DavidR

My Feedback: (1)

I am only making this post for one reason, and that is to clarify why I even flew the P-200 on MY kingcat.

The Kingcat is an excellent platform, it flies, and glides very well. My P-200 will be going into an F-100 F, a model that I have spent a considerable amount of time building and detailing. I fly my radio equipment, and engines on proven airframes, or expendable airframes before they go into any complex scale model. I did the same thing with the P-200. I do not advise this combination for anyone except the most experienced and responsible pilots. If you don't like my opinion on this I don't care and I don't need to hear about it. Above all be responsible, this is NOT a combination to be taken lightly, the P-200 is a powerfull engine, and while the Kingcat is a typical strong BVM airplane it was not ever designed for this much power. FWIW I planned to pull the engine back off the airframe after the flight that I had engine problems on.

wojtek

My Feedback: (73)

I agree with what you are saying , if BVM ress that put 200s in their KingCat started sying that this is a "great" engine combinaion, there might be repercussions if the majority started puting these engines in the KCs and acting irresponsibly ..... besides you, the 2 other people who put the 200 on a KC LOVED IT ! and in fact one of them described it as "awesome" .... if the KC is limited to its designed top speed of 200 mph, then the extra thrust of the p200 only speeds up the acceleration to that speed ... as for the extra weight ... not a biggie ... the cockpit kit with the balast that would require adds up to the extra weight of the p200 ... residual thrust ... so what ... not a biggie to deal with !! this is my opinion, if you dont like it, go shove it ! i dont care to hear it !!

its funny how at first the P160s are the claimed to be the best engine for the KC at first, and then when those start to burn up (allong with the airplanes they are in ) all of a sudden, the P200 is to be the holly grail of engines forthe KC ... oh oh !!! one blows up !! and badly !! (throwing parts through the cse is as bad as a turbine failure gets !! ) ... so its back to only the p120 ... man, and how bout that attempted cover up of that p200 going up in smoke ??? as i understand, you were intending to hide the facts of what happened untill the JetCat told you to TELL THE TRUTH !! why would you even bother asking them what to say ? (oncethe topic to your disliking was brought up ) why not just the truth ...


Wojtek

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

Woj.. why do you seem to have an axe to grind so often?

David's reasoning is extremely sound. Testing something new in an aircraft that's well proven removes many other 'what if?' questions from the flights.

EddieWeeks

Looks like those old time Iron Lungs are doing fairly well against the German Luger.


j/k

Tom Antlfinger

My Feedback: (24)

Wojtek:

I thought we were through with the ranting last night.........and here we go again!!......C'mon, take a deep breath, pop a couple of your favorite tranqs, and work on some anger management dude......if you have a cat, pet him, it works wonders......

I was at MAB, as were about 50 other guys.....I saw the whole thing......as did the other 50 guys.......there was no friggin' coverup conspiracy.......within minutes, cell phones were plastered to ears, chatting up David's adventure.....I would guess that within 30 minutes, anyone worth chatting with from Cally to New York heard the details....

If you didn't......maybe no one wants to talk to you.....

Until Dave heard from JetCat about what exactly happened after a teardown, he chose not to post on RCU......all we all saw, including Dave was a broken engine with some holes in it and missing a few internals.....could have been allot of things.......overtemp, overspeed, busted wheel, busted shaft, FOD, etc. etc.....and by the way, at Tennessee Jets last Thursday, David was flying his KC with a P-160, not a P-120......

So why don't you go back and delete that last post of yours on this thread.......then pull out the yellow pages and look for the closest anger management clinic, book and hour or two for tomorrow(they usually have 24 hour lines) and then go to bed.......



Tom

Gary Jefferson

My Feedback: (167)

I would like to know who Woj says is recommending installing a P-160 or P-200 in the kingcat anyway? I read his previous post which was only a few down under this one and it looked to me like he was the only insisting on installing a P200 in the Kingcat!! I was specifically told by BVM when I purchased mine that the P-120 is sufficient, and it flies the plane just fine in my opinion. I don't know what else you are looking for when a P-120 will already give unlimited vertical. You could fly to the moon with a P120 at full power!!

I guess when his Kingcat destroys itself in mid-air because he installed a P-200 and is flying at the speed of sound then we will see a post bashing BVM also.

wojtek

My Feedback: (73)

- 1 I am puting a 200 on my KC, because to me a P120 is not enough .. and will not give unlimited vertical. Others have done this an say they think it works great. I clearly indicated that i will be using a speed sensor and that will only use the full thrust of the engine occasionally for verticals or the like. I also stated clearly that i know i am taking the plane out of manufacturer spec, so what, im taking responsibility for it .... look at my other posts , where i defended BVMs product, even though i personally do not like BV (the person)

- 2 I have been harassed to hell and back about what I do on PRIVATE property outside AMA juristiction. I am allowed to defend myself and dont just have to keep my mouth shut like a scared rat !! When i fly anywhere under AMA juristiction (wherever AMA membership is required), i always follow th rules. When im at a private airport, or property, i can do as I please ..... as do all the guys who go off to the desert to fly, this is why i have not even bothered getting the waiver yet .. i did not need it ! ... how come no one is complaining about the 80+ lbs F-18 that flew at florida jets ? or other AMA infractions by people that do violate these under AMA juristiction ?

-3 (probably should be #1) im sorry to David , i did get carried away with that response, ... his post comes across like a backlash to the crap from yesterday, .. I will say though you could constructively have really contributed to a POSITIVE topic that i started instead of washing your hands clean ..

-4 i have received severl threatning emials, anything from people claiming they will report me to the AMA (i am not doing anything wrong !!! ) or threatning to shoot me down if i ever show up at an event ! Gee... thats really following rules there , huh ??


I have a right to be pissed here ... I have a right to publically state what i do in the hobby, this is not an AMA board !! its RC jets forum, for people both AMA and non ! instead i get flamed, bashed and insulted .... very nice people, nice ...



Wojtek

turbine guy

My Feedback: (266)

Regarding the P-120 "flying to the moon" and "unlimited vertical" - you must have the hopped up version!
I have about around 6hours of flight time on my Kingcat/P-120 and it's OK-
A higher T/W ratio would be nice (with a speed limiter on course!) I always have liked extreme power.

By the way ,am I the only one who's found a drawing showing OLY/P200 mounting locations with their Kingcat?!?http://www.bvmjets.com/

Just be sure your skills are up to it ,use crow, buy twice the fuel,and don't break 200MPH,the vertical should be awesome.

Jake Bruckler

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

LOL !! I guess that shows how many people read the addendums page.

Gordon

Gary Jefferson

My Feedback: (167)

Jake, I don't know about having a hopped up version of the P-120 but I flew at Tennessee jets this weekend and I flew the Kingcat to an altitude where I really had a difficult time seeing the jet anymore and I didn't want to go any higher. It was just a spec in the sky so I think that qualifies as unlimited vertical!! BTW, I do wear glasses but it is corrected to 20/20 vision.

I am sure that the P-200 works fine dialed down but what is the point!! All of the negative aspects were made to Wojtek in the previous post he initiated in the first place. All you need to do is go back and read it.

In his post Wojtek is talking about flying as fast as he wants to at a non-AMA field. People with an attitude like this bother me very much because they are the ones that regardless of safety rules that have been established for the good of everyone in this hobby will go off on their own and do what they want to do. When his Kingcat self destructs and crashes into a house or burns down 100 acres of property then it is still going to end up on the daily news, and regardless of what Wojtek says that will have an effect on all of us, AMA flying site or not.

Gordon mentioned that nobody reads the addendums but I guess that nobody has read the front cover of the Kingcat manual either because right on the front of the manual it says to limit the speed to 200mph and 27lbs. thrust. Why do you think this is?

unknown

This reminded me of the good old RAM 1000 days.

turbine guy

My Feedback: (266)

Gary,
The cover of my manual says to limit max speed to 200 MPH (of course)

It also says to use a speed limiter for engines OVER 27lb thrust.

If you're using a speed limiter set at 200 MPH,is there any real problem with using a P200/Oly. thrust to go vertical or accelerate real quick.

I don't think you will exceed 200 mph going vertical - and besides ,if the Jetcat pitot is set up correctly you should not be breaking the speed limit anyways.

Don't get me wrong- I don't want to go beyond the 200 mph mark- just would like to get to that speed quicker and go straight up faster.

Basically, if you aren't pulling high G manuvers with the heavier motor than the only other concern would be the strength of the mounts with the push of the motor. Correct?

DavidR

My Feedback: (1)

Jake,

My biggest concerns when I was flying the engine were the following;

Engine weight, the engine is almost two pounds heavier than a P-120/P-160 I was concerned about slinging the engine off the airplane with a high G manouver like a snap. In order to mount the engine without reworking (read that butchering) the back of the airplane you have to make up new mounts. Mine were machined out of aluminum like Scott Marr did. This puts the engine approximately 1" to 1 1/4" back from the stock mounts. What this meant is that the engine was actually behind the fuselage supported entirely by the aluminum. I was also concerned that the two screws that hold the stock mount on were marginal for the additional weight and location of the engine. Since I did not install the wood in the fuselage (it's done at the factory) I did not do any high G manouvers, no snaps etc... this took a lot of the fun out of the plane for me with that engine combination.

Fuel consumption, I went from an 11 minute flight to an 8 minute flight, (and almost ran out of gas) I like the flight time more than the additional thrust.

Residual thrust, the Kingcat is a floater, I have learned how to slow it down but the residual thrust of the P-200 is almost twice that of the P-120/P-160 and it is noticeable. I would have to believe this has significant impact on the landing gear.

You mentioned faster accelleration, I did not notice that, I feel like the fastest acceleration is with the P-160. Efflux velocity of the P-160 is higher than the efflux velocity of the P-200. Even with more thrust I did not notice a difference in acceleration.

I flew my Kingcat this weekend with the P-120 on it. I was able to crawl along slow and then throttle up and pull vertical as high as I wanted to go. The flight envelope under P-120 power is great. P-160 power is nicer but the P-160's are not as reliable right now so JetCat is just not shipping them.

Helijet

Unless you have the new P160 Mark 11

Dean
www.helijet.ca

wojtek

My Feedback: (73)

looks like BVM conveniently pulled the reference to mounting the bigger engines off of their web site now ..... how nice of them to HIDE this ...



Wojtek

Vincent

My Feedback: (61)

Great post DR on the King cat engine combos. You got my vote, 120 is the way to go at this time.
V..

Gary Jefferson

My Feedback: (167)

And all of the other things that David has mentioned above.


One of the things that BVM has repeatedly pointed out to me over the years is the extra stress on landing gear when landing an overweight airplane and I believe this what David is referring to in his last post.

sirrom

My Feedback: (4)

Gary,
If one of the concerns is the extra stress on the landing gear when landing and overweight airplane you might want to check out the below link to BV's website. At the link he states that he added and additional 10 pounds of weight to a kingcat to simulate increased wing loading. I can agree with davidR about the engine flying off the back of the plane being a concern but if the extra weight is the concern then I think BV himself has just blown that theory out of the water.

http://www.bvmjets.com/HotShots/KingCats/kc_nasa.htm

Patrick.

wojtek

My Feedback: (73)

for the P200 engine not to fall off (or at least not be prone to doing so) it needs to mounted further forward (which nececitates the cutting out of a hole for the starter ... ( i was told this by someone who had done it with great results ..) puting the engine far back, creates a "lever" efect, with a multiplied strain force on the mounts ... basically it was recomended to me to mount the engine on the mouts on the engines "CG" 2 lbs is not much on the gear, and this would b equivelant to a partially fueled landing on the gear ...



Wojtek

Tom Antlfinger

My Feedback: (24)

Gary:

We are all motorheads aren't we.....and MHs can never have enough power......cars, full scale planes, scoots, and R/C jets.....guys will always be pushing the envelope to use an overused cliche, but that's the way the motorsports seems to advance.....although they sure are slowing down the Indy Cars......

But, unlike most of the posters on the recent 200/KC threads, I HAVE seen Scott Marr's now deceased KC/200(unrelated to engine) fly, as well as David's, including his maiden down at MAB......for those that haven't seen one or held one, this is one heavy hunk of aluminum and steel....and long......

Doing up the mount like David and Scott probably will probably keep the motor from departing during a snap, but neither Dave nor Scott did any.....they basically flew fast in circles and straight up at times...so comments about other than racetrack flight remain unanswered at this time......my KingCat had one of the holes improperly drilled for the C/F mount so I had to open the area up....man, there ain't much beef back there....about the same as on a HotSpot......no problem for a KJ 66 size burner, but for long term use, including snaps, tight square loops, etc., I would definitely open it up and rebuild the butt end of that bird for safety and peace of mind.....

Actually, I think the setup also is cosmetically dorky.....looks like a fat butt bustle on some 19th century lady....engine too big and sits too far back.....sort of like putting a Peggy on a BobCat......kind of ugly....but beauty is in the beholder's eyes, so guess that's no problem.....if you don't mind ugly, go for it....

As long as BV designed the engine mount area big enough for a 200 or an Oly, only a matter of time before they start showing up......not much to do about it, but whenever I see one in the air over my head, I am going to keep my eye on it, checking for shed parts.......

Once they get the recently discovered problems fixed on the 200, it will be an ulgy mutha....David had his unfinished Hun-F model to look at while baking and shrinking all the Hysol and filler, and it will be nothing but spectacular in that size plane.....



Tom

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

I have a question for those of you guys who scream about the idea of someone flying even marginally above the 200 mph AMA limit when flying at a non-AMA club, on the basis that such behaviour is screwing with our insurability etc...

The Kingcat, like the Super bandit, and all of the Bobcat's after maybe the first 2 batches released, have a 200 mph limit specified by the manufacturer, right ? So, do you figure BV and his guys decided that they would design an aircraft that they hoped could handle 200+ mph, then tested it up to exactly 200.00000 mph and stopped right there ? It would seem, on the face of it, that such behavior could be seen as slightly irresponsible, as the tolerances in the manufacture of the airframe, and the tolerances in the accuracy of the speed limiters, radar guns, or even the Mk 1 eyeball (which is approved as a speed limiting device by the AMA) mean that for it to be safe to tell a customer that he can run his aircraft up to 200 mph without concern, the manufacturer would presumably need / want to test the aircraft to "some degree" beyond the stated limit. So, if (note the use of the hypothetical - if) BV or one of his guys were to go out and test any of his models to some margin above 200 mph in order to ensure that he was providing a safe product to his customers (a very smart and laudable thing to do), and he did it at a site that was not associated with any AMA club, does anyone seriously believe that we would see the same kind of "I don't care if its not at an AMA club, exceeding 200mph anywhere while you are an AMA member is disgraceful" kind of backlash that we have seen here ?

I know for a fact that various manufacturers rep's routinely exceed 200 mph by a wide margin on many of the current turbine kits and ARFS. I know that these people are also AMA members. (Several of them are AMA TCDs). Why the double standards then ? Is it just a case of "Who's in the good ole boys club vs who's not" ? I mean, given Woj's poor behavior and vitriol towards the mod's here in the past, he's not exactly the first guy I would choose to stand up for. I should instead perhaps be cheering that he is finally on the receiving end of the kind of attitude he has handed out to others frequently - but doesn't any of the above strike you guys as even a little bit hypocritical ? Or is it just that when it comes to the speed you fly at (or intend flying at), being a liar is considered a laudable characteristic in America, whereas being truthful makes you one of the bad guys ?

BTW, I found it interesting to see the contrast in tone between the discussion about how a P200 is too much for the Kingcat, versus the discussion a year or so ago when David Gladwin queried the wisdom of putting a P160 on a little ole Bobcat. Much different responses !

Gordon

KFalcon

My Feedback: (18)

Good points Gordon.

Gary Jefferson

My Feedback: (167)

So Patrick, you believe that adding extra weight to an airplane has absolutely no effect on the landing gear at all? I am not a designer of planes but I think that common sense tells us that an overweight plane adds stress to the gear, the landing gear blocks, flex plates, etc. especially when the added weight is measured in lbs. and not ounces.

I am sure BVM had their own reasons for adding the 10lbs. of weight to the plane which was likely for testing purposes only. You would have to ask them about that but I was only conveying conversations that I have had with them in the past concerning installing larger engines in planes and gear issues that can be associated with the extra weight. For all I know BVM has designed the Kingcat gear to work at 50 lbs of weight. Again, ask BVM. People can keep reading these posts and picking them apart if they want to but in my opinion the Kingcat flies exceptionally well with a P-120.

My view of this whole situation is based mainly on what I read in wojtek's previous thread and his obvious reasoning for wanting to install the P-200 in the first place which is to fly at over 200 mph at a private field. As I said before, this bothers me very much because the Kingcat like all other aircraft has design limits which if exceeded can result in safety hazards. The bad thing is that he will probably injure someone besides himself.

In wojtek's previous thread he also indicated that he does not have a waiver but that he is going to get one and will obey the AMA rules when at AMA events. This is great, except now you have someone that has a Kingcat that has been out flying his at private fields and likely flying in excess of the rated maximum speed/thrust for the plane and then he brings it to jet events where you and I fly. What if he has stressed the fuse or wings previously at his private field by exceeding the design limits and it then self destructs at an event. Do you think that affects anyone besides him?

People with his attitude not only disregard safety but also have little respect for the manufacturers of these planes whose businesses are at risk when someone has a mishap with one of these planes. The future of this hobby is at risk as well. I would like to still be flying turbines in 10 years but with people like this out there I won't hold my breath. [8D]

Gary Jefferson

My Feedback: (167)

Gordon, I agree that there is no doubt some degree of margin built into the speed capability of the planes designed by BVM and other manufacturers. The question is how much speed/thrust is too much?

I doubt any of us know what that margin is until it is too late so why not just be safe and fly at or under the recommended speeds. I find it hard to believe that anyone is not happy with flying a jet at 200mph!!

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Who knows ... but there again, who knows how many G is too much ? There is no limit placed on G, yet I would imagine that an aircraft flying at 180 mph and pulling a hard corner is under much more stress than an aircraft flying at 200 mph S&L.

In case anyone should misunderstand my prior post, I am not in any way advocating that anyone should exceed the manufacturer's ratings on their aircraft - my post was instead addressing the "if you exceed the AMA limits even where the AMA has no jurisdiction, you're a disgrace" kind of attitude.

Gordon