RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT BETTER, STRONGER, AND FASTER!!!  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: rrendon, stevenchao, sbrackets
  Printable Version
       



All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Extreme Speed Prop Planes >> RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT BETTER, STRONGER, AND FASTER!!! Page: <<   < prev  57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT B... - 5/22/2008 5:18:33 AM   
KC36330


 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Enterprise, AL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LUDS96

With regards to the HS 85 glitching with Mircle Y .Flop the arm on the nose wheel and use a straight Y. One less thing to worry about. See post 785 on Page 32.


i used seperate channels for rudder and steering so it had nothing to do with a Y.

(in reply to LUDS96)
       Post #: 1526

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 5/22/2008 7:42:40 AM   
Robert Groves


 

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/1/2007
From: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
Status: offline
Found the rudder issue.
First off chucked the reverser ,hate those things anyway. Never keep on getting to learn how to fly all over again if your controls reverse! Wonder if you could turn your tx around?

Got rid of the reverser by changing the JR servo on the steering for a Futaba. Funny but till yesterday I never knew the direction on Futabas was different from other servos? Guess not knowing stuff like that is just experience, never owned a Futaba.
That got rid of the need for a reverser.
This also solved the problem of the erratic rudder movement as well, the JR servo must have been sending feedback along the lines to the Hitec.

I am using a JR6210, with SPCM rx, I only have 6 channels, so the Y has to go somewhere, whether its ailerons or steering/rudder. I prefer it where is is than to the ailerons.

Rob

(in reply to KC36330)
       Post #: 1527

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 5/26/2008 2:59:38 PM   
Robert Groves


 

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/1/2007
From: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
Status: offline
upgrade from Supertigre 90 to Jett.

On further investigation, I am comparing the ST90 and the Jett mounting distances and prop washer dimensions.

From centre point between the mounting holes, the jett is slightly shorter, 2.2mm.
The mounting holes on the Jett are 20mm apart, compared to the 25mm on the ST.
If I keep the front most mounting hole common between the ST and the Jett, the washer distance works just fine, the Jett actually being a little further away, 3mm, so it will clear the fuse at the front.

I can do this by leaving the rear most engine mount hole small as it is and drilling a new hole 25mm from the front one.
This means I will be able to swop the engine out at anytime. (use the ST90 to maiden the F18 and put the jett in later, and also put the jett into the F16 now.)

I have e-mailed Dub, but has anyone done similar with an OS or the likes?

Thanks

Rob

(in reply to Robert Groves)
       Post #: 1528

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 5/27/2008 2:09:11 AM   
miklos



Posts: 187
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Meriden, CT, USA
Status: offline
Well, I finally got around to maidening my F-16. I must say the results were mixed. I had no trouble geting it to take off with a 12x7 APC prop on my OS 91FX. Would have liked to try a 12x8, but my local hobby shop was out of them. Takes a long roll to build up speed before it rotates up. Once in the air, it needed quite a bit of up trim to get her to fly level. Once I got her trimmed out though, she flew like any other sport plane only faster. About half way through the flight, the engine started to lag so I decided to bring her in and adjust the the needle vavle thinking I had it set too rich since it was puting out a good trail of smoke. The first landing in a good breeze looked like a harrier landing as I throttled back per instructions in this forum and angled the nose up and used throttle to maintian glide slope. On final, she was hovering just above stall speed as she cleared the field bonudary and then settled in for a perfect landing. The rollout was so short, it looked like a carrier landing. After leaing out the engine, I took her up again and she definetly had more speed this time and was really haulin the mail, but again about half way through the flight the engine started loseing power so I set her up again for a quick landing. This time it was a bit rougher than the first and the front steering clevis stripped right out of the steering linkage rod. I quickly replaced that clevis and she was ready to go again afte some more tuneing of the engine. The third flight was just as short as the previous 2 except the landing was perfect with a nice long roll out. However, at the end of the roll out the left rear gear seemed to collapse. When I examined the retract, I noticed that the knuckle pin that the retract swivels on had fallen out. I was unable to locate it, and upon closer investigation I found that the set screw that holds the pin in place had fallen out on the previous flight and that allowed the knuckel pin to vibrate loose and fall out. I had found a set screw in the fuselage after the previous landing when the front steering let go, but assumed it was for the front retract. Apparently it was for the rear retract. Contrary to what has been posted on the forum, the knuckle pin is not just a press fit, but is held in place with a set screw that is impossible to get at to tightem without removeing the air cylander which I had to do to install and tighten the set screw in the failed retract. I cut a length of 3/16 piano wire from an old set of retracts I had lying around and used that in place of the missing knuckle pin and the retract seems to work fine now. As for the engine problems, I removed the engine and fuel tank and found that when I initially installed the fuel line to the carb, I spliced 2 lengths of fuel line together with a piece of metal tubeing and the tubeing had punctured the fuel line allowing air into the line probably causeing my engine problems. I replaced the suspect lines with a single length of tubeing and installed a new clunk in the fuel tank that is suppose to eliminate air from geting into the line. I was anxious to try out these fixes today, but the winds were gusting around 20mph all day and I just didn't want to risk it.
Hopefully I'll get her out later this week try test out these fixes and finally dial up some real speed.

(in reply to Robert Groves)
       Post #: 1529

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 5/27/2008 4:05:51 AM   
LUDS96



Posts: 412
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: East Haven, CT, USA
Status: offline
Good News Miklos you found the air leak! Check Page five of the Instructions they talk of loctite on the set screws. I found out the hard way also!

Attachments
Click to see the file in new window.Attachment.txt

(in reply to miklos)
       Post #: 1530

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 5/27/2008 10:30:27 AM   
miklos



Posts: 187
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Meriden, CT, USA
Status: offline
Yea Luds I buy that, but the set screw for that pin is unaccessable unless you remove the air cylinder on the retract which requires pulling 2 "C" clips. Unless you really look for it, you don't even know the set screw is there. Also, I had one of the screws that holds the sides of the retract on fall out. Found that one in the fuselage after I had already substitued another screw and loctited the whole assembly. I should really yank all the retracts and loctite all the screws, but I dread pulling the retracts as they are screwed in with blind nuts and I had a bch of a time geting my hands in there to hold the blind nights while screwing them in. Looked like a contortionist at the carnival! I will probably bite the bullet though and do it since the last thing I want is for the retracts to fall apart at the field and lose a part I cant easily replace. Otherwise, I love this plane. The wow factor is off the scale.

(in reply to LUDS96)
       Post #: 1531

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 5/27/2008 10:48:38 AM   
Robert Groves


 

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/1/2007
From: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
Status: offline
Mikilos

It gets frustrating to have to do things over, but it is well worthwhile. Especially when you are flying and you see a wheel fall out.
I would bite the bullet and take them out.
The blind nuts should stay in anyway, just be carefull not to push too hard when you put them back in.
Taking the C clips off is easy when you get used to it.
To take a retract out, take it a apart, locktitie all screws including side wall screws and back in takes me 10 min.
I didnt use blind nutes, I just upgrade to lightweight aluminium self tappers and wood glue. Size is 7mm I think....A bit overboard and heavy, but no probems.

Rob

Anyone got any answers for me on the jett mountings at all?
The prop shaft (I think Dub calls it the stud) is loose and i can take it out. How do I tighten it without the engine going through its cycle?

Thanks

Rob

(in reply to miklos)
       Post #: 1532

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 5/27/2008 1:04:06 PM   
KC36330


 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Enterprise, AL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Robert Groves

........How do I tighten it without the engine going through its cycle?



it's not intended to be tight. run it in with your fingers till it touches bottom and then back it out 2 turns, put the back plate / prop / drive washer / nut on and tighten the nut. if the stud is bottomed out in the hole it can cause an offset and give the same results as a bent crank shaft. all of this is in the instructions for the Jett if memory serves me

(in reply to Robert Groves)
       Post #: 1533

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 5/27/2008 1:21:45 PM   
Robert Groves


 

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/1/2007
From: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
Status: offline
hi KC

There is mention of a bend crankshaft in the papers I got and trecification thereof.
Nothing of engine setup on the front end.

what is the purpose of the allen key on the tip?
Also, if it is loose, wont starting it simply spin the shaft out?

Rob

(in reply to KC36330)
       Post #: 1534

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 5/27/2008 4:59:23 PM   
bob27s



Posts: 4740
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Cleveland, OH, USA
Status: offline
The prop stud is suppose to be loose. It is just to install and center the prop.

Thread it all the way in with your fingers, and back out out 2-3 turns.

If it tightens and bottoms out, the stud will tend to align to the threads/angle - and may not end up straight. The prop will thentry to align on to the shaft and that is not what you want. This will sometimes cause a vibration issue that will drive you NUTS trying to isolate. (especially if the prop installs 90deg to the tiny angle, resulting in the prop depitching one blade and uppitching the other.... boy does that shake!)

With the stud a few turns out, the stud floats a little. When you tighten the prop nut the stud will not turn. Many of us out here can attest to that. the prop nut or spinner nut usually has a more generous fit. If the stud just wants to turn, push on one prop blade as you start threading the prop nut just to pre-load the stud a little..... keeps it from turning while you run the nut down far enough to tighten it.

Done properly, the prop aligns on the prop drive washer and will always install square and properly.

When you tighten the prop nut as usual, it will not come loose. It is just as if you had tightened a bolt into open threads or a nut. It is not bottomed out, but it is still secure.

The allen key is just a part of the part. It is a common socket head set screw. They cost about $2. Stock hardware part. Ignore the socket feature. I tend to install the socket end out anyway..... keeps people guessing

Intent of the design is that the crankshaft is never placed at risk in a typical crash. If you have a heavy prop strike or hit something hard enough, the stud will bend. But the actual crankshaft is safe. Just replace the $2 stud instead of the $25-75 crankshaft as you do with other engines.

I will have to check the documentation. I think Dub has a caution in there about not tightening the stud. The only place we address it directly on the website is in the FAQ section (since yes, this question does come up a lot - it is an unusual but bery useful feature) http://www.jettengineering.com/faq.html#faq12

Bob

< Message edited by bob27s -- 5/27/2008 5:11:10 PM >



_____________________________

Bob Brassell
Jett Engineering - Engine Mfg Support Forum Host

(in reply to Robert Groves)
       Post #: 1535

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 5/28/2008 7:43:47 AM   
Robert Groves


 

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/1/2007
From: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
Status: offline
Thanks Bob

That really helps. I have never encountered a floating stud before.

Yes the Allen key socket on the end had me going. I read the FAQ's and the wobble on the stud point confused me even more as I thought there must be a reason for the socket


Rather safe than sorry. Thanks for the great help like always.

Rob

(in reply to bob27s)
       Post #: 1536

RE: THE NEW CERMARK F-16 BUILD IT ... - 6/2/2008 8:21:48 AM   
Robert Groves


 

Posts: 147
Joined: 5/1/2007
From: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
Status: offline
Well...

Ran the Jett 90L in this weekend and WOW, this engine in one powerful animal.

I ran in with an 11x6, a little lighter than the norm as I am @ 5000ft.
Max rpm was 15300, run in rpm was 14500-14700.

Only got half one and a half tanks through her before my mount said no more!
Will finish run in this week.
Is three tanks enough for run in and settle the low before putting her in the F16? I normally mount new engines on my stick before putting them in anything else. I would prefer not to mount on the stick right now as it is primed for my gold prof. this coming weekend.

Rob

(in reply to Robert Groves)