U Can Do 3D
10-24-2003 | 07:42 AM
#1526
Senior Member
My Feedback: (20)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clayton,
NC
RE: U Can Do 3D
Hey Bob
APC >
http://www.apcprop.com/html/prop_list.htm
And Zinger >
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXESM7&P=7
I use APC and like them, I think there are other brands.
Who makes the 13 x 4W prop?
http://www.apcprop.com/html/prop_list.htm
And Zinger >
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXESM7&P=7
I use APC and like them, I think there are other brands.
10-24-2003 | 07:52 AM
#1527
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Morgantown,
WV
RE: U Can Do 3D
ORIGINAL: rajul
Hi Adrian, I remember seeing a pic of your wing tips removed ? Did you put them back ?
Hi Adrian, I remember seeing a pic of your wing tips removed ? Did you put them back ?
Maybe they are not so fresh after all. lol
10-24-2003 | 08:17 AM
#1528
Moderator
My Feedback: (58)
RE: U Can Do 3D
ORIGINAL: coomarlin
Good eye Raj Maybe they are not so fresh after all. lol
Good eye Raj
Maybe they are not so fresh after all. lol
At least my memory still serves me well.......
That's me hovering my UCD hands off on the cover of the Aerotec magazine from Spain
10-26-2003 | 11:34 AM
#1531
My Feedback: (68)
RE: U Can Do 3D
That's me hovering my UCD hands off on the cover of the Aerotec magazine from Spain
Guys-
After days of reading the other 50+ pages on this plane I am scared my stock Saito 100 is gonna require the Cline reg and I really dont want to mess with that. I dont have a clue as to where to tap etc, etc. I dont want to mess with the engine if it requires cutting into it. I am novice as far as that is concerned. Any input on this would be appreciated.
thanks
matt[&:]
10-26-2003 | 11:46 AM
#1532
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Phoenix,
AZ
RE: U Can Do 3D
THEY ARE THREE MEMBERS AT OUR CLUB FLYING THE 3-UCAN DO. ONE HAS A .40 SIZE AND THE OTHER TWO HAVE THE .60 SIZE. ALL THREE LOVE THEM, I WANT ONE MYSELF!!
10-26-2003 | 11:53 AM
#1533
Senior Member
My Feedback: (24)
RE: U Can Do 3D
matt, who told you that you had to cut or tap your engine? First of all save yourself some money and buy the Iron Bay Regulator. It also comes with the oneway valve and T you will need to preasurize your fuel tank. Here is the set up.
You only need two lines to the tank
1.The fuel line that runs from your exhaust will have the supplied oneway valve in it. It will allow preasure to build in the tank, but not come back out.
2 Between the oneway valve and the fuel tank(SAME LINE) you will put the T conector and run one line wild out the bottom of the cowl. You will have to put a plug in it. (GOLF TEE ECT) This is so you can remove the plug when fueling, or taking fuel out of the tank. Remember you now have a closed preasurized system so if you don't provide a vent for fueling you will expand and rupture the tank. (the reverse when taking fuel out)
3. Now the other fuel line.... Come out of your tank, into the regulator, out of the regulator and connect to the carb.
No cutting, nipping, slicing, diceing, taping ect. maybe the Cline needs all this I don't know.
Everything comes with the Iron Bay Regulator for $43.00 plus shipping.
John
You only need two lines to the tank
1.The fuel line that runs from your exhaust will have the supplied oneway valve in it. It will allow preasure to build in the tank, but not come back out.
2 Between the oneway valve and the fuel tank(SAME LINE) you will put the T conector and run one line wild out the bottom of the cowl. You will have to put a plug in it. (GOLF TEE ECT) This is so you can remove the plug when fueling, or taking fuel out of the tank. Remember you now have a closed preasurized system so if you don't provide a vent for fueling you will expand and rupture the tank. (the reverse when taking fuel out)
3. Now the other fuel line.... Come out of your tank, into the regulator, out of the regulator and connect to the carb.
No cutting, nipping, slicing, diceing, taping ect. maybe the Cline needs all this I don't know.
Everything comes with the Iron Bay Regulator for $43.00 plus shipping.
John
10-26-2003 | 01:19 PM
#1534
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clarks Summit, PA
RE: U Can Do 3D
Ponder this, and its only a thought. Could there be any benefits from just a one way valve on the pressure line from exhaust to tank? (no regulator) You would think that any pressure built up would be lost, lets say when you throttle down. A simple valve like this would keep any pressure in the tank from escapeing. In low pressure spray equippment there is such a valve for this purpose. It's about the size of a dime and would accept standard fuel line. I do not have a regulator. If it regulates pressure thats one thing, if it acts like a small fuel pump thats different.
10-26-2003 | 01:25 PM
#1535
Senior Member
My Feedback: (24)
RE: U Can Do 3D
Never work, you engine will run like crap trust me. I don't sell regulators, I sell insurance, but I will tell you this, when I find something that really works well I tell everybody, if it doesn't work I tell everybody too! My engine runs soooooo sweet with the regulator I still can't believe it. Idel is perfect, transition is perfect, no flame outs.
John
John
10-26-2003 | 02:21 PM
#1536
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , MA
RE: U Can Do 3D
[
]Does the Saito 100 have some kind of inherent fuel flow problem. Is there a real need to buy a pump/regulator if the tank is located at the firewall of the UCD 60? It seems that some people may be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The Saito 72 in my UCD 46 has no such problem.
If the tank is moved to some location that is distant from the engine a pump/regulator may be necessary. Is it correct to assume that some fliers relocate the tank farther back in the UCD fuselage to achieve a more favorable CG location for 3d flying?
I moved the CG farther back in one of my UCD 60's (I have two) by moving the battery to the rear of the fuselage in a hatch I made in the bottom. In this way I avoided having to move the tank, the throttle servo, the receiver and having to buy a regulator for $43.00 plus shipping. I did notice that the plane becomes a little squirrelly with 3d elevator throws.
My two UCD 60's are powered by OS 91 2-strokes. The OS 2-stroke with its giant muffler weighs 24.3 oz which is more than the Saito 100 4-stroke. A Saito in the nose may move the CG a little farther rearward.
My next engine purchase may be a Saito 100 4-stroke and I was hoping to use it without buying any additional gadgetry to attach to it.
]Does the Saito 100 have some kind of inherent fuel flow problem. Is there a real need to buy a pump/regulator if the tank is located at the firewall of the UCD 60? It seems that some people may be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The Saito 72 in my UCD 46 has no such problem.If the tank is moved to some location that is distant from the engine a pump/regulator may be necessary. Is it correct to assume that some fliers relocate the tank farther back in the UCD fuselage to achieve a more favorable CG location for 3d flying?
I moved the CG farther back in one of my UCD 60's (I have two) by moving the battery to the rear of the fuselage in a hatch I made in the bottom. In this way I avoided having to move the tank, the throttle servo, the receiver and having to buy a regulator for $43.00 plus shipping. I did notice that the plane becomes a little squirrelly with 3d elevator throws.
My two UCD 60's are powered by OS 91 2-strokes. The OS 2-stroke with its giant muffler weighs 24.3 oz which is more than the Saito 100 4-stroke. A Saito in the nose may move the CG a little farther rearward.
My next engine purchase may be a Saito 100 4-stroke and I was hoping to use it without buying any additional gadgetry to attach to it.
10-26-2003 | 02:58 PM
#1537
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Morgantown,
WV
RE: U Can Do 3D
ORIGINAL: Rocketman_
[]Does the Saito 100 have some kind of inherent fuel flow problem. Is there a real need to buy a pump/regulator if the tank is located at the firewall of the UCD 60? It seems that some people may be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The Saito 72 in my UCD 46 has no such problem.
If the tank is moved to some location that is distant from the engine a pump/regulator may be necessary. Is it correct to assume that some fliers relocate the tank farther back in the UCD fuselage to achieve a more favorable CG location for 3d flying?
I moved the CG farther back in one of my UCD 60's (I have two) by moving the battery to the rear of the fuselage in a hatch I made in the bottom. In this way I avoided having to move the tank, the throttle servo, the receiver and having to buy a regulator for $43.00 plus shipping. I did notice that the plane becomes a little squirrelly with 3d elevator throws.
My two UCD 60's are powered by OS 91 2-strokes. The OS 2-stroke with its giant muffler weighs 24.3 oz which is more than the Saito 100 4-stroke. A Saito in the nose may move the CG a little farther rearward.
My next engine purchase may be a Saito 100 4-stroke and I was hoping to use it without buying any additional gadgetry to attach to it.
[
]Does the Saito 100 have some kind of inherent fuel flow problem. Is there a real need to buy a pump/regulator if the tank is located at the firewall of the UCD 60? It seems that some people may be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The Saito 72 in my UCD 46 has no such problem.If the tank is moved to some location that is distant from the engine a pump/regulator may be necessary. Is it correct to assume that some fliers relocate the tank farther back in the UCD fuselage to achieve a more favorable CG location for 3d flying?
I moved the CG farther back in one of my UCD 60's (I have two) by moving the battery to the rear of the fuselage in a hatch I made in the bottom. In this way I avoided having to move the tank, the throttle servo, the receiver and having to buy a regulator for $43.00 plus shipping. I did notice that the plane becomes a little squirrelly with 3d elevator throws.
My two UCD 60's are powered by OS 91 2-strokes. The OS 2-stroke with its giant muffler weighs 24.3 oz which is more than the Saito 100 4-stroke. A Saito in the nose may move the CG a little farther rearward.
My next engine purchase may be a Saito 100 4-stroke and I was hoping to use it without buying any additional gadgetry to attach to it.
Great planes should've dropped the tank down about an inch or so and there never would've been a problem.
10-26-2003 | 04:14 PM
#1539
Senior Member
My Feedback: (24)
RE: U Can Do 3D
coolmarlin is correct, the tank if too high. it will flood w/o a regulator. been there, done that!
You have to understand something.... when you read a thread as old as this one. all of the problems have been worked out. You get the correct CG. the right engine, the right thrust angle, servo's, linkages, fuel system and set up. what more could a person want.
You have to understand something.... when you read a thread as old as this one. all of the problems have been worked out. You get the correct CG. the right engine, the right thrust angle, servo's, linkages, fuel system and set up. what more could a person want.
10-26-2003 | 04:46 PM
#1540
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clarks Summit, PA
RE: U Can Do 3D
I was under the impression that the regulator was needed when the tank was placed further aft ( at the CG ) that it was too far to push fuel with supplied pressure of exhaust. As far as the tank being too high wouldn't mounting the engine in the upright position correct this? Flooding is inherant in any plane when the engine is mounted inverted. Normally I will spin the prop several times after fueling before starting. It never kicks, spins a prop or runs backward.
10-26-2003 | 04:59 PM
#1541
Senior Member
My Feedback: (24)
RE: U Can Do 3D
RE: U Can Do 3D (in reply to jrjohn) Contact Moderator | | Revisions: 1 (Post No. 1540)
I was under the impression that the regulator was needed when the tank was placed further aft ( at the CG )
I was under the impression that the regulator was needed when the tank was placed further aft ( at the CG )
Your right, it's needed in both situations. On the CG because it needs preasure to push the fuel, and when the tank is up front to stop the syphon effect. Turn the engine right side up if you want, What a mess that will be
John
10-26-2003 | 05:07 PM
#1542
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Morgantown,
WV
RE: U Can Do 3D
ORIGINAL: cum'n thru
I was under the impression that the regulator was needed when the tank was placed further aft ( at the CG ) that it was too far to push fuel with supplied pressure of exhaust. As far as the tank being too high wouldn't mounting the engine in the upright position correct this? Flooding is inherant in any plane when the engine is mounted inverted. Normally I will spin the prop several times after fueling before starting. It never kicks, spins a prop or runs backward.
I was under the impression that the regulator was needed when the tank was placed further aft ( at the CG ) that it was too far to push fuel with supplied pressure of exhaust. As far as the tank being too high wouldn't mounting the engine in the upright position correct this? Flooding is inherant in any plane when the engine is mounted inverted. Normally I will spin the prop several times after fueling before starting. It never kicks, spins a prop or runs backward.
You won't need a regulator if you decide to mount the engine upright, but since the plane was designed for an inverted engine, you'll have a very odd looking plane. Somewhere in these 50 pages there are photos of someone mounting an engine upright, and although it worked, it looked very odd. If you don't mind the asthetic drawbacks go ahead and mount the engine upright.
10-26-2003 | 06:17 PM
#1543
Moderator
My Feedback: (58)
RE: U Can Do 3D
I mount my Saito 100 in the upright position, with tank at cg, and with a cline. Looks good to me, better than no cowl. No hassle in installation (very easy to do), no hassle in starting, no additional weight/wiring complications from glow head connector, and I don't need to remove the cowl for minor engine or fuel line jobs. My engine likes the additional cooling too, especially in a hover.
10-26-2003 | 06:49 PM
#1544
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Morgantown,
WV
RE: U Can Do 3D
ORIGINAL: rajul
I mount my Saito 100 in the upright position, with tank at cg, and with a cline. Looks good to me, better than no cowl. No hassle in installation (veary easy to do), no hassle in starting, no additional weight/wiring complications from glow head connector, and I don't need to remove the cowl for minor engine or fuel line jobs.
I mount my Saito 100 in the upright position, with tank at cg, and with a cline. Looks good to me, better than no cowl. No hassle in installation (veary easy to do), no hassle in starting, no additional weight/wiring complications from glow head connector, and I don't need to remove the cowl for minor engine or fuel line jobs.
10-26-2003 | 07:09 PM
#1545
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , MA
RE: U Can Do 3D
Ok, ok, it sounds like some of us are talking about engine performance and the rest are talking about siphoning and leakage. All I wanted to know is whether the Saito 100 ran well in flight in the stock UCD 60 installation without Perrys and Clines and Iron Bays, etc.Everybody who has a UCD knows where the tank is and that the engine is inverted and we know it leaks.
And yes my UCD 46 with its Saito 72 leaks while parked but it runs perfectly on the ground and in the air through any maneuver with no assistance from regulators or pumps.
I handle my siphoning problem a different way. Since the UCD 46 cowl covers my Saito 72, I use a Sullivan filler valve to fill the tank. This valve requires no special fitting to fuel it, just a short length of brass tubing. Between flights I just stick a plugged piece of brass tubing in the valve to block it. This is no more labor intensive that switching off the receiver after each flight.
10-26-2003 | 07:39 PM
#1547
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Morgantown,
WV
RE: U Can Do 3D
ORIGINAL: Rocketman_
And yes my UCD 46 with its Saito 72 leaks while parked but it runs perfectly on the ground and in the air through any maneuver with no assistance from regulators or pumps.
I handle my siphoning problem a different way. Since the UCD 46 cowl covers my Saito 72, I use a Sullivan filler valve to fill the tank. This valve requires no special fitting to fuel it, just a short length of brass tubing. Between flights I just stick a plugged piece of brass tubing in the valve to block it. This is no more labor intensive that switching off the receiver after each flight.
And yes my UCD 46 with its Saito 72 leaks while parked but it runs perfectly on the ground and in the air through any maneuver with no assistance from regulators or pumps.
I handle my siphoning problem a different way. Since the UCD 46 cowl covers my Saito 72, I use a Sullivan filler valve to fill the tank. This valve requires no special fitting to fuel it, just a short length of brass tubing. Between flights I just stick a plugged piece of brass tubing in the valve to block it. This is no more labor intensive that switching off the receiver after each flight.
10-26-2003 | 08:13 PM
#1548
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clarks Summit, PA
RE: U Can Do 3D
My Saito is inverted and has never leaked thru the carb after several months of use or kicked back, thrown a prop etc. We all know the pros and cons of asthetics when choosing the position of an engine and the results anytime you put the carb below the fuel tanks outlets. My original question was about a flapper valve which stops pressure loss in tank from going back out the pressure tube when at low throttle settings. JrJohn replied, and I thank him for that, but did not extend a reason as to why it won't work. Has it been tried? Does it hold too much pressure? I just thought I'd throw it out there before I try it. Thanks for everyones input so far. Joe
P.S. Rocketman, it runs great as stock.
P.S. Rocketman, it runs great as stock.
10-26-2003 | 08:28 PM
#1549
Senior Member
My Feedback: (24)
RE: U Can Do 3D
JrJohn replied, and I thank him for that, but did not extend a reason as to why it won't work. Has it been tried? Does it hold too much pressure? I just thought I'd throw it out there before I try it.
I assume your talking about putting a one way valve in the preasure line from the exhaust? if so, I don't have to tryit to know it won't work. I can guarantee it won't. As soon as you put preasure in the tank without a regulator in the fuel line you will totally flood your engine as soon as you shut it off, not to mention eratic running. you'll never be able to tune the engine to run right at all rpms. Once you have a preasurized system, you need the preasure to be constant, it can't be without a regulator.
Your trying to reinvent the wheel, Trust me on this one, If you need pics of the set up, I'll send some
JOhn
10-26-2003 | 08:36 PM
#1550
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clarks Summit, PA
RE: U Can Do 3D
Now thats what I've been looking for. Thank you JrJohn." Been there, done that" was just a little vague. We took the long way around the block but ended up at the right spot. Thanks guys.
