GP Reactor 46
01-24-2014 | 09:27 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Mumbai, INDIA
GP Reactor 46
Hi,
I know it's discontinued but the GP Reactor 46 has been my favorite cheap hack for the longest time. I know the plane quite well so when the opportunity came to flying at a demo meet in February, I decided to resurrect my landing gear-less old model with a new fuse & tailset. I was flying the old one with an OS Fs91. So couple of questions-
Though the Fs91 has plenty of pullout, the Fs110a I have has much more power. In the last season I was hovering a 3.7kg airplane with the 110 with good pullout.Crucially, it's lighter than the 91. The Reactor is lighter too. Should I use the 110 on it?
Secondly, I wanted more positive connections on the new reactor, so I used ball links both sides on Sullivan full-thread 2-56 SS pushrods. But someone told me those are prone to snapping. Is that correct?
Ameyam
I know it's discontinued but the GP Reactor 46 has been my favorite cheap hack for the longest time. I know the plane quite well so when the opportunity came to flying at a demo meet in February, I decided to resurrect my landing gear-less old model with a new fuse & tailset. I was flying the old one with an OS Fs91. So couple of questions-
Though the Fs91 has plenty of pullout, the Fs110a I have has much more power. In the last season I was hovering a 3.7kg airplane with the 110 with good pullout.Crucially, it's lighter than the 91. The Reactor is lighter too. Should I use the 110 on it?
Secondly, I wanted more positive connections on the new reactor, so I used ball links both sides on Sullivan full-thread 2-56 SS pushrods. But someone told me those are prone to snapping. Is that correct?
Ameyam
01-29-2014 | 05:42 PM
#2
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St. Peters, MO,
I would use the lighter, more powerful engine.
I would not use ball links on anything but a throttle and sometimes not on that either. Unless you are meaning the swivel type ball link.
I have a Reactor also. I am using the Saito 82 and it lacks power for hovering. But even worst than that - I find the plane really difficult to hover. I am probably missing some key point, but this plane also does not want to take off of the runway! So I wonder if you have to make some adjustment to the thrust angle or to the wing incidence? I moved my thrust angle up a little and it seemed to help.
I would not use ball links on anything but a throttle and sometimes not on that either. Unless you are meaning the swivel type ball link.
I have a Reactor also. I am using the Saito 82 and it lacks power for hovering. But even worst than that - I find the plane really difficult to hover. I am probably missing some key point, but this plane also does not want to take off of the runway! So I wonder if you have to make some adjustment to the thrust angle or to the wing incidence? I moved my thrust angle up a little and it seemed to help.
Last edited by Uncas; 01-29-2014 at 05:45 PM.
01-29-2014 | 05:52 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Mumbai, INDIA
That's quite surprising. My much repaired reactor would still hover. When it had the LG & I could do ground takeoffs, I never used full power even with the 55. I had no modifications at all.
My new airplane is nose heavy. Rather than add dead weight, I will put in 4.40 pushrods for the tail. Will test with the 91 pm Saturday. If not happy, putting in the 110 is easy because dimensions ate the same
Ameyam
My new airplane is nose heavy. Rather than add dead weight, I will put in 4.40 pushrods for the tail. Will test with the 91 pm Saturday. If not happy, putting in the 110 is easy because dimensions ate the same
Ameyam
02-12-2014 | 06:51 PM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
I would use the lighter, more powerful engine.
I would not use ball links on anything but a throttle and sometimes not on that either. Unless you are meaning the swivel type ball link.
I have a Reactor also. I am using the Saito 82 and it lacks power for hovering. But even worst than that - I find the plane really difficult to hover. I am probably missing some key point, but this plane also does not want to take off of the runway! So I wonder if you have to make some adjustment to the thrust angle or to the wing incidence? I moved my thrust angle up a little and it seemed to help.
I would not use ball links on anything but a throttle and sometimes not on that either. Unless you are meaning the swivel type ball link.
I have a Reactor also. I am using the Saito 82 and it lacks power for hovering. But even worst than that - I find the plane really difficult to hover. I am probably missing some key point, but this plane also does not want to take off of the runway! So I wonder if you have to make some adjustment to the thrust angle or to the wing incidence? I moved my thrust angle up a little and it seemed to help.
