RE: NEW NELSON Q-40

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing >> QM-40 Racing >> RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/19/2007 4:08:38 PM

Dave Shadel

Posts: 5407
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Gardnerville, NV, USA
Status: offline

What do you mean limit? RPM? I've run the current ones at over 30K with no problems. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with wood at that speed.

(in reply to Super Splatter)

Post #: 51

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/19/2007 4:22:31 PM

bl10

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Chatsworth, CA,
Status: offline

Dave:
Most of the Basin guys have added the 3 thou shim. I will try it today if it ever stops raining. Right now its as you sent it 193 and 19. I only have two flights on it (after 1/2 gal break in with UL prop). 1st was about 1K down and plug was colored but still oily. Second was 2K down and plug was barly colered. Both seemed about the same in the air. This thing has an entirely differnt sound in the air. Everyone around here is expecting great things at PHX. I guess time will tell.

See you in PHX.

Barry

(in reply to Super Splatter)

Post #: 52

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/19/2007 4:41:37 PM

bl10

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Chatsworth, CA,
Status: offline

Dave:
When I said I didn't know what the upper RPM limit is I meant what is the best in air RPM? Assuming the current Q40 is somewhere around 26 in the air with the 7.8 or 8.0 prop. If you put a smaller prop on the current engine the plane is slower even though the ground RPM is higher. The conclusion I draw from this is the engine is over its horsepower peak with the small prop. The LS on the other hand seems to develop more horsepower higher up the RPM scale. So I wonder if its better to run say the 7.5 or 7.6 with 26K plus on the ground and somewhere around 29K in the air or the 7.8 or 8.0 with 24.5 ground RPM and 27K in the air. I know structurally the engine will withstand well over 30K.

Barry

(in reply to bl10)

Post #: 53

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/19/2007 5:07:37 PM

Super Splatter

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: , MN, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dave Shadel

What do you mean limit? RPM? I've run the current ones at over 30K with no problems. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with wood at that speed.

I apreciate your opinion, if you say your not comfortable with wood at that level, I'm sold

Maybe this question would be for Fred. I remeber there's a formula somewhere that take the diameter of the prop and the material it's made if for a max RPM, the bigger the prop the slow the max.

What's the max RPM for a 7.4 x whatever APC carbon prop.

(in reply to Dave Shadel)

Post #: 54

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/19/2007 6:12:54 PM

Dave Shadel

Posts: 5407
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Gardnerville, NV, USA
Status: offline

Barry, I'm not sure what the sweet spot is, but I'm sure we will see it this weekend. I would run the biggest prop the engine is happy with and go from there. If I can run an 8 pitch prop at PHX, I will be, but testing thus far suggests that it will slow them down.

(in reply to Super Splatter)

Post #: 55

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/19/2007 9:06:52 PM

Tony Pacini

Posts: 265
Joined: 1/11/2002
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: offline

It looks like most people are shimming the head up on this new engine.

I didn't have the forsight to ask for shims when I ordered mine. (Doh!)

Do extra shims generally come with it?

(in reply to Dave Shadel)

Post #: 56

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/20/2007 1:01:51 AM

Dave Shadel

Posts: 5407
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Gardnerville, NV, USA
Status: offline

Shims provided with new engines.

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 57

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/20/2007 1:24:50 AM

bl10

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Chatsworth, CA,
Status: offline

Tony:
Mine came with two 5 thou head shims installed plus 1, 3 & 8 thou extra shims. The sleeve shims are the same as the old engine.

Barry

(in reply to Dave Shadel)

Post #: 58

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/20/2007 1:32:02 AM

Dave Shadel

Posts: 5407
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Gardnerville, NV, USA
Status: offline

By the way, making a blanket statement about all the engines needing to be shimmed up is an error. It depends on many factors, and you cannot find out until you have run the engine and made the determination as to whether or not it needs to be changed. Every engine is a bit different.

(in reply to bl10)

Post #: 59

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/20/2007 2:49:24 AM

BUDMAN27

Posts: 1116
Joined: 3/28/2006
From: Galveston, TX, USA
Status: offline

I here if they find any jett fuel in this new engine during tech inspection they are going to ban you for life.

Dang I wish Mark Martin would of won that race.

(in reply to HighPlains)

Post #: 60

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/20/2007 9:01:15 AM

Ed Smith

Posts: 2820
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Brantford, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

He should have won the race. NASCAR screwed up again. Any other ttime the caution is out immediately for just a bit of rubber debris on the track. Here there were six cars or more slamming into each other at 170+ mph and NASCAR let the race carry on.

It is rather like our Pylon racing. The rules are applied when it suits somebody.

Ed S

(in reply to BUDMAN27)

Post #: 61

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/20/2007 11:17:43 AM

luv to race

Posts: 465
Joined: 12/10/2002
From: Liquored, FL,
Status: offline

Not to mention Clint Boywer sliding on his roof for a 1000 feet. If someone would of drilled Boywer, because they were racing back to the checkers.. there would be hell to pay for Nascar. Very dangerous situation, I agree with Ed.. the caution should of come out for sure.

I went to the Bud Shootout, and they threw the caution for deris on the front stretch (according to my scanner). The rescue guys drove around looking for something to pick up and found nothing. We didn't see them pick up anything. The Ol' phantom caution to bunch up the field....

(in reply to Ed Smith)

Post #: 62

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/20/2007 2:06:20 PM

Super Splatter

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: , MN, USA
Status: offline

That's entertainment !!!

It's all about the ratings & money

nobody stuck a gun to there head to go out there

Good luck to everyone this weekend !

(in reply to luv to race)

Post #: 63

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/20/2007 2:14:11 PM

diggs_74

Posts: 1268
Joined: 1/20/2004
From: Emerald, WI, USA
Status: offline

I too wish Martin had pulled it off.. By the way, it wasn't Jet fuel in the #55.. Kerosine wouldn't do anything for a gasoline engine.. I think it was a gel substance like a sterno can burner.. They said that's a pretty old trick and has something to do with providing extra O2 to the fuel mixture or something..

_____________________________

Lee LaValley
NMPRA# 33w

(in reply to Super Splatter)

Post #: 64

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/20/2007 11:23:36 PM

burgster

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/19/2005
From: Lockport, NY, USA
Status: offline

throwing the yellow wouldn't have kept boywer from going on his lid. That crash was a result of restrictor plate racing. I think that it was good that they let them finish under the green. it would have been pretty hard to decide at what point the yellow came out and who was ahead. Harvick had passed martin before the yellow would have come out, but then martin passed him back. But rules are rules. They let Benson go below the yellow line to pass Kvapil in the truck race on the last lap and there was over three feet between benson and kvapil. Benson should have finished last of the lead lap. Kvapil tried protecting his position, but he gave him plenty of room and benson should not have gone below the yellow line. Oh well, too bad so sad

Jeff

(in reply to diggs_74)

Post #: 65

RE: NEW NELSON Q-40 - 2/21/2007 1:28:46 AM