Battle Short

My Feedback: (5)

To answer some of the questions asked:

Covering is Ultracote, it is opaque, I am unable to see anything through it. I do not know if the structure is the same as the kit as I do not have a kit built Kadet available to me to compare it to. The wings do not have leading edge sheeting, only has some sheeting at the wing root.

Recommended glow engine is: .40-.46 cu. in. 2-stroke; .40-.54 cu. in. 4-stroke. Electric 500-600 watt motor with 50-75 amp ESC and 3s - 4s 4000-5000mah battery.

Listed Flying weight is 6-6.25 pounds.

Here are the parts included in the kit


Some pics of the fuselage. The windshield/hatch cover is magnetically held in place.


Some pics of the wings. Sheeting on the roots can be seen, as can the lack of sheeting on the leading edges. Also the mounting system, front tabs and nylon screws in the rear. Wings are two-piece with an aluminum tube to connect them together. Also is a pic of wing bottom showing that wing is set up for 2 servo control of ailerons.


Here is the support for the main landing gear. I used some 1/8' plywood I had, doubled the front portion for added strength and because the blind nuts I have are 1/4" long. I cut it slightly large and sanded it for a good fit. Next I marked the location of the blind nuts by making centerlines on both the support and the landing gear I plan to use, aligned the marks and marked the hole centers. Next using my drill press I drilled a pilot hole then the final holes, and attached the blind nuts with 6 minute epoxy. This will be glued to the bottom of the bay shown in the first photo below, then I will carefully drill holes through the bottom of the fuselage. I will post pics of that all when it is done. I included a pic of the landing gear clamped in place to the fuselage.


The main gear axles will be about 1/4" behind leading edge of wing. This is as far forward as I could get it without taking apart some of the glued structure of the fuselage, which is more that I am willing to do at this point. If there is not enough weight on the tailwheel I'll probably just go with the tricycle gear.

Hey, I just figured out how to work with pics in a post , I might have to go fix my post about putting a glow engine in an E-Flite electric cub...

Glenn

Battle Short

My Feedback: (5)

An idea I'm tossing around: Cutting the ailerons in two and adding two more servos. Then I would create a mix controlled by a switch. In normal flight both ailerons on each wing would move together, flip the switch and the inner halves become flaps. I could even have the outer halves move up a couple of degrees to counter a tip-stall (like washout). Has anyone here tried or seen this on a Kadet?

Glenn

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

Well, I see a number of changes in your LT40 ARF since I had mine 10 or so years ago. Magnetic hatch, dual servos for ailerons, two piece wing with wing tube, and a removable cowl rather than cheeks. All seem to be good improvements.
Not sure about the flaps, but I would only do the inner third or so and maybe make them a bit wider. Coupling them with the ailerons probably won't be neccessary as little roll affect is from the inner portion of the ailerons.

skylark-flier

Believe it or not, that's the first ARF I've actually seen before being put together - that's a nice piece of work. Your main landing gear looks just fine - looks to be right under the wing LE, which should be just about perfect.

Battle Short

My Feedback: (5)

Yes it does have a one piece cowl, I forgot to include it in the pics. Think I'm gonna hold off on the flaps, it would delay flying it a couple of days at least to do the work. I can always add them later.

It is a nice ARF, nice workmanship. Covering was tight when I unpacked it, hopefully it'll stay tight.

soarrich

My Feedback: (98)

This is a LT-40 EG, do they still make the LT-40?

Are you making electric or nitro?

spaceworm

Just an idea (not my original) that has saved many a fuselage on my planes: Mount the landing geqr to the fuse mounts with Nylon screws. They will serve the same function as the Nylon screws for wing hold-down' they will shear on a hard landing, instead of ripping out tyhe fuse bottom. Two 1/4--20 screws like your wing hold-downs should work well. More smaller screws also work well. Good luck.

Sincerely, Richard

acdii

No need to cut anything out of your plane to move the gear forward. What I did on my kit built was a 1/4" ply plate epoxied forward of former 1 where the wing is attached. Make it the same width as the landing gear, on mine I used a Dubro nylon one. Then four bolt holes, with T nuts and nylon screws. It puts the gear right where it needs to be, and ground handling is great. On mine if it were further back it would nose over when the tail came up. Since mine is a touch nose heavy it tends to point the nose down a bit on takeoff.

Since you have full access to that area, that will be very easy to mod.

Here is a nice top shot showing the gear location.

soarrich

My Feedback: (98)

acdii is right, he's is the way to do it. Mine is done the same way and it's perfect. The Dubro nylon gear is the best gear made, you'll never damage it, and it has the perfect amount of spring.

Zor

Hi All,

Just read and studied the posted pictures since my post about 'wondering'.

Many thanks for the replies and posted comments and information.

Things I noticed _ _ _ ( in random order ).

The ARF structure is very different than the kit.
Ribs have weight reduction openings; not so in kit.
Elevator use 6 hinges; only 4 in kit.
The fin tabs going into fuselage are much longer than in kit; possibly different fin structure.
The fuselage structure appears quite dfferent then the kit; as seen in the pictures.
If the wings have the same airfoil size then the tube seem to be about 5/8" or 3/4" diameter; the tube wall thickness is not known.
The ailerons appear to be full length of the wings trailing edges and have a very short chord.

A completely different landing gear planned to be used. It appears to me to be flimsy ( weakly mounted ) and not enough forward to allow steeper than normal approach angle of descent; just my feeling.

The main wheels diameter appear to be much smaller; The kit drawings are showing 3 1/4" dia at the noze gear and 3 3/4" dia for the main gears. I will be using 3 1/2" dia low bounce shock absorbing wheels along with the original supplied landing gear with two positions for trigear and tail dragger ( installed per kit drawing ).

I do not see any marked former 1 in the kit drawings.

Plese note that I am not criticizing here; just writing my observations based on the recent postings.

Zor

Zor

Hi acdii,

Looking at your posted picture of two models seen from the top.
The top one is obviously to me the Kadet ( all white and no elevator ) and the landing gear appears to be just about below the CG location. My reference is the furtest back CG location shown on the kit drawings.

Personnally I want to have 10% to 15% of the gross weight on the tail wheel while the model is sitting on the horizontal ground.

I also wonder why the left part of the landing gear is not symmetrical with the right part; perhaps an illusion due to the camera angle of view? It looks like the left wheel is trying to tract outward while the right wheel is parallel to the fuselage axis ( reference line ).

Any comments from you ?

Zor

acdii

Camera angle. That is in my trailer and I took the picture from the door. The landing gear is just forward of the leading edge. I looked to see if I had a picture of it showing the gear in relation to the wing, but all I have is one in shadow next to the 4*.

Zor

acdii,

I feel a bit stupid ( some would say a lot LOL ) not having paid sufficient attention to some picture details.

Now noticing the angle at which we see the fin trailing edge and do not see the leading edge face it becomes quite obvious what the camera angle was. Also the squares on the wing above is a good clue.

Thanks for your kind reply.

Zor

Battle Short

My Feedback: (5)

acdii, if you look at the picture of the fuselage (second row first picture) you can see the part I would need to remove to reinforce the inside of the fuselage. I can, of course, remove the covering on the bottom of the fuselage and glue the reinforcement to the outside but I did not wish to go that route. What you say makes perfect sense, I was kind of wondering how it would act with a full tank of fuel. You have me reconsidering my initial plan-thank you for your input.

Zor,
The overall wing chord is 13", aileron chord is 1 7/8". Ailerons are full length, that is why I was thinking about cutting them and making some flaps.
Tube diameter is 3/4" with wall thickness .042".
Wheels included in kit are all 2 3/4". Wheels in my pic are 3", I have some 3.5" low bounce wheels I plan to use, with a 1.5" tailwheel.

soarrich,
It is the EG, I had not paid any attention to that until you mentioned it. I am going glow, have some OS .46s (AX and FX) that I can use. I also have a Saito .82 that is only a few ounces more I could overpower it with if I decide to.

Thank you to everyone that has given me input on this, I am one of those people that can use all the help he can get!

Glenn

Zor

Hello Glenn ( Battle Short ),

Thanks for the information; more info that shows the ARF is built differently than the kit.
The kit wing chord is 15 1/4 inches.
I was close on the tube dia when I said 5/8" or 3/4" .... LOL

I think it is a good idea of splitting the ailerons and have flaps for experimentation.
I seem to remember someone programming his Tx to make a switch over so that the split can work both ways. With a Tx switch in one position both acts as ailerons and flipping that Tx swith makes the inner sections flaps.

I am still thinking of making the 5 wing bays near the fuselage as flaps and the outer 5 bays as ailerons.
Their chords would be 5 1/8 inches and there would be no big gaps to the rear spars.

As I wrote already my wheels are 3 1/2 inches and in tail dragger mode the tail wheel will be 1 1/2" .

Thanks again,

Zor

soarrich

My Feedback: (98)

Make sure you fuel proof the tank compartment. This is what I did after a tree jumped up and grabbed mine. By sheeting the inside of the tank compartment it made the nose stronger, but it also covered up a lot of wood edges that soak up fuel like a sponge on the ARF.

I'd go with the four-stroke, it just fits the plane better. My last LT-40 I put 13~14 different engines in from a Testor's 35 to a .61 FSR, for a two stroke I liked the LA .46 best, the four stroke I liked best was a Saito .56. Mine now has a OS .70 four stroke, tundra tires and ailerons dropped ~5°, I like the setup a lot! :^).

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Rich, didn't anyone tell you not to feed the trees?! They are like stray dogs, feed them once and you can't get rid of them! Next thing you know they develop a taste for balsa and they start jumping and grabbing every passing airplane!

acdii

I didn't notice that the tank floor extended all the way back to F1. (actually F2 on the plans). On the kit built the tank floor only extends part way back, and that is all open. It is where I placed the battery pack. I dont see any reason why you cant open that up a bit back there. That design is there to act as a battery tray and fuel tank floor. Since you are going glow(BTW I fly mine with an OS 52 FS with an 11x6 APC, and it pulls it along nicely, on a calm day I hover it for a few seconds too), you wont need all that floor area, so if you trim it a bit so you can slip the plywood reinforcement in, it can be split in half and epoxied in, its the thickness you want, then you have room to put the flight pack too, since you most likely will need the extra nose weight to offset the tail wheel and lack of nose wheel.

skylark-flier

Hey Rich - nice "mods" to the front end of your Kadet. Y'know, to a tree, balsa tastes just like chicken.

TomCrump

I think you are right about losing the nose wheel weight. It needs to be compensated for.

I'm not positive, but doesn't the LT-40 build tail heavy, anyway ?

Zor

Consider that the main gears are being moved ahead of the CG and at least partially compensate.

The compensation could possibly be complete depending where they are located.

Zor

TomCrump

Consider that a nose gear is located farther towards the nose, than a main gear, located near the CG.

Also consider that the LT-40 has been known to build tail heavy, even with that nose gear in place.

This would mean that an already tail heavy model would be even more so, with the nose gear removed.

spaceworm

Consider that the main gear, although closer to the cg than the nose gear, is much heavier with the two tires and beefier structure. A matter of mass and moment arms. May just balance out, or at least be close.

Sinmcerely, Richard

Zor

Hello

The following based on the kit dimensioning and 3 1/2 diameter ( 89 mm ) DU-BRO Low Bounce wheels. CAt. No. 350R .

Weight of main landing gears is 257 grams plus the wheel retainer .... let us call it 260 grams
It is 3 inches behind the rear CG limit. We are removing 260 x 3 = 780 gram-inches

The nose is more heavy.

Weight of nose gear is 129 grams plus retainer .... let us call it 132 grams.
It is 12.875 inches in front of the rear CG limit.

We are removing 132 x 12.875 = 1699.50 gram-inches

The tail becomes heavy.

The moment arm is now tail heavy by 1699.50 - 780 = 919.50 gram-inches

919.50 / 260 = 3.54 inches in front of the CG or just about under the leading edge of the wings.

That is just about at the C former on the kit drawings.

Anyone can verify my claim ( figuration ).

Zor

mike109

G'day

In part answer to some of your questions -

I used to have an ARF Kadet LT 40. As an aside, I currently have three Kadets Senior (1 electric built as per plan), one with a Saito 62 built as per plan and one with a Laser 70 four stroke with half the plan dihedral and large ailerons as per the ARF version which I used to own.

The ARF was first flown with a Saito 62. Plenty of power but quite able to plod around if required. I then sold it to a friend and it was powered by an Enya 40 (two stroke) which was perfect if a bit noisy. He crashed it. And amazingly lost the engine. I rebuilt the nose and we re-powered it with an OS LA 46 which suited it perfectly.

The ARF was covered in some sort of iron on covering which was quite tough and capable of being heat tightened (unlike some ARFs). The covering job was good. The larger Senior ARF was great to look at but the covering was cut too close to the corners and I was constantly patching it where it would pull away from edges.

My Seniors are all covered in Solatex iron on cloth. The oldest Senior is now nearly 10 years old and going strong. The youngest (electric) one is also covered in Solatex. The modified one has a mixture of covering on the wing - mostly Solafilm and its fuse is covered in Solatex.

I recently flew the Aileron Kadet Senior and really enjoyed it. I really like the oldest one and it is my "go to" model when I want a quiet day's flying. I also have a large 60 size Boomerang 60 trainer. Very similar in concept to the modified Senior but MUCH heaver and slightly smaller. It has an OS Alpha 80 for noise and flies well but it needs to fly a lot faster than the Kadets and its small ailerons are useless at anything less than about 70% power. A Split S is a very messy affair as it rolls so slowly. The Kadet is far superior. Slower and more responsive.

AS for flying wires, I have never found them necessary on Kadets. My Four Star 120 (with ASP 180 for lots of noise) has them but my smaller 60 does not.

Cheers

Mike in Gundaroo (Oz)