Reaction 54 Jet Kit
#3651
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the distinction between our models and full scale is always helpful.
With the flaps set to 60 degrees then I guess that they are no longer flaps but speed brakes in our models. With that distinction then speed brakes are necessary, but already there.
With the flaps set to 60 degrees then I guess that they are no longer flaps but speed brakes in our models. With that distinction then speed brakes are necessary, but already there.
#3652
My Feedback: (1)
on real airliners huge flaps setting are mainly to create drag. This enormous drag is create to allow to make approach with high engine rpm, so in case of go around around the engine spool up faster..............
Only the first degrees of flaps extension increase highly increase clmax for a moderate drag increase (that's why small flaps angle are used for take off)
I can only talk from what I know, years ago I flown dc 10 and 747 for a major belgian airline and when you go around with a big bird you set max power , you IMEDIATLY partialy retract your flaps (to decrease drag) and when you have the positive vario you rteact the gear (to also reduce drag). once you have more speed you retract the last part of the flaps
r54 didn't need the extra lift. Bu as mentioned above with a huge flaps setting (60 degrees) the drag will be enormous and flaps will do the job fine.
BUT imagine you performe a nice Rull flaps approach, with plenty of trust , low speed and nose hig and for some reason you have to go around Retract your flaps imediatly to reduce drag, but not completly, otherwise you could fall from the sky.
this kind of risk doesn't exist with pure drag generator like speedbrakes, you go around, you retract them and you climb..
By the way I abandoned my idea of speedbrakes and I am curently slowly building my first wing panel fully stock (Either Bruce tharpe said me that speedbrakes could be a nice experiment for the bird). I simply don't hav a lot of time for the moment to build and modify a design. I want my R54 ready for next summer. Maybe after that I'll build a speedbrake version
Only the first degrees of flaps extension increase highly increase clmax for a moderate drag increase (that's why small flaps angle are used for take off)
I can only talk from what I know, years ago I flown dc 10 and 747 for a major belgian airline and when you go around with a big bird you set max power , you IMEDIATLY partialy retract your flaps (to decrease drag) and when you have the positive vario you rteact the gear (to also reduce drag). once you have more speed you retract the last part of the flaps
r54 didn't need the extra lift. Bu as mentioned above with a huge flaps setting (60 degrees) the drag will be enormous and flaps will do the job fine.
BUT imagine you performe a nice Rull flaps approach, with plenty of trust , low speed and nose hig and for some reason you have to go around Retract your flaps imediatly to reduce drag, but not completly, otherwise you could fall from the sky.
this kind of risk doesn't exist with pure drag generator like speedbrakes, you go around, you retract them and you climb..
By the way I abandoned my idea of speedbrakes and I am curently slowly building my first wing panel fully stock (Either Bruce tharpe said me that speedbrakes could be a nice experiment for the bird). I simply don't hav a lot of time for the moment to build and modify a design. I want my R54 ready for next summer. Maybe after that I'll build a speedbrake version
#3653
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting perspective. My experience although not extensive like flying an airliner relates more to using flaps to control the degree of lift during landing and takeoff. This thread relates it nicely: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...n-to-use-flaps
We used the flaps to control the rate of descent, not so much over all air speed although the changing of stall airspeed in relation to the degree of flaps was always interesting. In the end, I gave up flying and enjoy sailing much more!
Isn't that the advantage of these threads, to hear the different experiences and perspectives.
So true on the R54, it does slow down nicely with its current configuration...hats off to the designer! But speed brakes would still look so cool! I have been toying with adding them on mine just for grins but am now thinking about smoke instead, and maybe some fiberglassing.
We used the flaps to control the rate of descent, not so much over all air speed although the changing of stall airspeed in relation to the degree of flaps was always interesting. In the end, I gave up flying and enjoy sailing much more!
Isn't that the advantage of these threads, to hear the different experiences and perspectives.
So true on the R54, it does slow down nicely with its current configuration...hats off to the designer! But speed brakes would still look so cool! I have been toying with adding them on mine just for grins but am now thinking about smoke instead, and maybe some fiberglassing.
#3654
My Feedback: (1)
Interesting perspective. My experience although not extensive like flying an airliner relates more to using flaps to control the degree of lift during landing and takeoff. This thread relates it nicely: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...n-to-use-flaps
We used the flaps to control the rate of descent, not so much over all air speed although the changing of stall airspeed in relation to the degree of flaps was always interesting. In the end, I gave up flying and enjoy sailing much more!
.
We used the flaps to control the rate of descent, not so much over all air speed although the changing of stall airspeed in relation to the degree of flaps was always interesting. In the end, I gave up flying and enjoy sailing much more!
.
I duno remember the circumpstance, but one day I ended up in long final with full flaps forced to apply lot of power to stay on the glide.. I decided to go against the golden rule telling "never retract flaps during normal approach". I slightly pushed the flaps switch up because I wanted to reduce my drag a bit but i simply forgot how this stupid switch work. and the flaps retracted entirly If my souvenirs are correct I losted something like 300 feet before I reagained the control of the rate of descent. fortunatly I was high on long final.
I never forgot that lesson and I NEVER use flaps to control a glide path.
on the glide with a jet I have my rules wich are
SPEED IS controled by power
RATE OF DESCENT is controled by attitude
#3655
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, as I said before, I really enjoy the different perspectives. Doesn't chang my mind but I do enjoy other people's perspectives and experiences.
My initial training was in a Cessna 152 and thankfully never had your experience. Might have wet myself if I did.
Thank goodness our R54'd don't get that exciting.
My initial training was in a Cessna 152 and thankfully never had your experience. Might have wet myself if I did.
Thank goodness our R54'd don't get that exciting.
#3656
Here's another perspective on the flaps / speedbrakes / airspeed / AOA / throttle discussion. USN carrier jets fly back side of the power curve on approach, full flaps, speedbrakes out. Pitch controls airspeed and throttle rate of decent. You're higher on the throttle in this kind of approach, which means faster spool up and immediate excess power when you retract speed brakes. On missed approach / touch-n-go / bolter, it's full throttle and retract speedbrakes only ... no change to flaps or gear position (limit configuration changes in landing pattern, less complexity, fewer trim changes, easier to focus on setting up for solid next approach).
Now that I'm retired, I fly light civil only these days, but I still fly approaches the same way. I've never been a fan of multiple flap position changes in the pattern. I decide the flaps appropriate for the situation, set them on downwind, then fly the entire pattern to touchdown on one flap setting. Fewer trim changes and it allows me to focus on a good stable approach. If I end up on final and have too much flap, I go around and reset and retrim on downwind.
Now that I'm retired, I fly light civil only these days, but I still fly approaches the same way. I've never been a fan of multiple flap position changes in the pattern. I decide the flaps appropriate for the situation, set them on downwind, then fly the entire pattern to touchdown on one flap setting. Fewer trim changes and it allows me to focus on a good stable approach. If I end up on final and have too much flap, I go around and reset and retrim on downwind.
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-27-2017 at 04:59 AM.
#3657
My Feedback: (1)
Interesting perspective, thanks for that. I think it would be hard to get on the back side of the power curve with the R54 because of its large wing. But the procedure of setting flaps on downwind and focusing on the approach makes sense to me. I often find that reaching for the flap slider for just that moment sometimes gets me out of sorts during approach.
#3658
My Feedback: (10)
Here's another perspective on the flaps / speedbrakes / airspeed / AOA / throttle discussion. USN carrier jets fly back side of the power curve on approach, full flaps, speedbrakes out. Pitch controls airspeed and throttle rate of decent. You're higher on the throttle in this kind of approach, which means faster spool up and immediate excess power when you retract speed brakes. On missed approach / touch-n-go / bolter, it's full throttle and retract speedbrakes only ... no change to flaps or gear position (limit configuration changes in landing pattern, less complexity, fewer trim changes, easier to focus on setting up for solid next approach).
Now that I'm retired, I fly light civil only these days, but I still fly approaches the same way. I've never been a fan of multiple flap position changes in the pattern. I decide the flaps appropriate for the situation, set them on downwind, then fly the entire pattern to touchdown on one flap setting. Fewer trim changes and it allows me to focus on a good stable approach. If I end up on final and have too much flap, I go around and reset and retrim on downwind.
Now that I'm retired, I fly light civil only these days, but I still fly approaches the same way. I've never been a fan of multiple flap position changes in the pattern. I decide the flaps appropriate for the situation, set them on downwind, then fly the entire pattern to touchdown on one flap setting. Fewer trim changes and it allows me to focus on a good stable approach. If I end up on final and have too much flap, I go around and reset and retrim on downwind.
#3659
From my few years flying in the EA-6B and F-16 (AF guy who got to do both, from the back seat)........the Navy also slams the jet into the deck. there is no flare! You position the jet so that every landing has a chance for takeoff if you miss the wire. Both jets were fun to fly and land in. Just different techniques.
Whether flying models or full scale, I set my landing configuration on downwind and don't mess with it. I also fly the Navy style pattern, that is a constant radius turn with a constant rate of decent. I find it's easier to judge and easier to stabilize if you're only making minor adjustments to AOB, power, and pitch. I like a nice steady constant radius turn where I give it just jab of power right at touchdown to flare (when flying models).
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-28-2017 at 02:22 PM.
#3663
My Feedback: (1)
franklin_m, I thought your posts were interesting and had some relevance to the R54 simply because there has been a lot of discussion about landing configurations for this model.
RAMflyer, what are Dr. Honda mounts? Something adaptable to the R54?
mr_matt, how old is your son now?
RAMflyer, what are Dr. Honda mounts? Something adaptable to the R54?
mr_matt, how old is your son now?
#3664
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New City, NY
Posts: 3,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's about as fast as I get kits done! It's worth the effort. Will be your most stress free/trouble free jet. Mine is going on 11 years and hundreds of flights. Only problem is the Monokote is getting brittle in spots. Have a lot of patches.Might be time to strip it and glass it.
#3666
Thanks. I've been toying with a jet for a decade. Unfortunately with three kids and a couple other hobbies, I really don't have time to drive long distance to nice fields - and the local one is pretty rough grass. I've wondered how difficult it would be to mod a R54 for larger wheels on trailing link gear?
I realize the roughness of a field is tough to quantify, but a 40 size plane typically has the prop hitting the grass and bent nose gear after every takeoff, unless you hold full up elevator and forget any idea of scale type takeoff.
#3667
My Feedback: (10)
I just mounted slightly larger than stock tires (3.25 inch intairco) but the wing could take much bigger ones.
I also extended the length of the struts and used trailing arm gear designed for the reaction ARF. As you can see they are a bit longer. I started this kit so long ago there were no trailing link gear to use
I also extended the length of the struts and used trailing arm gear designed for the reaction ARF. As you can see they are a bit longer. I started this kit so long ago there were no trailing link gear to use
#3670
My Feedback: (15)
Mr. Tharpe and all the wonderful builders and advisors who helped me with my build of the Reaction 54. A Serious and Grateful "THANK YOU". Just want to report that my Reaction 54 (X-54) with the anhedral stabilizer/elevators flew just beautiful. Slight trim tab movements upon lift off and she was flying at half throttle hands off using a BEE II. Lots of power in that engine. My stabilizer is angled down 15 degrees from where the fuse and stabilizer meet. What a gorgeous view of that F-4 style tail from the back. As you may have figured, I Love The Phantom F-4. Working my way up to a Skymaster F-4. Thanks again Mr. Tharpe. For those interested in doing the same, view posts 3462, 3606, 3388-91. As directed and suggested by a couple of guys on this thread, I also enlarged the inlets and the engine ran very well. My two turbines are on Facebook - Nirly Built. Chic
#3671
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New City, NY
Posts: 3,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congrats Chic! It truly is a great design. I maidened mine in August of 2006 with a P-60 and had 28 hours on that engine when I put in a Rabbit 90 which has about 24 hours on it now. The Monokote is starting to crack off and will need recovering soon. It is a stress free extremely reliable jet.
#3674
My Feedback: (19)
I am curious as to the lightest Reaction built. The new Kingtech K70G weighs 1.5lbs. WAAAAAAAY lighter than what people were originally running. Will this cause an issue with CG? There is also the new K85G which is 2lbs. My thought is super light build+super light engine+need to carry less fuel+then can use lighter landing gear= an even more relaxing easy going jet.
#3675
My Feedback: (1)
Lightest ones have been in the 17-18 lb range (dry). Lighter the turbine the better - most R54's need nose weight, so add that to the list of items that may help reduce overall weight. Would be tough to reduce weight of the retracts, they are already very light. Also, guys with the lighter R54s report floatiness on landing. They've just never seen a jet land that slow. Reduce overall weight by a pound or two and you will see amazingly slow landings!!!