I'm not sure if we had to search for gear after the GLAMF bit it... I think the worst was when the Annihilator's wing came off in flight. I think there where radio parts 10+ feet apart. Good thing the grass was short. I am sure the the GLAMF went down with my Electron six in it. All I remember is giving it full up to come out of the turn and had nothing...it just went in. I don't remember it snapping... I had this speed 400 electric job that would snap if you tried to yank it through a turn too tight... I hate it when you really don't know what happened.

I had a pretty good customer service experience with Cirrus... I emailed them about the gears stripping on a 6.4g servo that had very little use and they told me the gears could not be warrantied, but sent me a set anyways.

That's smart business on CIRRUS part. This hobby supply business is very fickle. Look at magazine ads from 20 years ago and count the ones who are not with us any longer.

The GLAMF must have been done in by a bad battery, or one that was weak. This is a good time of year to go through all the gear and weed out the junk from the other stuff [which is basically junk waiting to happen] Charlie and I figured that we could safely run a pair of servos about a half hour off of 350 mah nimh packs that were field charged.

Now I'm starting to confuse myself with all these acronyms........the GLHSWR was the plane that bit the dust, [this ones' predecessor], THIS is the GLAMF!

I am out of K&B yellow epoxy paint, so the cowl paint job puts the project on hold. That's OK, I need time to baseline the engine, then try to enhance the performance with some engine work. The model ends up weighing just over 14 ozs RTF because of all the little weight penalties here and there with the effort to give it some style and a little more size than the average SWR. This wing is sparless, it should hold up fine, at least for a couple of flights.

CP, that thang looks GOOD! Don't worry about the wing being without a spar. My 3/16" (before sanding!) wing held up just fine without a real spar. It got tormented quite a bit, even crashing with no damage.

The scary thing to consider though is that G forces build up in multiples of your original weight. Since this plane weighs so much more than the average SWR, hopefully the wood will just bend but not break. [] And if it does break, hopefully there will be some video .

Now for the speed tuning strategy. To make this project seem like something special, the .074 needs to turn at least a 4 pitched prop and probably more like a 5 pitch to get any speed out of this plane. The APC 4.75x4.75 might be a good choice? The engine would have to produce 22500 in order to break 100mph. It might be able to do that with just open exhaust and a C/L venturi . I don't know why NORVEL doesn't offer an AME version of the .074 already, unless they know something that I don't about the strength of the parts?

This talk about your wings coming off reminded me of the G-force charts I had seen. I'm sure these numbers are for a specific plane, but if you take a rough look at it your plane wing will have to hold about 8 lbs in a pylon turn.[:-]

BTW- great looking plane! I think I saw this one in your workshop last time I was up there and I was very impressed with your glass work.. The yellow looks real sharp!

Does this mean that I should prop up the plane by the wing tips and stack 6 pounds of weight on the center section to see if it will hold?[]. The glass work was needed on the fuselage, because after sanding, you could almost see through some of the wood in certain areas. It's fairly easy to do, paint all the wood with water based polyurethane with a couple of coats, let dry & sand, then drape 3M77 misted cloth on, working with as large an area as you can manage. I used .6 oz cloth and the cloth pieces overlap each other. Once you have it completely covered, then brush on the polyurethane. A heat gun will speed drying, just don't get carried away or you will blister the polyU.

Just ordered some props from APC, 4.7x4.7, 5x5, and 5.5x4.5, all electric 400 speed types.
Just ordered some paint from K&B, 1/2 pint yellow, $10 and 1/2 pint hardener, $15 ! [] Thankfully, a little goes a long way if you limit it to just painting cowls.

I would put the wings tips between two chairs and drop a bowling ball on it. [8D]

CP- I also bought some of those speed 400 props. I've got a 4.7 x 4.25 here in my hands and it's very thin. You can see light through it and if you put pressure on the tip of one of the blades you can fold it over 90 degree easliy. Has anyone tried one of these things on a 1/2a before? Looks kinda scarry to me. If you can't use them for glow I guess you will have to build a e-powered speed plane. That would be fun... speed 400 vs 049 around the pylons.

Got a little data on the .074. This one doesn't have much POP, it needs to be electric started, but the bottom end seems OK.

Stock muffler 7x3 APC 15% nitro BYRONS' 17,200 rpm
Open exhaust " " " " " " 17,500 rpm
" " 5x4 fiberglass prop [LARRY D]26,000 rpm

There doesn't seem like much point in going further with testing until the props from APC get here. There also doesn't seem like much reason to touch the engine either, it seems very happy running high revs, the last reading was slightly rich, like a good launch rpm. This set up would generate 98 mph and 1.25 pounds of thrust, if it hooks up to the airframe. So far, so good.

I would use the E props up to 5 inches in diameter. If one threw a blade, it wouldn't be the first time a prop let go. As far as I know, the 4.2x4 and 4.75x4.75 that I have been running for a couple of years are E props. The 4.2x4 has seen 42,000 on the G&Z, and the APC safety margin is 190,000 divided by diameter on their sport props. I'm sure that they have tested their props to the point of failure on a test motor, but I doubt if they have a CYCLON set up in the back to really see if those E props will blow on nitro power?

CP, since when are the tips the only part of the wing that gets loaded? You'd need to apply the weight in a more even manner to get something realistic.

E-props are supposedly designed to take advantage of the greater torque of an electric motor. I guess they're thinner at the hub because of the lack of a "power pulse". The 4.2x4 is a nitro blade fer sure. APC markets them as 1/2a props and they have a thicker blade at the hub. What all this means in the long run is beyond me, just reporting observations!

Well, you will never see a wing panel break at half span, normally. Most of the inflight weight that is working against the wing is in the middle getting multiplied. I saw when the VOYAGER wing was being stress tested, they just hung jugs of water off of it until it buckled. If you remember, that plane was made with 55 gallon drums full of CA [:'(]. I wonder if they used odorless?

Do you remember that AD for a model plane where there was a photo of a guy standing on the center of the wing as it was supported on cinder blocks? It used to run in the back pages of one of the mags. Don't know how well those planes sold, something that strong might scare some buyers away!

You're right about the center being the critical point, but the 6lbs of force won't be put squarely on that joint. I'm sure there's some math you could do to determine that, but it don't seem worth the effort.
I remember that ad. The blocks weren't anywhere near the tips. More or less, it was near the center of each half-span. That is, if it was the Mustang that I remember. I don't read any of the mags anymore.

hey, if cp submits the wing to the Scuddy Bowling Ball Drop Test (better known in technical circles as the "SBBDT") and it survives, then I am sure it will handle anything Mother Nature sends at it. I think I would forget the tests and fly it. It is way too pretty to tear apart and modify now anyway.

Flyswatter rarely ever injects his considerable knowledge publicly. He does, however, let me know pretty quickly when I'm all wet. The center of the half-span is the correct place to test from. Since it's the average of the half-span! The term that would have made it all fall into place is "cantilever". And that's math that even I can handle!

Thanks FS, but it's too late, the bowling ball went right through it, didn't even slow down...

Isn't anyone amazed that the difference in rpm between muffler on and muffler off was so slight? Tells me that this is a pretty good design! I'll have to try it with the muffler on and the smaller props to help inflight fuel draw. Down side is the muffler traps heat. Wonder how long the .074 will hold together? So far it has 30 seconds on it at 26,000 and it sounds right at home. It will be interesting to see how well it handles the APC 5x5.

My name is now a part of an acronym... I guess I've been hanging out here too long. Thanks FS

HAH! That comes from hanging around CP.

I noticed that earlier -- not too much of a dropoff -- I wonder if it would improve any if you opened the exhaust outlet a bit? Waiting for the APC 5x5 report -- I'll bet the .074 can turn it pretty well -- probably well enough that top end speed will be higher.

Andrew: It probably would improve the rpm if the exhaust outlet is the source of the remaining pressure drop through the muffler. Unfortunately, from experience, sound reduction and pressure drop usually go hand in hand - so no pressure drop equals no sound reduction! From cp's report, it doesn't sound like the muffler's pressure drop is all that bad or there would be a greater drop off in rpm.

cp: Sorry to hear GLAMF! failed the SBBDT. I don't know, but I think the test is suppose to be with the weight (bowling ball) setting on the wing - not dropped on the wing (whoops). This being the case, the test should be retitled to SBBART (Scuddy Bowling Ball at Rest Test). With Scuddy's approval, this change will be good for two reasons. First, setting the bowling ball on the wing is not near as tough a test as dropping the ball on the wing. Second, this change gives us a vowel for the acronym which now makes the test sound like something from a Batman episode.

I have no doubt that your next wing will fair much better with the SBBART. If not, then please remember that it was Scuddy's idea.

NOW you tell me! The SR77BBDT wasn't carried out with TLC or SOP and now the plane is FUBAR.

Drilling out the muffler outlet a little is SOP for cheaters in limited power categories of competition, and leave it to you guys for bringing it to my attention . I think it would be interesting to compare timing numbers between the AME .061 and the BIG MIG .061 and .074, so that will be the next project. I am with ANDREW, something tells me that the 5x5 will be the winning set up, if it doesn't blow the blades off.

Although the SBBART may provide some excellent data I suggest going with a more practical test.... JFTDT (Just Fly The Damn Thing)

There you go! Scuddy is right, JFTDT!

OK FELLOW NORVELIANS back with some exhaustive test results. The carburetor was ditched and replaced with a little NVA that came with either a STELS or early VA, a NORVEL C/L NVA would work just as well..... I opted to leave the muffler on because of the big gaping air hole in the crankcase that we're trying to pass off as an air inlet and it would probably not draw fuel well without muffler pressure. Same 15% fuel, the results are surprising [vs the stock carb].................................................. ..............................

5x4 C/F prop from LARRY D.........30,500.....4500 rpm improvement over the carb!.........
4.7x4.7 APC.....24,800 easy to needle, pretty good thrust too.....................................
5x5 APC...........20,800 Diameter Is The Enemy, Pitch Is Our Friend............................
5.5x4.5 APC......18,500 DITEPIOF , Russian word, [means the same as above]

I guess it's safe to say that the carb is restrictive, and that the C/F prop that LARRY sells looks like the hot set up. [I don't want LARRY to find out that this prop looks like the killer set up, or he might jack the price up on me a nickle or two. ] The 4.7x4.7 looks promising if it will launch the plane. Haven't had the head off or started playing with nitro yet, from experience the trade off with high nitro [40-60%] is only worth it if you are trying to keep up with everyone else. The NORVEL replacement parts are priced high enough to make you think twice about doing a major repair.

Speed in theory: 5x4 C/F prop........115.53 mph
5x5 APC...............98.49 mph
5.5x4.5 APC..........78.84 mph
4.7x4.7 APC..........110.38 mph

I think the only thing left to do now is get some actual speeds through a 1/16th mile trap and compare with the "make believe" numbers. I have heard that some combos are faster than projected, but I'll bet the reverse case is more common.