jeanyves0922

Thank you RMazuera.
Looking at your pics again, leads to another question: I see you reinforced the firewall, do you suggest I do so?
Do you just epoxy some balsa on top of it (or from the inside)?
J-Y

rmazuera

I did not reinforce the firewall. I just drilled the new location of the engine supports and cut a little the bottom so I could vent more the engine. Whatever lead you to believe I did came with the plane.

jeanyves0922

From the downloaded manual, pictures show a hole in the center of the firewall for the stopper and fuel line. It did not appear in the pictures you posted, that what lead me to that conclusion.
And also the Magnum Engine requires that the firewall be at least 5/16" thick (which I suppose is ok for the ST).
Can wait to start building it. I hope to finish it before the snow comes.[sm=50_50.gif]

rmazuera

Since I did not install the tank that came with the plane, I covered the hole with a 1/32" ply and also closed the original holes for the engine support. Then fuelproofed everything with a coat of epoxy/alcohol mix brushed all over the firewall. Don't think the firewall is 5/16". It is less, Maybe 1/4" in 2 1/8" layers. Only the center section has the second layer.

jeanyves0922

RMazuera,
How did you manage to remove the blind nuts from the firewall without destroying it? Mine seem to be expoxied.

RodanAZ

You can use a soldering iron on the outside of the blind nut to heat it up. This will break down the expoy and allow you to press the nut out. One of them has a former behind it, so you will not be able to get it out.

It's also a good idea to get some epoxy in around the landing gear mount area. I did this and the plane had a rough landing after throwing a prop that I think might have damaged it if I hadn't beefed it up.

I've got almost two gallons through mine now, and I really like this plane! It's definitely more pattern than 3D, but I like it! Once I finish off my second gallon, I'll start experimenting with props to find the ideal setup for my altitude and flying....

jeanyves0922

Rodan,

1) Thank you very much for the hint.

2) I heard that landing gear in the ST is a weak point. I was thinking about either:

a) replacing the blots with larger ones like RMazuera suggested 1/4-20 (now that I know how to remove a blind nut [8D]
b) Expoxy the entire gear on the fuse along with the existing "miniature" bolts
c) just add an extra nut in the center of these two existing nuts.
d) or just lock the bolts with glue in the nuts

Which is the best?

3) I really need to lower the tank for the Magnum (inverted). I will use a 4oz cylindrical Sullivan in front. Do you think I can cut through the actual support for the tank to mount the tank lower? Is that part critical for the structure of the plane? I have used a pic posted by RMazuera to show the part I need to remove.

Thanks,

Jean-Yves

[img][/img]

jeanyves0922

Same pic 3 times. I could not see it in the preview. First time uploading a pic.

RodanAZ

I just got some epoxy all around inside the landing gear box, being careful to keep it out of the blind nut threads. I'm using the stock bolts (with locktite) without any issues on our asphalt runway. The stock gear itself does bend fairly easily. I would hesitate to epoxy the gear on...

RMazuera's idea of replacing the blind nuts to use 1/4-20 bolts is a good one. If I hadn't already epoxied everything, I would have done that and used plastic bolts.

AFA the tank support, I don't think that's critical to the structure of the plane. You can probably open it up a bit. You can always put a doubler on it with some epoxy to get the strength back...

jeanyves0922

Rodan,

Thank you for the advice. I think I'll use 1/4 bolts and open up the plate for the tank. I will have to add some structure at the bottom to support it.
As for your problem, let me suggest you your own trick. I have not tried it, but I wonder if epoxy could soften enough with a heat gun to let you remove the gear. You might try it who knows.

RodanAZ

I'm sure I could get the blind nuts for the gear out if I wanted to, but I'm not having any problems. As noted, I threw a prop on one flight that ended up with a landing that bent the gear, but didn't faze the bolts or mounting, so I'm comfortable with the way it is.

Pashka_22

After thinking for about 3 weeks on solution with my plane-engine situation, I have decided to get cline regulator. Changing motor orientation or changing fuel tank position is only solution for this particular plane-engine combination. I was not sure changing motor orientation or fuel tank position was going to solve my problem completely. So I opted to go with Cline regulator. And it... worked! Worked, as it was expected. After simple installation of the unit – it took about 10 min. I was ready for a test flight. It almost did not need any needle valves adjustments. Engine worked powerful and stable in any airplane orientation, and it appears to have more power and better throttle response. I can probably explain more power, for the reason that, while tuning, I did not have to sacrifice power for stability of the engine operation in different orientations - just tuned it for max power. But throttle response - was something I did not expect and it was a bonus. So for now, Showtime with Magnum 91 and Cline - jointed a club of my airplanes that are tuned and I just take them to the field and fly - without worrying about tuning or working out on some sort of mechanical "difficulties".

Now, I just need to get used to characteristics of the plane itself - may be work on CG, fine-tune mixes etc. I still prefer my Fliton Edge with Saito 1.00 versus this plane configuration - but it could be just my preference or flying style. May be - and it is very likely - I just need to get used to this plane a little more.

Pashka22.

jeanyves0922

Disregard.
I finally found one long screwdriver 1.5mm at another hardware store. Had to buy the whole kit.

Gentlemen,
This is the first time I am installing a cowling on a plane. I did my "clearences" ok, but how do you go about installing (tightening) the needle valve extension once the cowling is in place? []
I cannot find a long enough (3-4 inches) 1.5mm hex wrench at the local hardware stores. Don't know if this exists.
Jean-Yves

HighFlyer9

My Feedback: (36)

Has anyone put a Saito 100 in the ShowTime 50 yet? It's overall length is 1mm shorter than the 91. I have a 100 in the box and would like to use it for this plane. If anyone would reply I wonder how the cowling fitted and also how much weight you had to put in the tail to make it balance? Good Forum everyone

JR 1984

I had a st50 and had a saito 91 on it and i did not have to add any weight to it, just shifted the battery a little. not much of the valve covers were sticking out of the cutout in the cowling, but i dont know how much bigger the 100 is than the 91. you should have room .And you should have plenty of power lol. mine would hover at about 3/8 throttle.

daved321

I have a Saito 100 left over from when I crashed my ultrastick. I was looking at a showtime as it's new home. I think it may be a bit overpowered/heavy for the ST50, but a bit weak for the ST90. Friend of mine is building a 90 with a Saito 125, so I was going to wait to see how that flew... Any thoughts?

Pashka_22

Saito 100 is a bit too much for this plane. (But then again many people think that it is never "too much")
It depends on what do you want. If you have Saito 100 and whant to fly ST50 - go for it.
If you want the best plane for saito 100- Fliton Edge or Extra are going to suit you better - IMHO

jeanyves0922

I am using a Magnum 91 in my ST50 and just finished break in. I had to add 2oz to the nose to balance (very front of the cowling, don't know if I should have put them there). Since I am using a 2 tank system, I relocated the battery pack and the receiver servo right in front of the rudder servo.
I saw everyone had to add weight to the tail. I balanced and re-balanced and re-re-balanced. It really looks like these 2 oz belong to the nose.
If I had used an aluminum mount, I don't think I would have needed this extra weight. I am also using a plastic spinner with an aluminum back plate.
The Magnum 91 w/muffler weights about 22.5oz.
I think you will be fine with the Saito 100 since it has the same dimensions as the Saito 91 and is even 1.5oz ligther than my Magnum. I think most people in this thread installed their "bigger than recommended" engines inverted. Not much of the top of the engine is sticking out of the cowling (did not measure, but not even a cm).
Beautiful plane. Will know how it flies this weekend (hopefully).

daved321

Hmm, I'm still torn here.... I have a Saito 100 and really like the showtime. Been doing some more reading up on the ST90, and looks like the 100 is going to be on the low end of the power range for me. I'm not really much of 3D pilot at this point, but I'd like to learn (I figure I might need the extra power will get me out of trouble). So I'm leaning back toward the ST50.

Has anyone had any problems with the 100 in the ST50? Was major surgery required to make it fit? Too much weight, hard to balance, etc. Any flight reports or pics with a 100 on the nose would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Dave

rmazuera

Daved321, you will be OK with the Saito 100 on the ST50. I don't know if what you want is 3D, then maybe this is not the best plane for you. It flies great but it leans more to a pattern plane than to a 3D plane.
I hope I'm not getting in trouble here by giving you this advice, but anyway, it is what I believe. I fly the ST50 with a YS-91AC. Heavier than your Saito.

daved321

rmazuera,

Thanks for the info. I doubt I'll be doing all out 3D anytime soon (I have a H9 Tribute PNP profile to kick around if I get the urge). I really need to learn to use the rudder more effectively and just overall smooth out my flying, so something more on the pattern side might not be a bad thing for me. And from what I've seen in the videos you can still toss the showtime around pretty good. Looks like an all around great plane. Just cant decide between the overpowered 50 or a just enough powered 90.

Saw a 90 fly with a Saito 125 and it looks great... seems like a perfect match for this plane, but alas, I have a perfectly good 100 sitting in my garage looking for a home.

Does anyone who has flown both the 50 and 90 have any opinion on which is better? Does either have any flight characteristics / build quirks that the other doesn't?

Dave

rmazuera

Can somebody help me with the offset angles of the firewall. I had a little accident and it came loose. I am going to glue it back today and need the correct angles. Thanks!

rmazuera

Never mind, I already corrected the firewall. On another site I found the incidence is 0-0-0. Engine, main wing, elevator, all at 0 degrees. It is amazing what a little change in incidence of the engine makes. I knew the plane would fly very well, it did before the little accident. By the way, the accident was caused by a propeller. Originally, I had an aluminum spinner. The spinner came loose and knicked the base of the propeller (16x6 APC). While in the air, the propeller decided to shear off one of the blades. The other followed along with the engine and engine mount, at least part of it. Engine went one way, plane the other. It took me 30 minutes to find the engine. The firewall came loose because of the vibration when only 1/2 the propeller was attached. Later, I fixed the damage but never checked the firewall. Big error. From that day on the plane was not the same. It flew strange. I was ready to throw away the fuselage and get another one when I realized the engine support had damaged the surface of the firewall. More careful inspection showed the extent of the damage. Fixed it with some shims made of plywood and went to try it today. Perfect weather, today was around 78ºF with maybe 10 mph winds. Great flying. Had a lot of fun again. This time of the year here in South Florida is GREAT for flying!

dougtx

I have a question in regards to which engine to use on the ST50. Out of the Saito 82, Saito 91, and Saito 100, it appears that more comments are made towards using the 91 as opposed to the 82, however, according to Horizon Hobby, the 91 weighs in at 19.6, while the 100 weighs in at 19.5, so why wouldn't you want to use the 100 if it has basically the same weight as the 91 which seems to provide good results on this airplane?

jeanyves0922

Hi All,

I though I would share with you my setup that works with the Magnum 91. Special thanks to RMazuera and RodanAZ for their help, without you guys I would have probably been banging my head on the wall. I have learned so much building this plane. First 3D, first 4-stroke.
With the Magnum inverted, this tank setup works great, basically same as RMazuera, but with the 4 oz header tank lowered. Looks like the Magnum is very capricious on really having tank center line levelled with the carb valves. I have 10 flights, still running the new engine rich for break in but all can say: amazing experience and amazing plane.
Hope these pics help others with Magnum 91.