Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

Firebird JET Trainer: Another Dr Honda budget build.

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

Firebird JET Trainer: Another Dr Honda budget build.

Old 11-17-2016, 01:32 PM
  #26  
alasdair
 
alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 746
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dr Honda
OK... here it is.
According to the manual... the CG is on the tube. The center of the tube, from the leading edge, where it hits the fuse is 5.75" Total chord is 20". SO... if my math is right... it puts it at 28.75%. (?) But like I said... it could probably go back another 0.5" to make the landings better. (but I don't know yet)

Here's a pic of the wing, with the tube in it. That way, you can see where the straight line is. I also put a long ruler on the front, parallel to the tube, so you can get an idea of the tapper. The rear is actually more tapered than the front. (Similar to a Reaction 54)
Thank you.
just so that we all know, the definition of wing sweepback is the angle of sweep of the 25% chord line. That's the line drawn from 25% root chord to 25% tip chord. That's for a simple tapered wing like the Firebird (double taper means something else). If the sweep of the 25% chord line is zero then the wing is defined as straight, not swept.
That means that the LE is swept back a bit, and the TE is swept forward (by 3 'bits').

A quick measure of your photo leads me to believe that the Firebird wing has no sweep. That is handy, because a CG position of x% chord can be measured anywhere (e.g. the root) not necessarily at the mean chord.
25% or even 28% is fairly well forward, to compensate for the long nose.
I will be interested in your assessment of stability when you test fly.

Regarding flutter, I am a worrier. I have experienced it a couple of times. The first time was almost 40 years ago on a Gangster, a popular sport aerobatic model of its time. At the time I dug out my old university notes and textbooks to read up on flutter, and I have mass balanced large fast models since. I devoted 3 or 4 pages of my book 'Basic Aeronautics for Modellers' to flutter, and how to avoid it. Flutter is a speed problem. If flown fast enough almost any aeroplane will have flutter. The trick is to put it off to an unreachable speed.
So my own design jets are all mass balanced. I put lead in the forward projection of each control, best seen on the photo (post #17) on snowy background.

Last edited by alasdair; 11-17-2016 at 01:36 PM.
Old 11-17-2016, 04:09 PM
  #27  
alasdair
 
alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 746
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Dr Honda,
another quick question if you don't mind.
I found instructions on line and steps 11/12 are about an "aluminium heatshield". Is that in your kit? And if so what is it?
Is it self adhesive aluminium tape?
I was wondering about using it on my low winger, but not sure if it is effective.

Anyone else used aluminium tape on such an aircraft???

Oh yes, and the flap movement given is 10mm for T/O and 20mm for landing.
What is that in degrees? Doesn't sound much.
On my JayTee I use 17 degrees for takeoff and about 55 degrees for landing.
Old 11-17-2016, 05:28 PM
  #28  
Dr Honda
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Dr Honda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Latrobe, PA
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

On your assessment of "Sweep"... you are right... there is really no sweep in this wing. There is about a 1:3 taper, so the spar it straight.


Yes... the heat shielding is just aluminum tape. As far as using it on other models... I use it all the time. It's on the belly of my shock Jet... it's on the underside of the elevator on my Falcon... and I use it internal on other models to protect wires, and fiberglass.

I haven't measured the flaps yet. They go down to a point where they start to bind. It's roughly 50 degrees. I'm guessing 15 to 20 degrees for take-off. But once I do a final "Set-up".. I will check the angle of the suggested movement.
Old 11-17-2016, 05:46 PM
  #29  
RCISFUN
My Feedback: (44)
 
RCISFUN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Erie, PA
Posts: 6,859
Received 26 Likes on 23 Posts
Default

Tony
Does this mean you will be flying again, haven't seen you in a while
Old 11-17-2016, 06:17 PM
  #30  
Dr Honda
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Dr Honda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Latrobe, PA
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RCISFUN
Tony
Does this mean you will be flying again, haven't seen you in a while
Yes.

I know this year was tough with work and travel... but I'm trying to get my priorities straight. (LOL)
Old 11-17-2016, 09:01 PM
  #31  
Scott Todd
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Your model of 40 years ago that fluttered had very weak servos compared to today's standard. You probably also used 2-56 rods. I have seen lots of models flutter, including foamy park flyers. Every time it was apparent the linkages were weak/sloppy and the servos were not strong enough.

Full size aircraft textbooks almost always consider stick-free scenarios where the system needs to have a sort of positive stability (mass balance) to prevent flutter. Models are different because the 'stick' is fixed, based on the strength of the servo and linkages.
Old 11-18-2016, 02:34 AM
  #32  
alasdair
 
alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 746
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dr Honda
Yes... the heat shielding is just aluminum tape. As far as using it on other models... I use it all the time. It's on the belly of my shock Jet... it's on the underside of the elevator on my Falcon... and I use it internal on other models to protect wires, and fiberglass.

I haven't measured the flaps yet. They go down to a point where they start to bind. It's roughly 50 degrees. I'm guessing 15 to 20 degrees for take-off. But once I do a final "Set-up".. I will check the angle of the suggested movement.
50 degrees sounds right, I suspect you will need that much drag to land with idle thrust. The 20mm in the instructions did not sound right.

Good to know that you and others have used aluminium tape. I have previously used a ceramic sheet (it's like felt, about 1.5 mm thick).

On the subject of heat, have any of you used plastic fittings (clevises, ball joints, control horns) on the elevators? I have always used steel clevises onto steel control horns, just in case they melt. The film on the tailplane has never melted so I am probably over cautious.
Old 11-18-2016, 03:02 AM
  #33  
alasdair
 
alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 746
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Scott Todd
Your model of 40 years ago that fluttered had very weak servos compared to today's standard. You probably also used 2-56 rods. I have seen lots of models flutter, including foamy park flyers. Every time it was apparent the linkages were weak/sloppy and the servos were not strong enough.

Full size aircraft textbooks almost always consider stick-free scenarios where the system needs to have a sort of positive stability (mass balance) to prevent flutter. Models are different because the 'stick' is fixed, based on the strength of the servo and linkages.
Hi Scott,
way back then, servos were a major expense and it was normal to drive both ailerons from one servo using torque rods (10 swg wire). I mass balanced and the problem vanished. Or rather, I rebuilt the model with mass balanced ailerons but same torque rods and weak servo. Now that servos are cheap, one per aileron makes sense and helps avoid flutter but it can still happen. Attempting to use excess servo torque to contain flutter is not the answer. Stiff controls and stiff airframe are the way to go.


It is always wrong to generalise, but all full size aircraft since about the 1930s have had mass balanced controls. They move the hinge line back, into the control surface, and add weights well forward.

Until, powered controls come along. Each surface has hydraulic rams (usually 3) fixed directly to the surface, which is made of sheet metal (or composite now) so there is very little flex in the control surface and zero flex in the drive. So the need for mass balance has gone away. I think the old B737 rudders still had mass balance as they had cable reversion in case of hydraulic failure. (I was an airline pilot before I retired, never on 737 but I flew L1011, 747, 757, 767, HS Trident and a couple of turbo props).

Most fully composite jet models are stiff enough to avoid flutter, but on my own designs I generally put a carbon sleeve over wire pushrods, and because they are driven at the inboard end I usually mass balance at the outboard end, just in case.

BTW, that 'stick fixed vs stick free' thing is a reference to longitudinal static stability. There is a shift of the Neutral Point stick free (I forget which way) but models are always regarded as stick fixed as you say.

Last edited by alasdair; 11-18-2016 at 03:06 AM.
Old 11-18-2016, 06:22 AM
  #34  
Scott Todd
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I deleted a similar post earlier because I really don't want to discuss this but I'll add a bit more.

"It is always wrong to generalize". No its not. This is a trainer forum where people without advanced technical Aerodynamic experience come to learn stuff. Big words and complicated terms chase the average reader away.

Way back then..." I built models with three servos per wing. I understood the physics and never mass balanced anything. Not even a thousand models later. Today one servo can get the job done in most cases but I still use two on IMAC airplanes.

I "generalized" the stick free comment for the casual reader. Technically the calculations are done in all three axis, not just the longitudinal one.

I have designed, built, and flown full-size airplanes. I have test flown several new experimental airplanes designed by others. I have consulted on several full-size airplane designs including Race planes. I have degrees in Electronics, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering. While not as relevant, I'm also a current CFI. Most full size airplanes I have worked on ARE mass balanced.

I worked a crash investigation with the NTSB where an airplane came apart in flight killing two people (that I knew) because it was repainted and the controls were not re-balanced.

While we often tell the average person the physics are the same, they scale differently (avoiding big technical words). Models are just different. We have NEVER seen a full size airplane bounce down the runway, flip over, nose in hard enough to brake a prop, etc., and fly again in a matter of minutes.

You should do what works for you but 99% of the rest of the world uses good servos and linkages to prevent problems. On full size airplane, we mass balance or over balance to avoid problems but that's a different forum.

Last edited by Scott Todd; 11-18-2016 at 06:33 AM.
Old 11-18-2016, 09:14 AM
  #35  
alasdair
 
alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 746
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

not getting at you Scott. The "always wrong to generalise" was meant to be a joke (an old recycled one).

You have a wide and interesting experience, particularly the design and test flying of full size aeroplanes, and the crash investigation.

I remember reading about the RAF changing from rudder stripes to fin flash, and moving roundels off the ailerons, about the mid 1930s.
Old 11-18-2016, 10:30 PM
  #36  
Boomerang1
 
Boomerang1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,960
Received 20 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Hey Doc, good to see a review on a smaller, simpler, less expensive jet. Not everyone can (or indeed want) to
build large, expensive turbine models.

Some people get hung up on the fact these are 'turbine models' but in reality they are just normal model aircraft
which have to endure higher speed than normal if the pilot chooses to fly them that way albeit with an engine with no vibration. Higher speed means the control system must be slop free & with adequate power to handle those speeds. As with anything out of the ordinary the marketers get on the bandwagon with all manner of expensive accessories which probably aren't needed.

Any aircraft (model or full size) has structural limitations affecting the way it's flown, how many model pilots think about that when they are flying?
Old 11-19-2016, 05:25 AM
  #37  
Dr Honda
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Dr Honda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Latrobe, PA
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Boomerang: Yep... I agree. I've been flying RC since the late 70's... and when turbines came around in the 90's... they were crazy expensive. AND because of that, there was almost an elitist feel to them. But now, since we have gone through a few generations of engines... and good used one can be bought relitivally cheap... there's no reason that the average modeler can't enjoy them. And, as you mentioned... there's no vibration, so in some ways, the model doesn't even need to be as strong.

I've built 7 jets since getting my waiver, and I don't think I have more than $2k into any one of them. (excluding my Transmitter) My actual "Trainer" jet was built for less than $1100. I got a very good used AMT for $700, and a Falcon 120 from NitroPlanes (on sale) for $90 !!!! Even the servos I put into it were ones I had sitting around.

AND... you hit the nail on the head about "Jumping on the band wagon with expensive accessories." The majority of the jets I've seen had carbon radio trays, digital sequencers, supper high end digital servos, digital air pressure gauges, and overly complicated power distribution/regulator systems. For safety, I run 2 Rx bat's... but I just used LiFe batteries, into a regular switch, and into the Rx. Most of the time, I build my own bubble tank, because it can be done for $10. (opposed to $50) and the majority of my servos are analog. Digital are nice, but they aren't needed. AND, they just pull more power, and add expense. You just need to make sure you have enough torque.

To me... I just like the sound and smell of a turbine.

Now... this jet is still $550 if you order one from General, but add a good used 60 sized engine... and it would still be around $1500. (assuming you have servos and other equipment on the shelf)


Now....

I test ran my Wren 44 in the airframe... and as expected, it fired up without any issues. (even from a dry system) It spun up... heard the propane "Pop"... and I watched the fuel go up the hose. And, as soon as it hit the engine.... the noise came up, and the HDT said... "Running". I've always been amazed on how quick this little engine goes from a start command, to running.

Anyway... There won't be a flight report for a while on this for a while. Yesterday was perfect, and hit the 70's (not normal for Nov in Pitt) but today it's getting cold... starting to rain... and will change to snow. And, tomorrow will be snowing. And, next weekend will be starting some Christmas things with the Family. I'll post when I can get a flight. (sorry)

Last edited by Dr Honda; 11-19-2016 at 05:45 AM.
Old 11-19-2016, 10:42 AM
  #38  
alasdair
 
alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 746
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

I hope you get a good break in the weather.
Having read the book I was looking forward to the movie.
Old 11-19-2016, 11:33 AM
  #39  
Boomerang1
 
Boomerang1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,960
Received 20 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

I test ran my Wren 44 in the airframe... and as expected, it fired up without any issues. (even from a dry system) It spun up... heard the propane "Pop"... and I watched the fuel go up the hose. And, as soon as it hit the engine.... the noise came up, and the HDT said... "Running". I've always been amazed on how quick this little engine goes from a start command, to running.
Once again an example of 'trends' making our hobby more expensive. Propane start is superior in so many ways,

especially how quick they start and how simple they are to fix if things go wrong with all the separate components exposed where you can get to them.

My 44 is an old manual start job, still going fine in a Bobcat 50. That's one plane I fly carefully reminding myself it's a turbine conversion of a $150 Chinese glow powered model!
Old 11-20-2016, 06:01 AM
  #40  
Dr Honda
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Dr Honda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Latrobe, PA
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Boomerang1
...........

My 44 is an old manual start job, still going fine in a Bobcat 50. That's one plane I fly carefully reminding myself it's a turbine conversion of a $150 Chinese glow powered model!

Yep. My falcon is the same way. I I think the manual said flying weight is 10 lbs, with a glow engine. With my "Iron Lung" (AMT) and an half gallon of fuel... I'm sitting at 21 lbs at take-off !! But, I'm always amazed how well those planes fly. (The entire line of them)

As far as speed... it's more fun to see how slow you can fly it. I'm guessing at full flap, I can maintain 20 mph without falling out of the sky. (LOL)


Anyway... as projected, the weather sucks today. Pitt weather is Nutz. Friday was perfect and 73... today is 30, and snowing. With, 25 mph winds.
Old 11-20-2016, 11:13 AM
  #41  
alasdair
 
alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 746
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Shame about your weather. I hoped you might get lucky.

I had a flight with my JayTee today, before my club's AGM.
Only one flight today as I broke a hatch catch, and the cloudbase was too low to loop (500 feet at a guess).

My Falcon 120 with a Wren 54 Mk3 came out under 15 lb dry. I built my own glass fibre 2.2 litre fuel tank, so I guess TOW around 18 lb. It flew very well, with no structural issues.
The only mods I made were a dab of extra glue around the fixing points on the booms, and a change to steel bolts.
I flew fairly gently and it held together just fine. Until I hit a fence post trying a touch and go..
Old 11-20-2016, 07:10 PM
  #42  
Scott Todd
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

"I remember reading about the RAF changing from rudder stripes to fin flash, and moving roundels off the ailerons, about the mid 1930s."

Thats cool! My flying buddy from England was in town this weekend for the AZ Jet Rally. He's a retired RAF pilot and now flies the 747 for BA. He built #1 and 3 from the left in the photo and keeps them at my house. He always has good RAF stories

My buddy from England, one from California, and I each flew all the 4 Turbinators pictured. The little one on the left is EDF and the other three are Turbine. In order, 70mm EDF pans built, K-45 83% plans built, P-80 original size plans built, K100 latest version ARF. We passed the transmitter around on all of them. the 83% got lots of attention and the other pilots were impressed how well it flew on the new K-45. Eight Different pilots flew the Red/White P-80 one on the Buddy box. Several had never flown a Turbine before. All together, we put 13 gallons of fuel thru the three of them Friday and Saturday. The safety officer working the flight line told us we were going to have to send them for service after the weekend

It was a great event and we had a blast! Can't wait to see how the little Firebird does...
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6533.JPG
Views:	263
Size:	408.4 KB
ID:	2190825  
Old 11-21-2016, 11:41 AM
  #43  
alasdair
 
alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 746
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Scott Todd
My flying buddy from England was in town this weekend for the AZ Jet Rally. He's a retired RAF pilot and now flies the 747 for BA.
K-45 83% plans built, got lots of attention and the other pilots were impressed how well it flew on the new K-45.
It was a great event and we had a blast! Can't wait to see how the little Firebird does...
What is the wingspan and weight of the 83% one?
I think it looks better than the Firebird, especially with the crewed cockpit. I like the simple colour scheme too.
I'll be interested in how the Firebird flies too.

I flew the 747-400 for BA in 1993-95, and I retired in 2005 at age 55 (just before the rules changed). A friend (John Shaw) retired this year from BA (747 I think) at age 65. He was just young enough to catch the new rules, and fit enough to keep it up. I doubt your friend would know me but he may have known John, and George Florence.
Old 01-02-2017, 10:37 AM
  #44  
Dr Honda
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Dr Honda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Latrobe, PA
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I know some of you guys have been waiting for a flight report on this one.... but over the last couple weeks... there have been some things change. The first thing is winter has hit Pittsburgh. But, the other thing is... I've decide to change my fleet over to Jeti. There was a few things shaking my confidence in Spektrum... and since Esprit was running a deal on the DS14... I thought... "Why not". Also... I received a great gift from my dad this Xmas. He bought me a K45.

With that said... this jet is getting a re-work before it's first flights. Swapping out the radio to Jeti, and swapping the engine over to the new Kingtech.

I'll post a few pics as I do the work.
Old 01-02-2017, 11:51 AM
  #45  
alasdair
 
alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 746
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Last week I managed the first flight of my new low-wing version of JayTee (see avatar), now known as JayLow.
It has a span of about 74" and is powered by a Jets-Munt VT80.
Since the dry mass is 6.01 kg (13.2 lb) including some nose ballast, and thrust is 8 kg, it goes quite well, even straight up.
I had only one flight and did not hammer full throttle much, only take off, a giant loop, one fast pass and a straight up vertical. Pleased with the result.

Scott, I hope you don't mind that I kind of copied your colour scheme a bit.

Still keen to see video and more details of the Firebird
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_5218.jpg
Views:	223
Size:	1.05 MB
ID:	2195270   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_5212.jpg
Views:	165
Size:	944.2 KB
ID:	2195271  

Last edited by alasdair; 01-02-2017 at 12:27 PM.
Old 01-08-2017, 03:11 PM
  #46  
didiwatt
My Feedback: (38)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: La Center WA
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Edited

Last edited by didiwatt; 01-08-2017 at 03:36 PM.
Old 01-08-2017, 03:13 PM
  #47  
didiwatt
My Feedback: (38)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: La Center WA
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Edited

Last edited by didiwatt; 01-08-2017 at 04:52 PM.
Old 01-08-2017, 03:37 PM
  #48  
didiwatt
My Feedback: (38)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: La Center WA
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Edited
Old 01-12-2017, 07:34 AM
  #49  
Dr Honda
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Dr Honda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Latrobe, PA
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hi All,


I've had a little free time over the last week, so I've been busy in the garage. I've managed to get the Firebird converted over to Jeti... and get the engine swapped out. I've also converted my ShockJet to Jeti, and a few of my other non-turbine models.


The Jeti conversion went easy. The biggest thing was just learing the menus, and how things are handled Vs. Spektrum. For the guys thinking about Jeti... I REALY like the menus, and that you can see the Rx, and program it via the Tx. Things like Failsafe are programmed directly, and you can see the position of any surface.


As far as the engines... I was a little disappointed in the K45. Not in the engine itself... but it's not as compact as the Wren. The engine itself is heavier, but that's to be expected since the valves are internal. BUT, the mini vavles that are with most Wren 44's are only a few grams each. Also, the new Kingtech ECU... while it is VERY cool... it needs a 3s LiFe battery. AND, since it needs enough current to run the starter, and burner... we are looking at a SIGNIFICANTLY bigger battery to run it. So, I went from a 2s 1800mah LiPo, to a 3s 2100 Life. Because of this... the "Installed Weight" is around 3/4lb heavier with the Kingtech. OK... on this model... it's not a big deal, since it has the physical space, and the wing area to handle it. But, I was really hopping to keep this closer to a 1:1 trust:weight.


OK, with that said... here's a few pics. You can see that the Kingtech is shorter overall... but it's fatter. Both in girth, and in weight. The nozzle is almost 76mm on the Kingtech, and 73mm on the Wren. Because of that... I do not think that the wren pipe will work with the kingtech. It's an augmented pipe, and the diameter on the bell mouth may be a little small. I think it will be happier with a "60" sized pipe.

I'm glad I swapped out the engine, because of the lighter weight of the 44... it will work better in my Habu.

We have a freak 60 degree day, but it's raining. I'm hoping to get a test run on it today if there's a break in the clouds.



Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2982.jpg
Views:	117
Size:	119.7 KB
ID:	2231751

Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2983.jpg
Views:	77
Size:	111.1 KB
ID:	2231752

Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2984.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	121.7 KB
ID:	2231753

Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2986.jpg
Views:	82
Size:	132.9 KB
ID:	2231754

Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2987.jpg
Views:	94
Size:	48.7 KB
ID:	2231755

Last edited by Dr Honda; 09-13-2017 at 03:19 AM.
Old 01-12-2017, 08:43 AM
  #50  
why_fly_high
My Feedback: (19)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 720
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Kingtech engines even with the Xicoy ECU require 3S LiFe. My older K45 uses 3S LiFe.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.