Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
09-30-2010, 03:28 PM
#477
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
Chris
I was not ready yet,
I was engineer armamts and ejection seats in the Dutch airforce so I was thinking of a ejection system of the belly pan in case of fire.
Because when you can remove the canopy you can remove the belly pan, or not?
See pictures, Curare?
Cees
I was not ready yet,
I was engineer armamts and ejection seats in the Dutch airforce so I was thinking of a ejection system of the belly pan in case of fire.
Because when you can remove the canopy you can remove the belly pan, or not?
See pictures, Curare?
Cees
09-30-2010, 03:31 PM
#478
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fenton,
MI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
Well, Cees....
I did a modern pattern plane just exactly that way. It was a Dream 110 and I did put the batteries in the pipe tunel. For some reason, I was thinking these classic pattern planes were done back when you guys let the pipe hang out in the air. Thanks for the link. I'll give it a look.
Wiz
I did a modern pattern plane just exactly that way. It was a Dream 110 and I did put the batteries in the pipe tunel. For some reason, I was thinking these classic pattern planes were done back when you guys let the pipe hang out in the air. Thanks for the link. I'll give it a look.
Wiz
ORIGINAL: Taurus Flyer
Mike,
Take a look in our collection and say "Thank you casniffer":
http://www.trentonrcflyers.com/pattern/patterna.htm
I think about radio and servo's in top of fuselage and battery pack in belly pan cooled down by diffuser cooling,
Example "Atlanta, Atlas, Aurora"
Cees
Mike,
Take a look in our collection and say "Thank you casniffer":
http://www.trentonrcflyers.com/pattern/patterna.htm
I think about radio and servo's in top of fuselage and battery pack in belly pan cooled down by diffuser cooling,
Example "Atlanta, Atlas, Aurora"
Cees
09-30-2010, 03:37 PM
#479
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
My vote is for the Aurora, plans are available, laser cut short kit available, even the FG belly pan and canopy. Definitely doable, like Cees says.
“I think about radio and servo's in top of fuselage and battery pack in belly pan cooled down by diffuser cooling,”
This was the plane I was considering doing e-power for, well really the Atlanta, These two planes are so close, but cost of motor and batteries turned me off, especially since I have no experience with electric flight.
Definitely a good choice since the layout lends itself for this application.
This thread is way off Now!
09-30-2010, 03:57 PM
#481
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fenton,
MI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
I was drawn to the looks of the Atlanta. So where does one get these items for the Aurora?
No. I won't be doing a Taurus. I think it's a little older looking than what I want.
No. I won't be doing a Taurus. I think it's a little older looking than what I want.
09-30-2010, 04:04 PM
#482
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
Mike,'thanks for not using a Taurus.
I did give some example of A, there is also B, C, D, ........
Have fun, I cannot help you about items, for that you have to live in the country of Indi 500 we do Formula one..
Cees
I did give some example of A, there is also B, C, D, ........
Have fun, I cannot help you about items, for that you have to live in the country of Indi 500 we do Formula one..
Cees
09-30-2010, 04:17 PM
#483
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
ORIGINAL: Mike Wiz
I was drawn to the looks of the Atlanta. So where does one get these items for the Aurora?
No. I won't be doing a Taurus. I think it's a little older looking than what I want.
I was drawn to the looks of the Atlanta. So where does one get these items for the Aurora?
No. I won't be doing a Taurus. I think it's a little older looking than what I want.
I think this thread took a beating today !
09-30-2010, 05:05 PM
#485
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
ORIGINAL: rcguy!
Hey! This IS a thread about the H9 P7 ARF right?
Dave "on topic" Rigotti
Hey! This IS a thread about the H9 P7 ARF right?
Dave "on topic" Rigotti
Yeah, with a Daylong Detour !
Now Back to the H9 P7 ARF
Now Back to the H9 P7 ARF
10-02-2010, 12:15 PM
#487
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rennerod, GERMANY
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
I have put a tri-gear set of Robart 510 spring down on the scale.
Weight is around 13.5 oz without servo for the valves, legs uncut. The 2 mains legs are 3/16, NLG is 5/32.
Weight is around 13.5 oz without servo for the valves, legs uncut. The 2 mains legs are 3/16, NLG is 5/32.
10-02-2010, 08:29 PM
#488
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
ORIGINAL: Mike Wiz
I know, I know.... It's suppose to be a re-creation of a glow powered classic but I don't wanna fly a glow model. I like my new clean electric power better. With that said, here is my first attempt at sizing an electric power system for it. I think it's needs a little tweeking. I'm only getting a little over 4.5 minutes of full throttle per charge. Maybe go with a little larger prop, a little slower motor next run through the calcs. Anyone else contemplating an electric powered P7?
I know, I know.... It's suppose to be a re-creation of a glow powered classic but I don't wanna fly a glow model. I like my new clean electric power better. With that said, here is my first attempt at sizing an electric power system for it. I think it's needs a little tweeking. I'm only getting a little over 4.5 minutes of full throttle per charge. Maybe go with a little larger prop, a little slower motor next run through the calcs. Anyone else contemplating an electric powered P7?
Try contacting www.SkySharkRC.com - Mike has lots of experience with large electrics and might be able to suggest a good place to start. He's a great guy.
Andy
10-02-2010, 09:08 PM
#489
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
ORIGINAL: Mike Wiz
I just picked a wood classic pattern plane kit that 1) was available and 2) that I thought I could modify for a battery hatch while building it.
Do you have a recomendation of a kit that fits your description?
I just picked a wood classic pattern plane kit that 1) was available and 2) that I thought I could modify for a battery hatch while building it.
Do you have a recomendation of a kit that fits your description?
ORIGINAL: Taurus Flyer
Mike,
Why Tiporare?
I would look for a mid winger, batterypac in the belly pan.
Maybe fixed in the belly pan and have more of them.
Cees
Mike,
Why Tiporare?
I would look for a mid winger, batterypac in the belly pan.
Maybe fixed in the belly pan and have more of them.
Cees
as it turns out, building an electric Tiporare is a very viable option in classic pattern. The motivation for the reduced scale models advertised on Don's (Eureka's) page, was, in part, to be able to build a wood fuse that lent itself to power of any sort. Because electric motors are rather compact compared to glow engines, it is pretty easy to bolt an electric motor to the firewall. The primary issues with the classics is to have 1) enough clearance near the nose ring for the rotating can (larger than a drive washer), and 2) a way to get the motor and battery cooled.
I built a little Tipo (the smallest) as an electric and the canopy section of the model where the slanted wood sheeting is applied was made removable. It provided plenty of room to allow the battery to be installed and removed behind the FW. I basically made a long tray from FW to the former at the wing TE where the battery, esc, servos and receiver are all mounted. Actually, for the little guy it ended up being more practical to use two trays but on a larger 60 or 120 size model, a single tray might do the trick nicely.
In short, the Tipo is a great classic design that lends itself nicely for electric conversion - the larger the easier. I'm still hoping to scratch build a 6' span 120 sized version once day.
Here's the link to the Pico build thread if you're interested in seeing how the canopy solution worked out:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8858351/tm.htm
David.
10-02-2010, 11:05 PM
#490
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fenton,
MI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
David,
Your little Tipo project is the perfect inspiration for me. That's exactly what I'm going to build but in the .60 size.
Thanks for posting that info!
Wiz
Your little Tipo project is the perfect inspiration for me. That's exactly what I'm going to build but in the .60 size.
Thanks for posting that info!
Wiz
10-03-2010, 01:18 AM
#491
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
Gents,
Just my two cents,
Mid winger,
My suggestion to use a mid winger is based on the idea to locate the mass in the fuselage that way the vertical and logitudinal location of heavy parts in the fuselage is near the centre. This will be when you can have radio and servo’s in top and battery pack and electronic speed drive in the bottom and light tail section.
Dividing the equipment (mass) in the mid winger this way the result can be you can adjust the dihedral as designed and near neutral. You will have a indifferent flight behavior in longitudinal direction.
Low winger,
The low winger was a compromise, you did need the room inside for the bulky radio and servos and you could not divide this system easy. You did have to pay for that with more drag and aerodynamic complexity of the a-symmetrical shape.
That’s why the mid winger are of later date. Modern materials also make it easy to make a mid winger simple by divide the wing in two parts. (The Simla was one of the first mid wingers designed and flown by Ed Kazmirksi to fly pattern 1965 and with adjustable dihedral!)
In the low winger we always try to place the mass as low as possible.
Because we are talking about pattern flying you have to adjust the right dihedral and with the mass on top in the fuselage related to the wing the dihedral of the low winger probably has to be more as normal, so that is a point of attention.
Modelers often make a wing with less dihedral as designed, combined with top located massa can reduce the capabilities/properties for pattern flying.
I never read a real pattern flight report of that, slow roll, 4 point, knife edge, low speed handling.
Mike, if you are interested in speed and not pattern, the mid-winger normally has less drag but you are free to go.
Cees
Just my two cents,
Mid winger,
My suggestion to use a mid winger is based on the idea to locate the mass in the fuselage that way the vertical and logitudinal location of heavy parts in the fuselage is near the centre. This will be when you can have radio and servo’s in top and battery pack and electronic speed drive in the bottom and light tail section.
Dividing the equipment (mass) in the mid winger this way the result can be you can adjust the dihedral as designed and near neutral. You will have a indifferent flight behavior in longitudinal direction.
Low winger,
The low winger was a compromise, you did need the room inside for the bulky radio and servos and you could not divide this system easy. You did have to pay for that with more drag and aerodynamic complexity of the a-symmetrical shape.
That’s why the mid winger are of later date. Modern materials also make it easy to make a mid winger simple by divide the wing in two parts. (The Simla was one of the first mid wingers designed and flown by Ed Kazmirksi to fly pattern 1965 and with adjustable dihedral!)
In the low winger we always try to place the mass as low as possible.
Because we are talking about pattern flying you have to adjust the right dihedral and with the mass on top in the fuselage related to the wing the dihedral of the low winger probably has to be more as normal, so that is a point of attention.
Modelers often make a wing with less dihedral as designed, combined with top located massa can reduce the capabilities/properties for pattern flying.
I never read a real pattern flight report of that, slow roll, 4 point, knife edge, low speed handling.
Mike, if you are interested in speed and not pattern, the mid-winger normally has less drag but you are free to go.
Cees
10-03-2010, 06:18 AM
#492
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
ORIGINAL: Taurus Flyer
Gents,
Just my two cents,
Mid winger,
My suggestion to use a mid winger is based on the idea to locate the mass in the fuselage that way the vertical and logitudinal location of heavy parts in the fuselage is near the centre. This will be when you can have radio and servo’s in top and battery pack and electronic speed drive in the bottom and light tail section.
Dividing the equipment (mass) in the mid winger this way the result can be you can adjust the dihedral as designed and near neutral. You will have a indifferent flight behavior in longitudinal direction.
Low winger,
The low winger was a compromise, you did need the room inside for the bulky radio and servos and you could not divide this system easy. You did have to pay for that with more drag and aerodynamic complexity of the a-symmetrical shape.
That’s why the mid winger are of later date. Modern materials also make it easy to make a mid winger simple by divide the wing in two parts. (The Simla was one of the first mid wingers designed and flown by Ed Kazmirksi to fly pattern 1965 and with adjustable dihedral!)
In the low winger we always try to place the mass as low as possible.
Because we are talking about pattern flying you have to adjust the right dihedral and with the mass on top in the fuselage related to the wing the dihedral of the low winger probably has to be more as normal, so that is a point of attention.
Modelers often make a wing with less dihedral as designed, combined with top located massa can reduce the capabilities/properties for pattern flying.
I never read a real pattern flight report of that, slow roll, 4 point, knife edge, low speed handling.
Mike, if you are interested in speed and not pattern, the mid-winger normally has less drag but you are free to go.
Cees
Gents,
Just my two cents,
Mid winger,
My suggestion to use a mid winger is based on the idea to locate the mass in the fuselage that way the vertical and logitudinal location of heavy parts in the fuselage is near the centre. This will be when you can have radio and servo’s in top and battery pack and electronic speed drive in the bottom and light tail section.
Dividing the equipment (mass) in the mid winger this way the result can be you can adjust the dihedral as designed and near neutral. You will have a indifferent flight behavior in longitudinal direction.
Low winger,
The low winger was a compromise, you did need the room inside for the bulky radio and servos and you could not divide this system easy. You did have to pay for that with more drag and aerodynamic complexity of the a-symmetrical shape.
That’s why the mid winger are of later date. Modern materials also make it easy to make a mid winger simple by divide the wing in two parts. (The Simla was one of the first mid wingers designed and flown by Ed Kazmirksi to fly pattern 1965 and with adjustable dihedral!)
In the low winger we always try to place the mass as low as possible.
Because we are talking about pattern flying you have to adjust the right dihedral and with the mass on top in the fuselage related to the wing the dihedral of the low winger probably has to be more as normal, so that is a point of attention.
Modelers often make a wing with less dihedral as designed, combined with top located massa can reduce the capabilities/properties for pattern flying.
I never read a real pattern flight report of that, slow roll, 4 point, knife edge, low speed handling.
Mike, if you are interested in speed and not pattern, the mid-winger normally has less drag but you are free to go.
Cees
Dave
10-03-2010, 08:14 AM
#493
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fenton,
MI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
I wouldn't call a little thread drift about other pattern planes clearly off topic but apperently people here do. With that in mind, I've started a new thread to continue that line of discussion.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10044141/tm.htm
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10044141/tm.htm
10-13-2010, 09:30 AM
#494
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alabaster,
AL
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
Got a SPA win with the new Phoenix 7 this past weekend. It was the only one there, but many pilots said they had theirs at home getting ready for 2011.
I am still getting used to the plane, but it is rock solid. The Evo 60nx with high performance muffler works well together. An 11x6 prop and 15% fuel is all it takes to get enough power for unlimited vertical.
I also test piloted the durability of the plane when one landing was a little too slow and went in hard. Minor scrapes and re-adjustment of the landing gear and it flew the next two rounds.
Most of the season was flown with a Utter Kaos, but I just had to try one contest with the Phoenix 7. The Kaos is retired, 2011 is with the Phoenix.
I am still getting used to the plane, but it is rock solid. The Evo 60nx with high performance muffler works well together. An 11x6 prop and 15% fuel is all it takes to get enough power for unlimited vertical.
I also test piloted the durability of the plane when one landing was a little too slow and went in hard. Minor scrapes and re-adjustment of the landing gear and it flew the next two rounds.
Most of the season was flown with a Utter Kaos, but I just had to try one contest with the Phoenix 7. The Kaos is retired, 2011 is with the Phoenix.
10-13-2010, 01:34 PM
#496
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lenox Township, Michigan
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
CONGRATS on the win !!
I haven't started assembling my Phoenix, and still haven't decided on a power package. Most likely it will be the .60NX, but it's the muffler/tuned pipe setup that has me worried. I didn't really want to use a tuned pipe because of the added complexity. I was looking back at all of the tuned pipe setups I've used over the years. From what I remember, I believe every tuned pipe setup I've tried has eventually either burnt, broke or fallen off in the woods.[:'(]
I noticed in one of your pictures you are using the blue colored Jett style (Evo) muffler. When you get the chance, would it be possible for you, one of your friends, or any subscriber of this thread to run a db sound check on a .60NX equipped with the blue colored Evo Jett style muffler setup ?
The reason I ask ? I put together a Lanier Predator pylon racer 6-7 years ago. It's powered with a Jett .50 and matching Jett muffler. Really fast, but also really loud !
I quit flying it because of the complaints (both clubs I belong to have db regulations.........a current "fact of life"). Now it spends most of its time parked in the hanger. I sneak it out maybe once a year, but I still get a lot of complaints.
I don't want to spend my bucks on the EVO muffler and then find out I wont be able to meet club db requirements.
Thanks in advance,
Joe M.
I haven't started assembling my Phoenix, and still haven't decided on a power package. Most likely it will be the .60NX, but it's the muffler/tuned pipe setup that has me worried. I didn't really want to use a tuned pipe because of the added complexity. I was looking back at all of the tuned pipe setups I've used over the years. From what I remember, I believe every tuned pipe setup I've tried has eventually either burnt, broke or fallen off in the woods.[:'(]
I noticed in one of your pictures you are using the blue colored Jett style (Evo) muffler. When you get the chance, would it be possible for you, one of your friends, or any subscriber of this thread to run a db sound check on a .60NX equipped with the blue colored Evo Jett style muffler setup ?
The reason I ask ? I put together a Lanier Predator pylon racer 6-7 years ago. It's powered with a Jett .50 and matching Jett muffler. Really fast, but also really loud !
I quit flying it because of the complaints (both clubs I belong to have db regulations.........a current "fact of life"). Now it spends most of its time parked in the hanger. I sneak it out maybe once a year, but I still get a lot of complaints.
I don't want to spend my bucks on the EVO muffler and then find out I wont be able to meet club db requirements.
Thanks in advance,
Joe M.
10-13-2010, 04:57 PM
#497
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Jerusalem, ISRAEL
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
Need some advice gents . I'm thinking of installing an OS 91fx with an ultrathrust muffler. With an APC 12x10 it should deliver 12-13k rpm depending on the fuel. I'm already using this combo on few other 60 sized and quite happy with it . How will the Phoenix take it ?
10-14-2010, 07:30 AM
#498
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
After flying mine I would say it would be so over powered it would not be fun to fly. A light case 61 delivers unlimited performance. You are talking about a 7-8 lb total weight airplane and I think you would also run into a very nose heavy situation. In fact this plane would do well on a high performance .46.
JMO
Cheers,
Marty
JMO
Cheers,
Marty
10-17-2010, 09:12 PM
#500
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lenox Township, Michigan
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Scoop! Hangar 9 Phoenix 7...ARF!!!
Hi Guys,
Can anybody help me out on post #495 ?
Apparently, the Jett muffler is a strong performer http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_94..._1/key_/tm.htm
I really didn't want to throw away an additional $60 for the Jett if I can't use it.
Thanks,
Joe M.
Can anybody help me out on post #495 ?
Apparently, the Jett muffler is a strong performer http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_94..._1/key_/tm.htm
I really didn't want to throw away an additional $60 for the Jett if I can't use it.
Thanks,
Joe M.