Richard L.

My Feedback: (24)

YS 110: 27.4 oz with muffler and muffler extension
YS 140: 33.2 oz with muffer and muffler extension

Trapnell

My Feedback: (1)

Richard - I can't say a word about the YS-110 as I haven't flown it. The Saito 1.80 I have will turn a 17-8 APC at 10,600 on coolpower 30% Heli Fuel. Saito's just love that heli fuel.

Frag

Thanks Richard-

In a previous post you said that the Saito 1.80 would really eat up the fuel compared to the YS options. Are we talking huge difference in consumption as in needing a bigger tank than supplied or just somewhat noticably faster fuel use, but manageable?

Also are most of you going to use the supplied tank? I've had some bad leaks using ARF tanks before because they split down the seam at the neck of the tank (due to pressure from the muffler I suppose), spilling fuel all in the plane fuse.

Hey HighSierra, how did the retract setup perform?? The plane looks awesome and the flying site is

Richard L.

My Feedback: (24)

The YS 110 has a pretty good fuel consumption rate. I can usually get 12 minutes out of a 14 oz tank at mostly full throttle. The YS 140 drinks between 2 and 2.5 oz per minute. I'm not sure about the fuel consumption rate for the Saito 180.

HighSierra

My Feedback: (2)

The 180 sucks down fuel pretty fast too, especially when wide open...probably at about the same rate as the 140 if not a little higher.....I've always been fine with a 20 - 22 oz tank with my 180's with 12 minute planned run time and about a minute reserve at wide open... (but with the Funtana i'm only using a 16oz with over 12 minutes run time and probably over 4 ozs still in the tank..bet you can guess how much throttle it takes to just fly that plane)

I used the stock tank, but probably would get a larger one for the 140 or 180 to drink from.... Also, my stock tank took the YS pressure no problem...I did wrap it in that fiber-filament packaging tape just to make sure... Back whe I had A Raptor, the TT tanks that came with them where pretty strong too, and never had troubles.

My retracts worked flawlessly, I'll probably glue in the plastic wells now and get some of those gear door mounts for the robostruts..

Richard or anyone else, Ya got any other ways to mount the gear doors to Robostrus or just buy the little brackets from Robart?

Vampire

My Feedback: (2)

Congratulations Highserria and thanks for the feedback.

Well I got back home yesterday and I'm looking forward to my maiden on the weekend.

In ref. to balance, w/ my OS-1.60 FX, Brisson Pitts style Muffler, fixed tail wheel, pnuematic retracts, I had no nose weight and came in at 11#-5 oz.

I ended up using Sierra Giant Scale 85 degr. retracts w/ 660- Robo-sturts - 3-1/2" Skylite Sullivan tires.

BTW as a comparrison, the OS-1.60 FX (w/o muffler) weighs in at 33 oz.

BR

rare_bear

My Feedback: (1)

check out what central hobbies sells - tetra tanks. they are especially designed for YS presurized systems as they have a metal clamp that fits around the rubber cap. it won't pop.

they sell various sizes for about 12 bucks each...


http://centralhobbies.com/Fuel/Fueltnk.html

rare_bear

My Feedback: (1)

don,

i hope they start looking into aerodynamic mods. that's something that has always taken a back seat because they are burning up most of their budget on insurance & cylinders. with a little more aerodynamics work, they'll smoke dago with ease (sticking my neck out here - heh heh heh).


what was the first place check for? i know that it was $150k back in 2002.

i'll look for you next year if you hang around the cave on sunday.

rare_bear

My Feedback: (1)

high_sierra,


how does it handle on landings?

is it a floater at 11 1/3 lbs?

or too earely to tell cuz you're playin it safe?

HighSierra

My Feedback: (2)

I just greased it in nice and hot to play it safe, so I can't say for certain. I did ditch the springs on the tail wheel and setup a solid pull-pull so it wouldn't be so squirly on the ground.

I ment to put this up earlier as an idea for how to route the exhaust..Worked good for me.

hattend

My Feedback: (20)

I'm usually at the Cave, or at the pit position, 5 or 6 times a day during the races. I go to the Bear Fansponsor BBQ at the Cave on Friday, also. I even won a door prize this year (Rare Bear wind sock). Sharon really wanted one and my wife said if she won, she'd give hers to Sharon. But, unfortunately for Sharon, my wife wouldn't give mine up.

I heard something like $165K for first place...I can't remember who told me that but it's probably pretty close. I'm hoping the Bear Team can rustle up a few more sponsors (they just had to prove they were still competitive) so they can start working on the airfoil mods and aerodynamic clean up work. If they can get it done, the Dago Team can fugedaboutit (neener neener neener! LOL)

I can't wait a year, but I guess I have to...see you next time!

Don

hattend

My Feedback: (20)

Nice setup...you're giving me some ideas. Thanks!

Richard L.

My Feedback: (24)

Looking good. How come you decided to have the main wheels face in instead of out like the full size? Is the wing too thin to house the offset fork on the strut?

rare_bear

My Feedback: (1)

i prolly saw you this time, just didn't make the connection - as i hung around the cave quite a bit on sat & sun.

it was funny when everyone was out on the flightline and bear was in it's cave pumping in the n2o... dago sent two girls on over to see what the heck was going on. turns out they never needed the oxidizer boost )

yeah, i hope they can pick up a $$ sponsor. too bad american (john works for them i believe??) won't help out - maybe john being an american airlines pilot is still too far down on the totem pole. i work for boeing, but i'm way way way down on the totem pole.


could you imagine if they had some bucks like dago? a good thing to do would to digitize the planes surface in 3-d and then computer model the aerodynamics using all these hi-tek software tools out now. i bet there's a few dozen hot spots of turbulence - especiallty at the wingtips.

dajensen

Is anyone powering this bird with the recommended size engine? I plan to use an OS .91 FX and now you all have me wondering if it will even fly this bird.... So inquiring minds are interested in opinons. BTW I will be using a 14X7 master airscrew 3 blade.

Richard L.

My Feedback: (24)

OS .91FX is too light, and MA 14x7 3-blade is too big of a prop for that engine. BTW, 14x7 3-blade is more suitable for a 120 four stroke.

dajensen

Thr instructions for the OS .91 Specifically state in prop sizes that the 14X7 3 blade is a suitable prop size. As to the engine being too light is this really a concern as I tend to use spinner weights under the spinner to counter ballance and plan a 1800 MA battery in the box.

Richard L.

My Feedback: (24)

Believe me, you do not want to load up the engine too much. A .91 four stroke can't even swing a 14x7 3-blade. How do you expect a .91 two stroke to be able to swing it? You can always try it to see what kind of rpm you get. If it's below 11K, then the prop is too big.

rare_bear

My Feedback: (1)

you can download this free software to make propeller calculations that are matched up with your engine spec...


http://freespace.virgin.net/barry.ho...e/goodies.html

you need to know your engines horsepower rating and rated RPM at that horsepower

(example, a YS110 is roughly rated at 2.2 HP at around 9300rpm)

so you enter the prop pitch and diameter, kind (APC for example), and number of blades into the calculator
then enter the RPM...

move the RPM figure around until you match the engine horsepower.

then decide how to modify the propeller size and repeat.



it does get you into the proper ballpark to match the prop with engine torque.

dajensen

Thanx Bear, Almost all of my other engines are 4 -strokes This kit called for a .91 as the top end so that is what I bought. I have had one other Thunder tiger ARF and was completely discussed with its quality and performance. This Kit seemed to be a depatrure from their past practices so that is why I thought I would give TT another chance. My major concern was OVER powering this bird which is why I opted for TT's requirements. I am now wondering if this bird will even fly on thier recommendation.

rare_bear

My Feedback: (1)

i have a thunder tiger staudacher 60 sized kit that i just recently completed.

so just because i'm going to buy the thunder tiger rare bear doesn't mean that i am a thunder tiger loyalist. i just happen to like the outward appearance of the kits.


the staudacher needed quite a bit of reinforcement between the firewall, fusalage, and landing gear. i added about 6-8 oz of wood support. in fact, the firewall could have been pulled out of the fusalage with a few pounds of pulling force. i power this bird with a YS110 and it's been fine. had i not added reinforcement, the engine would have flew out of the firewall on first takeoff! it weights 8 1/2 pounds and the 110's a good match. with a 16x6, it has unlimited vertical and can pull out of a tailslide with authority.


anyway, i'll be looking at the rare bear kit closely - maybe you're right, that it is a departure (a turn up) in terms of quality.


as long as the wing loading doesn't get too high and you take the nessessary steps to make sure the firewall to fusalage is strong, a YS140 seems perfect for an 11-12 pound airplane such as this.i'd think the 110 would work out well too. i'm partial to 4 strokes because i happen to love the sound and it seems more realistic than a 2-stroker.

Frag

I ordered a Saito 1.80 today so I will be looking to reinforce the entire plane where needed. How about some tri-stock and fiberglassing at the firewall/fuse interface? Also epoxy everywhere the wood internal skeleton meets the fuse? Just not too much to add too much weight..and some reinforcement at the retract mounts..other than that what else?

As far as the Saito 1.80 goes I am hoping to mount it entirely (except muffler) in the cowl using the kit provided mount and predrilled holes or inverted if a cutout for the head is required. I just don't like inverted though cause it seems to be a hassle...I guess I'll just have to wait and see how it fits.

MANFRED

My Feedback: (27)

Race time.

hattend

My Feedback: (20)

Post Race Time

Between the first one and the last three...what a difference a year makes...brrrr.

KCCraig

My Feedback: (1)

Hello,
Ive just read all 15 pages of this posting with great interest since I have been extremly interested in this plane after seeing add for it. I too had concern about it being made by Thunder Tiger since I have not been impressed by their products in the past. Glad to hear that maybe quality issues are being addressed. Though landing gear blocks seem to be an issue. Also fuel tank mounting.

Things I would have liked to have seen are: BIGGER, BIGGER, BIGGER. 60" is not big enough to satisfy me. Would have preffered something in the 75" range. Maybe even 90". Also something that bugs me is, NO FLAPS, this plane crys out for flaps. If I were to buy this plane I would have to modify wings for flaps. No easy job.

Also, I have recently started running gas engines in my new planes. I find them to be so much nicer than glow engines to deal with.
I would prefer to run a gas engine in this bird but feel it is probably not big enough for even a small one, such as FPE's 2.4 and to big for a 1.3. Though now that i think about it, may be perfect for a 1.3.

Still have not ruled this bird out of my stable however, so I have these questions.
1: You guys who have flown yours. What about flaps, do you think this plane would benifit from them? Or are they more trouble than
they are worth.
2: Do you think a small gas engine would be suitable for this plane. Such as FPE's 1.3?
3: Why are you all insisting on running the 3-blade prop? 2-blades are much more efficent. Is it because of ground clearence issues?
or just because 3 blade spinner comes with plane and it looks cool? (I like cool too)

Well I look forward to your replies.
Craig