Hey all you Q-tee lovers.  
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: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> "1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes >> Hey all you Q-tee lovers.
Page: [1]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/26/2008 12:54:56 AM   
tewitt1949


 

Posts: 292
Joined: 5/17/2007
From: sparta, MI, USA
Status: offline
Hi All. My son in law and I fly q-tee's quit a bit but would like quitier and with a throttle. We would like to put an OS-15 on one. We realize that we would have to enlarge or blow up the plans, but we don't know how much. 10%? We kind of compared the wing and fuse to the little extra as far as size. Many have been using a OS 15 size motor on the extra and the Q-tee wouldn't have to be a whole lot bigger. It appears the fuse has to be about 5 inches longer and the wing isn't any longer but it is does have a larger cord (front to rear).

I have a Norvel .074 on a Q-tee and its a nice flier, super slow or somwhat fast, it still flies great.

Whats your thoughts? Would it be worth trying it? What changes would you recommand?

Thanks Terry
       Post #: 1

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/26/2008 3:03:17 AM   
digital_trucker



Posts: 1277
Joined: 2/4/2006
From: Dorr, MI, USA
Status: online 		I'd enlarge it another 75%, or even double the size. Remember the Q-Tee is actually designed for an .049 reedie. The one I have is a rocket with an AP .061.

_____________________________

I feel I can speak for 90% of humanity when I say 'durrrr'
Skype digital_trucker

(in reply to tewitt1949)
       Post #: 2

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/26/2008 7:09:47 AM   
combatpigg



Posts: 9788
Joined: 11/22/2003
From: arlington, WA, USA
Status: online 		Terry, a 40"x8" wing will give similar performance to your .074 powered Q-Tee. Make the fuselage length proportional to that and you're in business. With a cabane mount, it should be pretty easy to dial in the CG, just leave the runners extra long until you get it nailed.

_____________________________

Led Zeppelin is NOT "old fogie" music.

(in reply to digital_trucker)
       Post #: 3

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/26/2008 3:06:40 PM   
tewitt1949


 

Posts: 292
Joined: 5/17/2007
From: sparta, MI, USA
Status: offline
CP. I think your right on with those sizes. I think the little extra has about a 36 inch wing but only deeper. I hope the 40" X 8" would work good as I really don't want a plane that is any larger than that. Its amazing how good/stable my q-tee flies with the .074. Its super slow. It'll fly around very stable at idle about at the same speed as when you give it a toss.

I'll see if we get any other comments or thoughts.

(in reply to combatpigg)
       Post #: 4

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/26/2008 4:13:42 PM   
hfenn


 

Posts: 547
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: BARNWELL, SC, USA
Status: offline 		If you want to tone down the noise you could run a diesel.

(in reply to tewitt1949)
       Post #: 5

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/27/2008 2:27:11 AM   
Icleanh2o


 

Posts: 15
Joined: 4/16/2006
From: Kinston, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Ran a Davis Diesel conversion on my first Q-Tee back in 1978, great little plane, wonderful sound, great smell, and funnier than H-ll. You should have seen the faces of my friends when I started it without a battery!

Icleanh2o

< Message edited by Icleanh2o -- 5/27/2008 2:28:36 AM >

(in reply to hfenn)
       Post #: 6

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/27/2008 2:45:28 AM   
BMatthews



Posts: 8943
Joined: 10/4/2002
From: Burnaby, BC, CANADA
Status: offline 		If you stayed faithful to the lightweight airframe and are after a slower in close and personal sort of flying then I think blowing it up to even 46 to 48 inches would be entirely acceptable. If you're after a smaller and faster model then the QTee really isn't the model for the job anyway. I'd say that anywhere from 430 to 450 sq inches of wing area and up to around 2.5 lbs would lend it that "fast powered glider" sort of performance of the smaller one.


_____________________________

Bruce-
Proudly wasting balsa since 1965.

Free Flighters go that extra mile........

(in reply to Icleanh2o)
       Post #: 7

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/27/2008 3:22:31 AM   
tewitt1949


 

Posts: 292
Joined: 5/17/2007
From: sparta, MI, USA
Status: offline
I'm not really looking for a rocket, but it would be ok if it was over powered to get me out of trouble if needed. I'll build it light as possable. We like flying slow and low manuvering around different obsticials, up over bushes and dirt piles etc. The reason going to the os-max .15 is there arn't many other engines out there that run as good for the price. Its not really 1/2a, but small reliable motors with a throttle are hard to come by now days. I'm not real good at determining wing size etc, but I'd guess the more wing surface the slower it would fly. Is that correct thinking?

(in reply to BMatthews)
       Post #: 8

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/27/2008 4:18:13 AM   
digital_trucker



Posts: 1277
Joined: 2/4/2006
From: Dorr, MI, USA
Status: online 		Check out this link, lots of good info. Stay to the high side of the wing area range and you should be pretty close, I think. Other good info on that site too...

http://webpages.charter.net/rcfu/HelpsHints/ModDgn.html

_____________________________

I feel I can speak for 90% of humanity when I say 'durrrr'
Skype digital_trucker

(in reply to tewitt1949)
       Post #: 9

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/27/2008 4:24:04 AM   
build light


 

Posts: 1414
Joined: 11/30/2005
From: Crete, NE, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BMatthews

If you stayed faithful to the lightweight airframe and are after a slower in close and personal sort of flying then I think blowing it up to even 46 to 48 inches would be entirely acceptable. If you're after a smaller and faster model then the QTee really isn't the model for the job anyway. I'd say that anywhere from 430 to 450 sq inches of wing area and up to around 2.5 lbs would lend it that "fast powered glider" sort of performance of the smaller one.


A very good observation Bruce!
Anytime someone asks whether a certain engine would be good on a particular aircraft ...
or if someone says they have lets say a Q-Tee or a Herr Extra or a Simple Series type plane or a Stinger before one justs answers what they have done or seen with theirs One should ask the question:
What kind of performance were you looking for? A slow, in close docile plane with a light wing load type of performance or something more substantial with a minimum ability to have sustained verticle performance. Or lets say the primary concern were with wind penatration (always a plus on most folks agenda, who wants to be grounded by stiff breeze?).
The Q-Tee was never intended for ailerons, outstanding verticle performance or a .15 size engine.
If I am not mistaken this plane and pretty much all of the planes that call for a half A engines should need no more than that which the design was designed for. It was designed for that engine size in mind.

There are exceptions of course. One certainly can gain performance by slipping in a bigger engine but is it always advisable to do so? Could be s different design may be in order. Such as the enlargement of this design so as to take a bigger engine as has been suggested.

Quote:
"I'm not real good at determining wing size etc, but I'd guess the more wing surface the slower it would fly. Is that correct thinking? "

correct in thinking but what your are trying to achieve is a lighter wing loading. This gives "floatability". A heavy wing loading will have a noticeably higher sink rate in the glide.

Robert


< Message edited by build light -- 5/27/2008 4:28:45 AM >


_____________________________

Keep'er light, and she will treat you right!

(in reply to BMatthews)
       Post #: 10

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/27/2008 4:35:08 AM   
tewitt1949


 

Posts: 292
Joined: 5/17/2007
From: sparta, MI, USA
Status: offline
BL. I've heard wing loading before. What determines wing loading? How can one change wing loading?

(in reply to build light)
       Post #: 11

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/27/2008 4:43:59 AM   
mylamo


 

Posts: 365
Joined: 9/19/2003
From: Mission, TX, USA
Status: offline 		What was the wing area rule for .15 pylon? Seems like
a 320 inch wing would be spirited. I know my Mini
Telemaster with 340 sq. is a bit overpowered. It is also
pretty much fun with a .15 MVVS.
Ralph

(in reply to build light)
       Post #: 12

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/27/2008 5:40:04 AM   
chevy43


 

Posts: 1023
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Santa Cruz, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I don't think you would HAVE to enlage it at all. With todays radio gear you could get it to come out the same weight as it was originaly designed for. As I recal that is 18-24 oz.

It would be WAY over powerd though but that is what the throttle is for right? It would probably be a good idea to enlarge it though...

(in reply to mylamo)
       Post #: 13

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/27/2008 6:07:34 AM   
build light


 

Posts: 1414
Joined: 11/30/2005
From: Crete, NE, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chevy43

I don't think you would HAVE to enlage it at all. With todays radio gear you could get it to come out the same weight as it was originaly designed for. As I recal that is 18-24 oz.

It would be WAY over powerd though but that is what the throttle is for right? It would probably be a good idea to enlarge it though...



With todays gear it could be possible to gain the appropriate weight as originally designed but again be overpowered as you have noted. The question is... Is that what was intended by the deaigner? The answer is simply no. Would it work? Yes. The bigger question is:
Is that what you want? Sure I suppose. But remember when originally designed the model was meant for use for a particular engine available at the time.

Quote :
" BL. I've heard wing loading before. What determines wing loading? How can one change wing loading?"

The wing loading is directly proportional to the amount of wing area and lift for a particular weight range.
To increase the wing loading simply add weight to the existing wing area. Or to create a lesser wing loading you make everything lighter for the same area.
By the same token, you can increase the wing area and lift for a certain weight and have a lighter wing loading.

Remember this:
I am not totally against bigger power, as it can be more fun but that the model 's performance may not be as the designer intended. Remember, 09s 10s and .15s have been available before and since such designs as the Q-Tee. The Q-Tee and many others were designed mostly for the cox engines that were in production at the time.
Earlier designs may also included the Testors, OK Cub and other engines that produced less power in comparison to the Cox engines.

Robert
Robert


< Message edited by build light -- 5/27/2008 6:18:20 AM >


_____________________________

Keep'er light, and she will treat you right!

(in reply to chevy43)
       Post #: 14

RE: Hey all you Q-tee lovers. - 5/27/2008 11:22:14 AM   
digital_trucker



Posts: 1277
Joined: 2/4/2006
From: Dorr, MI, USA
Status: online 		Beware overpowering the Q-Tee and flying it beyond it's design! Those cabanes are a weak point.

_____________________________

I feel I can speak for 90% of humanity when I say 'durrrr'
Skype digital_trucker

(in reply to build light)
       Post #: 15

Page:   [1]
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> "1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes >> Hey all you Q-tee lovers.
Page: [1]