SrTelemaster150

I've been running CDI with glow fuel since 1997 & I have always uesed nylon pushrods for throttle..

Maybe it's overkill, but they are easier to route & why take a chance?

skylark-flier

YUP! Goldenrods for throttle has been my mantra ever since the beginning (1972 for RC) - no problem there. My concern is with the elevator & rudder rods, vs the antenna (72MHz) inside the fuse. I'm thinking of re-routing the antenna to UNDER the fuse, still inside a tube though. It'll put it farther from the rods and add a bit of mass between them (for whatever THAT's worth).

Think I'm going to go with that - under the fuse. At the very least, the antenna will be within sight of the xmtr 90% of the time (or more). Should be good to go.

And, YES, I've heard many people talking the advantages of 2.4GHz - I understand most of it, at least in some limited way. Even my 95-mile-away LHS has been trying to get me to convert all my planes over - "one xmtr, 14 rcvrs". Yeah, great. Anyone got an extra $400-600 so I can do that? Naw, at near 70, my presently-flying planes will stay 72MHz, and glow.

acdii

72mHz FM is prone to getting shot down a lot more then 2.4 gHz. The downside of 2.4 is that they use such short antenna that you have to be careful where you route them in the fuse, and they don't work in carbon fiber, you have to use special RX for those. On the Futaba RX i always set the antenna ends in those plastic tubes that throttle cables use. That way they stay oriented in the proper direction, can't do that with Spectrum though. I have had issues with Spectrum brownouts, and am switching everything over to Futaba. Still have a few planes on the JR. Unless I can find RX that bind quickly to the JR, that $1500 radio will be a nice shelf display.

72 can get interference from vibrating metal rods, but only IF the ends on the rods are also metal. If both ends are plastic, in plastic, or a combination that isolates metal on metal contact, then that pretty much eliminates a chance for interference.

I have been using cable throttle connections on all my planes, including the gas ones, and never had interference issues, mainly because there is no loose metal connections, the servo end is soldered on, the engine side is in a screw down fitting. Since it is in a snug plastic tube, connected to plastic and fiber arms, no chance of metal vibrations causing interference.

I think only one of my planes has metal pushrods, the H9 P-47, 4-40 long ones. The rest all use some form of plastic in plastic.

BigTeeEldorado

Hopefully I didn't screw up my message by trying to be cute. The Stratus is one of my favorite designs I've seen in any forum and I applaud your caution.

Point:
#1 72 is still completely viable and even preferred depending on who you talk to (potentially myself included)(evidence on another thread).

#2 Without getting long winded again, my 2 cents is......why take the chance if there is a viable alternative.

The information I found suggested there is a danger with a long metal pushrod even if it has nylon or other non conductive ends no matter if it is connected to the engine or elevator when you are using 72mhz. I am regurgitating here but the danger has to do with a couple things. Not just the metal on metal noise we all were schooled on many many years ago. Metal obviously catches/ distorts the wave of the RF signal so proximity is relevant but also, new concept for me, vibration of a metal piece produces RF interference that can be in the 72 band and a round rod is a perfect medium, similar to a guitar string. My over active imagination used to wonder if there was a reason for the dowel rod system in many kits and it may have had some basis in this issue.

Don't need to change radios, regardless of cost, evidence of 2.4 growing pains are all over this forum. So they are really not that much more attractive as a whole.. Shute there are so few 72's out there now your probably in better shape using one.

So choir listen up here!!! Just don't take any unnecessary chances with my favorite airplane if you don't have to.

SrTelemaster150

On non scale aircraft, I used to route the antenna out of the top to a rubber band on the top of the vertical stabilizer

On my Dynaflite PT-19 I ran the antenae inside of a Goldenrod outer housing in the bottom of the fuselage & used Goldenrods for pull/pull on the rudder & push/pull on the elevators. 1 for each half.

SrTelemaster150

When I returned to the hobby after 14 years I was shocked that the local club does not exercise frequency pin discipline even though there are a few of us still fling 72Mz.

Their attitude is that they know everyone that is using 72Mz so why bother?

acdii

Same with my club. My friend flies 72 at his house, so unless his brother is flying there is little risk of interference. Even then, they use different freq's. He has a DX6i I gave him, but its too complicated for him. At the field I have yet seen anyone with 72, we all fly 2.4, most of us use the Futaba 14GS.

I guess if the rod is long enough, it "could" vibrate at 72Mhz if everything falls just right. Length of rod, vibrations of engine, etc. Running the antenna parallel with the rods can also contribute to interference in that situation. Running it at an angle away from the rod is the best solution to preventing it.

Pork Chop

My Feedback: (5)

I've never ran steel rods all the way back Skylark, the first few planes I built I used balsa square stock and at one point I used dowels, both with 1/16" metal rod ends of course. In the early 90's I used Gold-n-rods braced in the fuse and never looked back it was such a solid great alternative to using balsa or dowels. Personally I wouldn't want to build a model without Gold-n-rods again! My 2 cents!

spaceworm

FWIW, Most of the trainer and small aerobatic ARFs I have assembled use 1/16 music wire inside of plastic tube for pushrods. Sometimes they are fitted with metal clevisis, mostly fitted with plastic ones. Invariably the horns on the control surfaces are plastic, except for the throttle at the engine. I usually run my 72MHz antenna inside a plastic tube along the inside bottom of the fuse., as far from the metal pushrods as possible. I am careful not to ever have metal to metal clevis to horn connections. I have never experienced radio failure or interference using these setups.

skylark-flier

Absolutely! Most of my oldest planes originally had antennas out the top or side, rubber banded to the vertical stab. All except two (my DeBolt Champ (1967-era) and CG Gentle Lady (1972-era)) have been re-routed to interior, inside the goldenrod housing.

No problem, none at all. Hey guys, I'm taking notes here on ALL the points of view. Like I said originally, I know about planes (more or less - in the "hobby" sense) but I know nothing about radios except for what I've heard from much smarter people than me, over 50 years. Y'er right too - 72MHz is so little-used now, I'm probably better off using it than I was years ago.

Your note is actually reasonably close to my own "flying" situation. I'm the only RC flier in the county so other xmtrs on 72MHz really isn't a problem - although I do an interference/range check before every flying session (old habit). Only once or twice a year do I fly with others - mostly with VRCS functions.

Now, THAT'S A THOUGHT! I've never heard of a rcvr & antenna mounted in the aileron servo area and running out the wing, might just be what I need here. Might be a bit of a pain, connecting 3 other channels instead of 1 when I assemble at the field, but might be worth it too. Thoughts? Anyone?

Me neither - this is the first plane I've ever even considered running straight steel rods in. ALL others are either dowels with metal ends or Goldenrods. Neither (except for the Stratus, which was dowels with metal ends - just not heavy enough) method has ever let me down before.

Every plane I've ever flown has had metal clevis's to plastic control horns with no problems before. Antenna through plastic tubing - CHECK! Metal to metal clevis/horn - - THAT's the situation with the Stratus. The elevator horn is actually one of my MANY old C/L horn-rod connections - which is what was called for in the instructions, and originally supplied with the kit. This plane was scratch built from plans though. I think I'll exchange the metal clevis there for a plastic one, just for the sake of caution.

Hey guys, don't stop with the ideas, experience, cautions, etc!!!!! When she originally went down I was firmly convinced I was the victim of a bad radio - but the "autopsy" proved otherwise. It was a not-strong-enough-elevator-control-rod, definitely. I'm learning here, as much and as fast as I can. Don't want to have to re-assemble her yet again.

Just thinking ... I originally ran a build thread for the Stratus. I'm wondering if I should resurrect it for the rebuild. It's at http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/kit-building-121/11613589-sig-stratus-rc4-long-slow-plans-build.html

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

I have primarily used plastic rods inside tubes with a few exceptions. I still used the braided cable for the throttle with a ball link at the carb. On the SIG Cub I used a pull-pull system from the kit for the rudder and the Fokker DR1 will have pull-pull systems for both rudder and elevator. The only drawbck to Golden rods and the like is the plastic is temerature sensitive and excessive heat or cold can change the length.

acdii

Anytime I can change to a pull pull rudder, I do. I just feel it is a much tighter method for controlling it.

On putting the RX in the wing, you could go to Radio Shack and get a serial connector pair, and wire it up so you only have one connection. You only need one positive and one negative pinout, and the rest for signaling. I picked up a pair a while back and haven't used it yet, saving it for one of my big projects to make a plug in wing, where it literally plugs in when you assemble it, no leads hanging out to get pinched or misconnected. You can connect up to 7 servos with one connection.

So, been waiting patiently, but getting eager to see it, the Rascal 168, hope it comes out soon. I think I finally decided what engine to use, my DA 100 with a tri blade prop.

Captcrunch44

Well Iam nobody but i have used Music wire for pushrods for 20 years and never had any radio frequency issues my problem is I fly to long to slow. On 72 and I still use 72. Like they say so few use it anymore u don't run into the frequency problem anymore.

Captcrunch44

Now for a question i hope to get a lot response. I am going to get a rascal 168 and iam wondering how big and which engine would be the best fit.

spaceworm

There is a long discussion on the 168 rascal and engine for it in the Club Saito site here on RCU. Go over and check it out. Search for recent acdii postings. I seems he was going to go with a DA 100, but he may be having second thoughts about a plane that big. Good luck

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Here is a link http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/glow...aito-1285.html you want page 1285 around post # 32106 and going down.


Mike

acdii

It calls for a 50-65CC gas engine, but I hate 2 stroke gas. Saito guys set me straight on 4 stroke twins and what wouldn't work. Only reason I am having second thoughts is the cost. I have a couple planes I rarely fly because they are either boring, and not boring holes, just boring, or they have quirks that I just don't wish to deal with. I have a 4*120 that has very little air time, mainly because it is a PITA to land on a short runway, and it has a quirky DLE20. I have a H9 Twin Otter that looks good, but is a rather boring plane in the air, its very scale like flying and not a plane you can toss around and do stunts with.

I think I need to see what a Rascal can actually do to ease my mind on that big of an expense.

SrTelemaster150

Did you CLICK THE LINK I posted on the Club Saito forum?

If the Rascal 168 is anything like the Rascal 110 it sounds like just the airplane you are looking for. Aerobatic capable yet docile to land, especially with flaps.

You really need to watch this on YT with full screen. That's why I posted the link above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wZ0x5w2430

acdii

Just got a chance to. and watched the 168 video too. Looks like there will be plenty of swing room for a 28x10 then. They flew it with an Eflite 360 which is equal to a 360 2 stroke glow. Flies up to 40 lbs. It was off the ground in no time. So the DA 100 would really put this in the air quickly and fly it quite well.

SrTelemaster150

If you're going to put the DA-100 on it I would add some wing struts if I were you.

Pork Chop

My Feedback: (5)

Have you experienced a need to readjust because of temp changes? I've never noticed that here in northern California and it can get quite hot

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Well, Oklahoma has been known to have violent temperature changes from time to time. Back in 2011 Nowata, OK had a 100 degree change in a one week period. On November 11th 2012 Oklahoma City had a high of 83 and a low of 17 degrees making for a 66 degree change. when you get large temperature changes you do see some variance in the length of golden rods. You file it in the back of your mind, and when you experience a variance in trim well that is why the computerized transmitters have them little buttons near the sticks. It like 20 mph crosswinds you get use to it.

soarrich

My Feedback: (98)

I used to fly sailplanes in competition, trim is everything, yes you would notice the plane was out of trim. For sport flying you just retrim. It's like sealing all you aileron, rudder, elevators gaps, you don't have to do it, but the plane is more precise and has less drag if you do.

SrTelemaster150

And metal rods aren't?

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

I think there is difference in the degree of deviation between Golden Rods and metal. Whichever way you go you are going to see a change with a large change in temperature. For that matter you see changes in humidity affect the wood and plans in a kit, how many times have you seen a recommendation to give a new kit time to adapter to area where you build before starting? SIG would warn you paper plans can be affected in their kit manuals and I'm sure others did as well.