Wayne22

My Feedback: (2)

The 54 is aerobatic like pattern ship...actually, very much like a Kaos. I'm pretty sure it would do rolling circles - pilot skill permitting - however, if you flub the manoever, you can't just blast out of it like a prop plane ...no propwash over the tail feathers!

Also you would have to burn a lot of fuel to make up the price difference between an MW-44 and a P60, MW-54, PST, etc......

bobparks2

My Feedback: (1)

No, you do not want half the linear dimensions. Ideally, you want half the weight. If everything in the plane could be scaled, that would be a linear scale factor of the cube root of 2, or about 79% size. (i.e. you could take the R54's 1/8" balsa parts and make them from .1" thick balsa).. and it assumes that all the equipment weights also were half, which unfortunately is not true (the MW44 is well over half the weight of a 54 Mk III once you include all the support equipment).

But something like 75 to 80% scale would be about right.

To have the smaller one have the same visual "feel" as the big one, it wants a somewhat lighter wing loading, but having it feel a bit hotter would be fine, so you could even be able to go down to 70% scale (half the wing area).

Bob

Ron Stahl

My Feedback: (12)

I have been toying with scaling the drawings for a small one say 30% for EDF power and a bigger one 125% myself for P-120 power.

Molar mender

That would be awesome!!! The wing would be bigger than a surf board and would have to be carried on a roof top rack. Cool!!

RH

A10FLYR

My Feedback: (1)

That would be awesome!!! The wing would be bigger than a surf board and would have to be carried on a roof top rack. Cool!!

RH
[/quote]

No problem for me

Molar mender

[/quote]

No problem for me
[/quote]

That is some jet hauler. It reminds me of my younger days although you probably got four/five feet extra on me. I use to carry five airplanes when I went to the flying field, two D/F's (Byron Kfir and Parkenson F-86) and three prop's (Nosen 9' trainer, MIG-21 and Kyosho twin). Now I complain about getting one in and out of the back of my pickup.

Roy

----------------------
Ask me about disposable income; I fly R/C jets.
----------------------

TommyWatson

My Feedback: (1)

Bob,

I think that 82% would be about right. Sensible weight saving and it should have the same wing loading as the R54.
I will find out soon!!!.

82% R54

Wing Span 64"
Length 66"
Approx wing Area 1050 Sq"

A10FLYR

My Feedback: (1)

Molar,

Looks like a mid 70's Ford. I started with a '64 Ecnoline. Then a '76 E-150, then a '90 15 pas club wagon, then that '99 15 pas. wagon. Great, reasonably secure, plane haulers.

GoeKeli

My Feedback: (18)

Tom, your on the deal now mate. That 82% is a good number. 1000 sq and under 5k would be great. Preferably 8lbs for me. This design really grows on me. It looks like an old CL model. If I build one I might look back for a scheme from the past. I loved there look! You guys still have a fire ban?
The 120 version sounds neat too. My, talk about a floater!

Joe

BruceTharpe

My Feedback: (1)

Dean, you want an enlarged R54? I'm surprised you don't want to strap two turbines to the top of the fuselage, A-10 style

Believe me, I've considered reducing and enlarging. It's a nice, solid design that would do well at any size. The problem at my end is time (the lack of it!).

FWIW, I think Bob Parks is right on in his advice, as always.

Molar mender

Dean
It is an early 80's Dodge and after the wife complained about fuel smell, I bought a extended cab long bed P/U with topper. I built a rack out of garage door rails so I could slide planes and large wings (like the Reaction 54) in and out. Wife is now happy and I had more access as well as enough power to pull a 24' camp trailer to go to all the jet meets.

Roy

TommyWatson

My Feedback: (1)

G'Day Joe,

Yes still a total fire ban.

Regards

A10FLYR

My Feedback: (1)

Hey there Bruce, trouble is it wouldn't be QSAA legal even with two turbines (But maybe I could fool 'em) That's it!! I could tell 'em it's an A-9, the one that didn't make it!

There are lots of the larger turbines out there. So I would guess there would somewhat of a market, something to consider. At least maybe marketing just the plans.

A10FLYR

My Feedback: (1)

I knew that
----------------------------------------
After the wife complained about fuel smell, I bought a extended cab long bed P/U with topper. I built a rack out of garage door rails so I could slide planes and large wings (like the Reaction 54) in and out. Wife is now happy and I had more access as well as enough power to pull a 24' camp trailer to go to all the jet meets.
---------------------------------------
But just think of all the excitment you are missing by not driving one of those dangerous vehicles that are just a rollover waiting to happen! I've been closer to rolling my wifes Escort than I have in all my years of driving a van.

Great idea using the garage door rails.

gbjets

Hi Bruce

I'd like to share the method I used to install the leading edge sheeting on my R54.

The first step is to apply medium or thick CA all along the balsa quarter round leading edge and glue the front of the leading edge sheeting, don't force the sheet down on the ribs, leave it at an angle which will best fit the quarter-round. Use masking tape for a better fit but remove it as soon as possible, it will be too hard to remove later.

Spray some Windex ( the one containing ammonia works best ) to the first couple inches of the forward section of the leading edge sheeting and let it soak for a few minutes.

Force the sheet down on the ribs and position it on the spar and using a straight edge, cut it to precisely fit on half the main spar.

Apply carpenter's glue to each rib with an applicator or a small brush, then apply medium or thick CA to the forward half section of the main spar.

Use masking tape to force the sheeting down at each rib while stretching the tape a little for a better contact and if needed use small clamps to close any gaps at the ribs.

You can remove the masking tape within an hour but it would be preferable to let the assembly sit overnight due to the longer cure required for the carpenter's glue.

I hope this will help.

Gaston

bobparks2

My Feedback: (1)

Actually, isnt the QSAA limit for jets 144 inch length plus span or something like that? I do not remember the actual dimension, but I know it was different than for prop monoplanes.

I think the Ziroli Panther just makes it, and the R54 is a LOT bigger than the Panther.

Bob

A10FLYR

My Feedback: (1)

Hey Bob,

I was just joking. I didn't think QSAA was still around. And no, it wouldn't be legal.....it ain't scale!!

Terry Holston

My Feedback: (1)

140 in WS+Length (Jets) for IMAA. doesn't matter if it's scale or not, there.

u2fast

My Feedback: (37)

doing the final rigging. here are a few pics, barry

Ron Stahl

My Feedback: (12)

The Reaction 54 is IMAA qualified just as it is since it is 158 wing span plus length. The QSAA says the plane has to be scale 80" monoplane or smaller if it is 1/4 scale unless they have changed the rules.
I decided to start the scaling process so at 125% it would be 97.5" span and 100" long and will be about 2265 square inches; the smaller one looker better at 38% to give a 30 inch span, 30.4 long with 211 square inches for a wemotec 480 EDF. Updates to follow

Topgun2mo

My Feedback: (45)

Barry, what kind of paint is that in the fuse?

u2fast

My Feedback: (37)

the paint is first gray primer and then fleck stone paint (frome any hardware store). it hides all the seams, wood grains etc, and makes for a good looking interior. you see some of the large aerobatic planes done this way in the cockpit. i test fit everything, pull it back out and paint. reinstall. barry

Topgun2mo

My Feedback: (45)

It looks great Barry. I was thinking of some type of fuel proofing just in case of a fuel leak or spill.

A10FLYR

My Feedback: (1)

That's why they are still around! But QSAA was fun in it's heyday.

rcpete347

My Feedback: (251)

HI all, my 54 is finally finished, it"s balanced a ready to rock, here are some pics.
Rcpete