the engine enough and still have adequate ground clearance. Me, I'd get bigger wheels and run a 12" prop that will handle the max rpm the engine is capable of.
One thing I have noticed is how little folks pay attention to the limitations of their equipment: engine and prop maximum speeds in nitro and gas, ESC, battery, motor and prop limits for electrics. Some of the small (under 6") props for electrics are capable of near 40K rpm, and in some applications their limits can still be exceeded.
The car guys are probably the worst offenders (sorry). Someone will post the same, 'I smoked my motor/ESC/battery' thread nearly every day and, when asked how many amps they're pulling, they don't know because [X(] they don't have a wattmeter. IMO, a wattmeter is required for anyone who has anything above Radio Shack-type RC equipment.
We don't have to be tech geeks (tho it helps), but we need to know and respect the limits of our equipment.
I like to see these aircraft and I can surely appreciate them, it's just not for me.
I really think the OP simply exceeded the 15K limit for the MA 11' prop he was running. Not a crime, but it shows how not everything in our hobby is 'plug-and-play'', where you can bolt on any component and have it work 100% of the time. Modern 2-stroke engines produce more power and rpm than earlier ones, and the MA prop is probably not up to the task. In his case, MA has an 11.5" Formula 1 prop that may load the engine enough and still have adequate ground clearance. Me, I'd get bigger wheels and run a 12" prop that will handle the max rpm the engine is capable of.
One thing I have noticed is how little folks pay attention to the limitations of their equipment: engine and prop maximum speeds in nitro and gas, ESC, battery, motor and prop limits for electrics. Some of the small (under 6") props for electrics are capable of near 40K rpm, and in some applications their limits can still be exceeded.
The car guys are probably the worst offenders (sorry). Someone will post the same, 'I smoked my motor/ESC/battery' thread nearly every day and, when asked how many amps they're pulling, they don't know because [X(] they don't have a wattmeter. IMO, a wattmeter is required for anyone who has anything above Radio Shack-type RC equipment.
We don't have to be tech geeks (tho it helps), but we need to know and respect the limits of our equipment.
12-20-2011, 05:32 PM
#88
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rose HIll,
KS
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Prop failures
I agree 100% that I exceeded the 15K limit in the case of the Deception.
On the Curare, I don't think I did. I think it must have been a combination of the other factors discussed.
edit: I certainly would have, as soon as I had gotten the the aircraft "wrung-out", but I didn't.
On the Curare, I don't think I did. I think it must have been a combination of the other factors discussed.
edit: I certainly would have, as soon as I had gotten the the aircraft "wrung-out", but I didn't.
12-21-2011, 07:34 AM
#89
RE: Prop failures
ORIGINAL: jmb52760
If you mean this from a performance, safety, and structural integrity standpoint, then I see your point and I agree.
If you feel that Classic Pattern is some sort of exclusive club and only the people with the right equipment are ''in'', then you are welcome to your opinion. I obviously don't share it. I'm doing this because I like the way these planes look and fly, and it makes me a better pilot to fly these maneuvers. I'm not competing and probably never will. If it will work, and it's safe, and I can get it at the lhs then that's what I will choose. I'm not looking for that last 10 percent as an advantage.
I'll admit that I like to show up at the flying field with a scratch (plans or short kit) built pattern ship because it sets me apart. I'm just not interested in having everything exactly right. I'll leave that to the purists. I like to see these aircraft and I can surely appreciate them, it's just not for me.
ORIGINAL: KLXMASTER14
Save the MA props for stirring paint. They have no place on a classic pattern aircraft, just like cheap chinese tires have no place on a Ferrari.
Save the MA props for stirring paint. They have no place on a classic pattern aircraft, just like cheap chinese tires have no place on a Ferrari.
If you feel that Classic Pattern is some sort of exclusive club and only the people with the right equipment are ''in'', then you are welcome to your opinion. I obviously don't share it. I'm doing this because I like the way these planes look and fly, and it makes me a better pilot to fly these maneuvers. I'm not competing and probably never will. If it will work, and it's safe, and I can get it at the lhs then that's what I will choose. I'm not looking for that last 10 percent as an advantage.
I'll admit that I like to show up at the flying field with a scratch (plans or short kit) built pattern ship because it sets me apart. I'm just not interested in having everything exactly right. I'll leave that to the purists. I like to see these aircraft and I can surely appreciate them, it's just not for me.
