Roger, would you need another clunk, as its only a fill line? Wouldn't want to see them wrestling around in there and choking each other. I was thinking on the lines of a piece of brass tube turned up towards the top of the tank, like the pressure line with the short piece of fuel line on top. Unless its filled right to the top, the fuel would not siphon back at you when filling. Wait, I think I answered my own question, how would you drain it with the line on the top side of the tank. Well, it was just a thought. As far as quick fuelers go, there is only one thing to fail and that is the O-ring. Put the O-rings on a regular maintenance schedule. Joe

Hey Roger... No I'm not following you either I just ordered a UCANDO 60 and a OS 91 Surpass III from Tower should be here in a few days... You mentioned that you didn't get much vertical out of your regular OS 91... I saw a guy at the field with a 91 and his hovered well and all... Not sure if his was the pump version or whether it makes a difference... Do you think mine will do OK with the right prop?? You have helped me tremendously with my Giles so I'm coming back for more advice on this bird... And after I get it delivered I'm sure I may be back here to hear advice from you guys.. Sounds like you all like the plane ...

Welcome aboard Scott. So you decided on he UCD. This is a much more tame airplane than the Giles by a long shot. You are going to absolutely love this bird. This thing is the most enjoyable airplane to fly in my hanger. Just palin fun at all speeds. Cumn thru ( Joe ) is our inhouse UCD expert. He is upgrading to a YS 110 to pull tree stumps out while doing TR's.

He is the Q&A guy by a long shot on this bird. But hey, we all chime in and provide our 2 cents even when not asked...... Good bunch of guys on this thread and we have all been here from just about the get go. So welcome! We tend toi hit all and any ssubjects so no one is going to balst you if you ask somethignthats not specifically about the UCD, but we try to keep it close to the UCD 60 as the main focus of the thread.

To answer your questions, I have the 91 Surpass, one of the earlier version without a pump. I can take off in about 10 maybe 20 feet and go vertical unlimited. Mine hovers very well and does a nice KE. I'm still working on the TR thing and think I need more throw or to upgrade to a 6 volt pack for more speed and power in my servos. For the overall weight vs power I am very happy with my engine. Now some of these guys have put pure beast engines on their's so we will let them chime in with their 2 cents.

Joe, what do you mean about regular maintenance schedule on the O ring? What do you do to keep them working properly. I have used the Dubro fuel valves forever and only had one failure. It was a fairly new valve on my DA. Per DA and others, fuel valves are not a good idea on gassers. The vibration just eat up the O ring and causes air leaks. Mine did it after about 75 flights and I was flying it a good bit and used the plastic cap over the valve end to help keep it clean. No crashes or dirt issues but it sure failed.

Ah-ha.. Roger ...thing ive got it now ...is a fuel "dot" like a GP easy fueler but with only one line into the back of it...ie its on the End of a line.[:-]...that would have been easier on the UCD ....With the Pumped O.S .91...i had a spare line to the tank and it was a pain fitting the easy fueler where the tank should have been...
Scott ...this may be of help to you ...did you say you had ordered a .91FSII with a pump..? the general feeling is thats the O.S for this airplane..good luck..

Dave, I am familiar with the fuel valve you are using and used the same thing in my UCD with the 91 Surpass. The difference with a Fuel Dot is that you don't have a valve so one less thing to potentially fail, and if weight conscientious then a dot does save a little weight as well.

A fuel dot installation uses a third line into the tank. I used a cluck with a similar installation as the fuel draw line to the carb. I have read several post on RCU and many guys do it this way without any problems with the fuel draw line and the filler line tangling. You could also use a T off the fuel draw line to the carb, but unless you pinch off the line to the carb you will flood the carb, which is not the best way to go.

For a glow engine mounted inverted I think a fuel valve is the only way to go to avoid flooding the carb anyway. I have read of several examples of guys mounting their engine inverted with fuel dots and then having siphoning problems with fuel flooding the carb.

So, in short, if weight is an issue, and the engine is not mounted inverted, and you are not using a gasser then a fuel dot is probably the best choice. If mounted inverted and using a glow engine and there isn't a concern up front with weight then I would definitely use a fuel valve. Just my 2 cents on the topic.

Roger, O-ring maintenance is just changing it out for a new one periodically. Gas.......that could be it. If the O-ring is not up to snuff for that chemical. An outo shop should have gas safe o-rings. Thats one reason why they have seperate fuel lines and support equippment for gas and glo. Never thought of that. Joe

What about the 'Miracle Fueler' with that little in line Y shaped device. Also I am learning a few things from YS. Fuel filters everywhere. On the fuel jug clunk, the fuel jug supply line, one on the fuel tank clunk, one on the fuel supply side and last but not least, one on the pressure line from the crank. Pretty much resolves the dirt issue. Joe

Joe, I actually had a gas compatible valve for the Pitts. The gas valve is red in color from Dubro. The problem as I see it had nothing to do with the chemicals, but more with vibration. The O ring you mention just doesn't seem to be able to handle the vibration and it wears out prematurely. Apparently I'm not the only one that had this occur. I haven't read one example where guys are using successfully in gas engines for this reason. Even DA discourages for the same reason.

I am going to use in glow engines as we have in the UCD, but wnever again in a gasser.

rfw

The 3rd line into the tank, only needs to be turned up, pointing to the top of the Tank.
Your Exhaust pressure line will be the same on line two.
To empty the plane use line three ,but you need to turn the plane over, and nose down.
Filling on line three, is the easy way as when the tank is filled, excess fuel passes out the
exhaust line (line two) so not flooding your engine .


Carbon tube passed over push rods (tight fit)to stiffen the pushrod.
Anyone tried this, would be a light way to stiffen up light push-rod wire.
bit worried about interference to the radio, Any Idea's on this ?

On a Quest to keep UCD light.(using standard hardware)

Xup

Seems like a little extra trouble when the third line with a cluck does the same thing without having to turn the plane over. The vent line remains the vent line. The fuel draw line is not interfered with. All you are doing is adding the third line with a fuel dot and a clunk to fuel and and de-fuel. Pretty simple and no fuss having to flip the plane over.

Xup, if considering carbon rods then eliminate the 2/56 rods altogether. Thats additional weight that will not make the setup stronger. Just use carbon with titanium ends. Joe

Xup ..

....Irvine do a nice line in 3mm carbon rods with lockable ends...v. light & v.rigid..

David, all your 'stuff' sparkles with a sense of professionalism. Carbon fiber rods, the utmost in weight control and strength. But findings with the UCD as to its notoriously nose heavy characteristical traits cried out for something more substantial in the tail, therefore the 4/40 rods. Which can be overcome with the battery more aft, but with the slender features of the fuse and the presently known stress that the tail encounters, resulting in undesirable movement around the horizontal stab, I'm not sure if cutting a hatch back there is wise to accomodate the placement of the battery, as well as the weight the tail would encounter. Ater finding stress cracks just forward of the hor. stab. and conferring with other seasoned UCD owners its now advisable to epoxy the 'mount block' of the hor. stab. to the front and back of the block opening in the fuse. Some have gone as far as glueing the hor. stab. as well. You will find that the former in the tail section, between the servo bays, suffers from glue failure, resulting in said movement. Just something to consider and keep a close eye on. Joe

Lo again

Bit more time this time

Carbon rod's, got them coming out my ears, but in 6 mm and the ends, are heavy ally and all.
Dave,.. you probably know the ones "Peter Trindal" ones,
Do us a Favour Dave (My hero, lol) weigh one of your 3mm rod's set up with both clevises on the ailerons.

Cumn thru.

Is there a easy way in to the first former, past the bulkhead?, thinking of taking the undercarriage block out,
need to modify to lower the tank position by 3/4inch, same with the bulk head, I will just elongate the hole down.
and less wood less weight lol.


The OEM engine mount is way heavy, save just under 2 oz by changing it to a red four stroke one.
still think the least weight is the oem rods , sleeved in 2mm internal diameter thin carbon tubes.
we shall see,........[sm=bananahead.gif]

Dave,....... I want your flying field, I fly on a very rough patch shared with Sheep,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[sm=crying.gif]


But on a very good note, Still think I am dreaming, Got a cheque from the Taxman today for £500+ for the year 98 overpayment ?
only took them 6 years to find it, and pay it back ,,,,,,, dohhh.(New engine new engine New engine keeps going round my head )

cheers for the Info guys

Xup

Is anyone using the G23 with this plane? I have heard rumors of it and was wondering. I have an extra engine laying around with about a half of a quart ran through it and want something to put it in.

Crashland, Check out the post 'U Can DO with 120+ engines' by krazyC in flying 3D forums for some good info. They are running RCS 1.4s and the uncompromised MVVS 1.6 out of the Chec Republic. 26cc @2.98 lbs with ign. and battery. Unfortunatly the G23 lacks in the power to weight that they offer. There is one guy that modified a G but required a lot of cutting, turning down the FW and even went as far as dremmeling all unesential matter from the engine block as well as converting the ignition system.

Xup, the engine heat exhaust ramp will come out. The UC mount block is pinned in between the main former and a half former inside. It will come out but must be re-pinned with a recommended larger diameter dowel. I added an extra dowel in the center. While in there add four pieces of tri stock vertically in each corner and one horizontally to the block as there is already one in there. These five small pieces and the new dowels are tremendous in strength compared to the small addition in weight. Within the last three weeks I knocked of my UC twice and the only parts affected were the tee nuts, splitting the threads from the washers. No structural damage. You will find that the tank will lower 5/8" perhaps the desired 3/4" if the curve of the tank ends come into play. Missing from the autopsy photos is the half former from inside that the other part of the block pins to. Joe

Many Thanks,... Joe

Just the info I needed.

Time to get the chainsaw out


Xup

When you mentioned the sheep, you are not alone. I lost the UC to hoof impressions from cows on the field. Obviously a roving gang of tuffs with a wonton disregard for R/C. Joe

Gents..

Yikes ..loadsa stuff again.. Joe...with the batt & RX nicely behind the C of G mounted tank..i actually had to add nose weight ..only 1/2 oz mind but i was gettin twitchy about NOT having a tail heavy model...i glued everthing down at the back, block, stab the lot.
Remember though, the exit of the muffler on the .91 FSIIP came out smack bang on the front of the landing gear..

XUP ..yeah ill weigh some gear for ya ...but i've gone into stage III on the controll transport dept ... Du-Bro lockable H/D clevices (4-40 ) with a 4-40 threaded rod...dead easy to make.. but then with a carbon tube " sheath " over the.. er.." unsightly " threaded rod...lovely ...you could allmost eat some of this Du-Bro hardware...with Du-bro H/D servo arms there is absolutely no play in any link at all...

Hmmm.......more sparkling stuff, any experience in marketing? Wise choice on the clevis, light and strong with the peace of mind in the locking device. Are they aluminum servo arms? I did build one of five, that, for the life of me, could not figure out why the battery had to go under the tank. Joe

Joe...Just the Du-Bro H/D Glass filled servo arms from Tower ....Small or Large i think you can get...in all servo Spline types ..great ......
Since the w/end of the great 3D servo debate ...and subsequent digital servo upgrade...i just went through all linkage/clevis /horn permutations possible ...ended up on Du-Bro's doorstep everytime

Now your Talking Dave,.......... thats nice gear, where from and price?

My UCD, had to buy it at Weston Park show, the colour got me,
It matches my bike.[link=http://website.lineone.net/~xup1/]Bike[/link]

Going to try the UCD out with the Saito91, but with no Cowl, not cutting it up till I sort out the right motor
this seems a very big plane for a 90 four stroke.

Inwood will be at Cosford show in under 3 weeks, be time to haggle again over Saito 100 price.

Cosford will have the 8 turbine b52 flying. got to see it.

you going Dave ?

Xup

.....Tower...check out the O.S. Prices there to..( they dont do Saito [] & Horrizon wont ship to the U.K [] )

...Cosford .....? Date ...?...

" wings and wheels " this w/end..?.. ..going..

Mmmmmm......Suzuki.

Martin, I happened to see the video of the B-52 fly. One of the guys in our club got the video and was able to download it . It's as awesome as the plane looks. I can't imagine how your butt would feel in the throat just before take-off. It looked and sounded just like the real thing only smaller. Plenty of power from what I could tell. They didn't show the landing but the takeoff and the flight was really something .