Reaction 54 Jet Kit
12-01-2014, 09:31 PM
#3226
Well, I am building my third R54. My first one was from an early run of kits..so I have a little experience on the R54. As a matter of fact, a president of the AMA, president of MAAC, a retired US Navy rear admiral, countless RC widows and hundreds of wannabee turbine modelers have been buddy boxed on my R54s. It is such an amazing airframe.
After having gone the heavy iron route this one will be light, KT 60 powered, electric Robart retracts and simple. Full circle....
Just the way Bruce designed it "all those years ago".
Dean W.
After having gone the heavy iron route this one will be light, KT 60 powered, electric Robart retracts and simple. Full circle....
Just the way Bruce designed it "all those years ago".
Dean W.
12-02-2014, 05:53 AM
#3227
My Feedback: (48)
I've just received my Reaction kit and It looks great. Very well packed and the manual looks very well done. I'm looking forward to getting round to this as soon as the building backlog clears!!
There's a post from Bruce earlier in this thread that says that the Reaction ARF Pro-Links are longer than the kit legs.
There's a post from Bruce earlier in this thread that says that the Reaction ARF Pro-Links are longer than the kit legs.
Joe
12-02-2014, 01:37 PM
#3228
"I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested." Sheldon Cooper
Hey Matt, it sounds like you've received some good advice. Sorry I'm not more help on this, but I'm going to look into this some more and really try to nail down the best alternative struts. For the record, one of the main design goals of the R54 was to keep it as affordable as possible for a turbine model. The Robart retracts with wire struts were chosen with that in mind. But wire is wire, so the strut length was kept to an absolute minimum to do the job without needing to be bent back into position after every landing. Overall, I think the wire struts exceed expectations and work really well. There's a notion that the wire struts do not provide any shock absorption. Well, they do have loops that allow them to flex aft, and the soft Sullivan wheels provide cushioning that you don't get from hard (and expensive) "jet" tires. Just thought you might like to know the thinking behind some of my design choices.
Hey Matt, it sounds like you've received some good advice. Sorry I'm not more help on this, but I'm going to look into this some more and really try to nail down the best alternative struts. For the record, one of the main design goals of the R54 was to keep it as affordable as possible for a turbine model. The Robart retracts with wire struts were chosen with that in mind. But wire is wire, so the strut length was kept to an absolute minimum to do the job without needing to be bent back into position after every landing. Overall, I think the wire struts exceed expectations and work really well. There's a notion that the wire struts do not provide any shock absorption. Well, they do have loops that allow them to flex aft, and the soft Sullivan wheels provide cushioning that you don't get from hard (and expensive) "jet" tires. Just thought you might like to know the thinking behind some of my design choices.
Regarding the the engine choice (22lbs) for mine, one aspect has nothing to do with "Massive verticals". Rather, it has to do with the ability to 1) use a shorter field, 2) use less fuel per lb/thrust than the notoriously thirsty P-60, and 3) having the option to make verticals from lower speeds, using power to get over the top rather than accumulated speed.
While the -60 was a great engine in it's day 10 years ago, it's worth noting that there are engines available now which make upwards of 50% more power at the same fuel flow (or burn a lot less at the same power settings), leading to better flight times without carrying more fuel (weight).
Thanks again for such a great airframe!
Don
12-02-2014, 04:09 PM
#3229
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mercersburg, PA
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck to the guys building their new Reactions. You will not be disappointed. I've said it before and I will say it again. I miss my Reaction!!!! Don't sell them after a few years you will regret it. Also, I think I put the Boomerang Nano Struts on mine for those guys interested.
I flew this jet anywhere and everywhere. You will enjoy how versatile it is.
Mike
I flew this jet anywhere and everywhere. You will enjoy how versatile it is.
Mike
12-02-2014, 05:36 PM
#3230
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St. Catharines , ON, CANADA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm enjoy my reaction build it is my first big build, I'm thing of a king teach k100 the residual thrust can affect my landing speed I was going to with crow 
,
,
Last edited by jim62; 12-02-2014 at 05:41 PM.
12-11-2014, 04:36 AM
#3232
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
International order Ottawa Canada
Kit arrived yesterday Dec 10th - Ordered by phone was shipped out same day on Dec 1st - Kit arrived in excellent condition no damage
Five Star Service - Thankyou Bruce
Ken
Kit arrived yesterday Dec 10th - Ordered by phone was shipped out same day on Dec 1st - Kit arrived in excellent condition no damage
Five Star Service - Thankyou Bruce
Ken
12-11-2014, 10:07 AM
#3233
Well, I am building my third R54. My first one was from an early run of kits..so I have a little experience on the R54. As a matter of fact, a president of the AMA, president of MAAC, a retired US Navy rear admiral, countless RC widows and hundreds of wannabee turbine modelers have been buddy boxed on my R54s. It is such an amazing airframe.
After having gone the heavy iron route this one will be light, KT 60 powered, electric Robart retracts and simple. Full circle....
Just the way Bruce designed it "all those years ago".
Dean W.
After having gone the heavy iron route this one will be light, KT 60 powered, electric Robart retracts and simple. Full circle....
Just the way Bruce designed it "all those years ago".
Dean W.
12-11-2014, 02:04 PM
#3234
Whoohoooo!!
Look at all that pavement and blue sky. Oh so I wish I could be somewhere warm right now.
Well....one day I can retire!
Enjoy the flights Marv!
Thanks for the pic Bob...
Now to get back to building #3....lol
Dean
Look at all that pavement and blue sky. Oh so I wish I could be somewhere warm right now.
Well....one day I can retire!
Enjoy the flights Marv!
Thanks for the pic Bob...
Now to get back to building #3....lol
Dean
12-14-2014, 08:48 AM
#3235
My Feedback: (48)
I've started building and have the wings in the bones so far. I'm planning on doing it in the Panther blue/yellow/red scheme and am changing a few things to make it look more like a Panther.
To accommodate my gear I made a new retract mount out of 1/4" ply. It spans 3 ribs and I added doublers to each rib. The wheel well is relocated due to the longer struts.
Servos will be side mounted inside the wings. The aileron servo is moved outboard one bay so that the aileron control horn can be attached near the middle.
Wing tips are more squared off to get away from the bat wing look.
To accommodate my gear I made a new retract mount out of 1/4" ply. It spans 3 ribs and I added doublers to each rib. The wheel well is relocated due to the longer struts.
Servos will be side mounted inside the wings. The aileron servo is moved outboard one bay so that the aileron control horn can be attached near the middle.
Wing tips are more squared off to get away from the bat wing look.
12-14-2014, 08:51 AM
#3236
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Beaumont,
TX
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys,
I'm getting to pretty close to the sanding phase on mine. It's been a good build. Dreamworks trailing ling on the mains, Robart on the nose ( pushed forward a little.)
Added a tank over the boattail 32oz. and uat in front of the main tank. Yes I've done some math on that. As the main tank is for the most part in front of the cg, the cg moves about .3 inches aft as it burns off and now mine starts out and ends at the same cg. As the rear tanks burns off the cg moves forward and then back as the main tank burns off. I will maiden with just the main tank filled and will incrementally add fuel to the rear tank to test the flight manners.
The current dilemma I face involves inlet area. I've read the entire thread a few times and while it's been lightly addressed I've still some concerns.
It seems that the first set of inlets that showed (mach1's I believe) were roughly 3x1.25 at the inlet lip. 9 sq inches total. It looks to me that they pinch down to roughly 6 sq in at the top of the wing.
I looked at the manual for my wren 75 jubilee and they ask for 16 sq in of inlet. That's the same opening they ask for with the 100. That's huge and I haven't seen many aircraft in this size class that have that large an inlet.
So you see I'm on the fence as to adding inlets.
Any comment from those who have and how the aircraft performed?
Les
I'm getting to pretty close to the sanding phase on mine. It's been a good build. Dreamworks trailing ling on the mains, Robart on the nose ( pushed forward a little.)
Added a tank over the boattail 32oz. and uat in front of the main tank. Yes I've done some math on that. As the main tank is for the most part in front of the cg, the cg moves about .3 inches aft as it burns off and now mine starts out and ends at the same cg. As the rear tanks burns off the cg moves forward and then back as the main tank burns off. I will maiden with just the main tank filled and will incrementally add fuel to the rear tank to test the flight manners.
The current dilemma I face involves inlet area. I've read the entire thread a few times and while it's been lightly addressed I've still some concerns.
It seems that the first set of inlets that showed (mach1's I believe) were roughly 3x1.25 at the inlet lip. 9 sq inches total. It looks to me that they pinch down to roughly 6 sq in at the top of the wing.
I looked at the manual for my wren 75 jubilee and they ask for 16 sq in of inlet. That's the same opening they ask for with the 100. That's huge and I haven't seen many aircraft in this size class that have that large an inlet.
So you see I'm on the fence as to adding inlets.
Any comment from those who have and how the aircraft performed?
Les
12-16-2014, 12:31 PM
#3237
I think that the difference in inlet area is that the turbine is not fully enclosed inside of the fuse. My inlets are a lot smaller than what you are talking about and there is no problem getting enough air. The P70 turbine can still suck air from the rear opening in the fuse. Unless of course you are adding a lot more to make the turbine fully enclosed, then you may need to open the front more. My inlets are more show than function.
12-17-2014, 04:35 PM
#3240
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: reisterstown, MD
Posts: 1,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All excellent points. Thanks Bruce. It's obviously a well thought out airplane.
Regarding the the engine choice (22lbs) for mine, one aspect has nothing to do with "Massive verticals". Rather, it has to do with the ability to 1) use a shorter field, 2) use less fuel per lb/thrust than the notoriously thirsty P-60, and 3) having the option to make verticals from lower speeds, using power to get over the top rather than accumulated speed.
While the -60 was a great engine in it's day 10 years ago, it's worth noting that there are engines available now which make upwards of 50% more power at the same fuel flow (or burn a lot less at the same power settings), leading to better flight times without carrying more fuel (weight).
Thanks again for such a great airframe!
Don
Regarding the the engine choice (22lbs) for mine, one aspect has nothing to do with "Massive verticals". Rather, it has to do with the ability to 1) use a shorter field, 2) use less fuel per lb/thrust than the notoriously thirsty P-60, and 3) having the option to make verticals from lower speeds, using power to get over the top rather than accumulated speed.
While the -60 was a great engine in it's day 10 years ago, it's worth noting that there are engines available now which make upwards of 50% more power at the same fuel flow (or burn a lot less at the same power settings), leading to better flight times without carrying more fuel (weight).
Thanks again for such a great airframe!
Don
12-17-2014, 05:35 PM
#3244
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wing lights
Been looking at all the guys in past doing the Fuse Side intake ducts as a modification - I noticed some had made a FG molded parts - Does anyone sell these? and or the Fighter pilot canopy's hatches
Last edited by Ken Park; 12-18-2014 at 04:40 AM.
12-18-2014, 07:26 AM
#3247
Not the best to show the inlets but is all I have handy.
You can see that they get quite small over the wing. But the turbine is still able to pull air from around the sides.
Here is a post from much earlier in this thread by the original builder.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-j...ml#post5043231
You can see that they get quite small over the wing. But the turbine is still able to pull air from around the sides.
Here is a post from much earlier in this thread by the original builder.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-j...ml#post5043231
Last edited by flyinfool1; 12-18-2014 at 08:01 AM.
12-18-2014, 09:00 AM
#3248
I have an old JetCat P-80 laying around in the workshop to no use and I would like to find a new purpose for it. Now, Bruce specifically say on his homepage that this particular engine is to large and heavy for the Reaction 54. And of course that is hard to argue about. But still, it looks to me that some of the models in the resent pictures in this thread has engines very similar to a P-80. Do you folks know of anyone who successfully has mounted a P-80 size engine in a Reaction? If so, does it work out or do you also advice against it?
And to Bruce if you read this. Is there any hope for a Super Reaction in the future, say 120%, just like there is a Super Flyin King?
Jannica in Sweden
And to Bruce if you read this. Is there any hope for a Super Reaction in the future, say 120%, just like there is a Super Flyin King?
Jannica in Sweden
12-18-2014, 12:40 PM
#3249
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Georgetown, KY
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the -60 was a great engine in it's day 10 years ago, it's worth noting that there are engines available now which make upwards of 50% more power at the same fuel flow (or burn a lot less at the same power settings), leading to better flight times without carrying more fuel (weight).
Don
Don
Thanks in advance.
-oliveDrab
