Deandome

My Feedback: (1)

My Sr. Falcon came with a 190cc tank (6.4 oz). The fuel chamber part of the plane, behind the firewall, has room for a much bigger tank; at least a full inch longer, and a bit wider/taller, too.

I was told to get a Hayes tank anyways, and I'd like to go with a larger tank...but HOW MUCH larger can/should I go without worrying about messing with the plane's balance point too much? Also, the instructions are pretty vague about balancing the plane; do I want to have everything (i.e. the Rx battery pack) in the plane before balancing? What about fuel...I THINK you're supposed to do it with an empty tank (or they would have clearly said otherwise).

Thanks!

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

An appropriate fuel tank size for an OS 55 (I think thats what you said in another post) would be at a minimum eight ounce for a practical fuel capacity. If there was room ten would be OK but I would avoid larger sizes.

Many folks want to cram hugh tanks often at first but this can bring on certain running problems and tank height placement problems.

Oh and definately do consider the Hayes tank they have many advantage over the conventional types and they are competively priced.

John

Stew99

Yes, you want to have everything on the plane in ready-to-fly condition except for fuel. Usually you can move battery pack, etc. around to help get the right balance point. If that is not sufficient then lead weights can be placed in the engine compartment or near the tail to move the cg to the proper position.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I agree with John, a 10 oz should be fine. The 55 is a fairly light engine so you shouldn't have any balance issues. The directions should have a balance point but if not putting the balance on the spar will give you a safe starting place.

Deandome

My Feedback: (1)

Hayes tanks jump from 8 to 11 oz...that's OK, isn't it?

Thanks!

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

I did forget about that you are correct For me I would use the eight ounce but if the eleven will fit then sure. They do have the advantage of being narrow for their various capacitys and that often can help.

And remember there are two fuel line ports above the 'o' ring plug. The top one is the one you will use for the line to the muffler and it is open. The middle nipple is blocked and not open. It is not normally used and its best to stick with a simple two line system on any airplane.

John

jaka

Hi!
There are many other tank brands that are equally good!
Why do you think a Hayes tank is better than all the other tanks??
A 10-11 oz tank will be fine!. But as many of us have said before, The OS .55 will be too big (powerfull)!!!!!

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

I disagree that a .55 is too big, there is a throttle after all, and the air frame and wings are more than up to the task. I ran a .61 on one for years and it was a joy to fly. depending on how you prop it your top speed will not increase but your climb will be incredible. I used to carry large loads (cameras) regularly with no difficulty. It was an incredibly versatile air frame and with 3 1/2 inch wheels it could be flown virtually anywhere. I ran a 10 oz tank and had no issues. I balanced it towards the back of the range with it empty and did not have any noticeable change during flight. With throttle management I regularly had 25-30 min. flights and could easily keep it in the air at 1/4 throttle. All of that said it should fly well with a decent .45, and you could get great flight times with a 10 oz tank.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

Oops double post

Deandome

My Feedback: (1)

The only people who said it's too big had no idea this was a Sr. Falcon; a 7 lb. plane with a 69" wingspan...NOT a 40-class. And besides, I'm getting this motor for 1/2 as much $$ as it retails for.

NOBODY who knows this plane will think this is too big an engine.

jaka

Hi!
It's too big for a newbie!

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

..

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Jaka I suspect you are saying this simply because you have never used one and since they are actually manufactured in the US completely I doubt they are avalible in your country.


Why they are indeed better than all the other conventional tanks (notice I left out bubbless types) :

They are far, far easier to assemble especially for the newbie. Anyone can assemble the tank in less than two minutes. Using conventionals will take the majority folks ten times that amount and newbie often struggle with them for hours often ending up with leakers.

Once the hayes tanks "O" ring plug is pushed home It will not leak there can be no under tightening or worse overtightening of an expansion bung plug.

The tanks rim can never be split from overtightening or vibration

The "O" ring plug can removed or replaced in seconds countless times even for years and never fail to seal. Try that with a conventional tank Ha!

The tanks will stand greater pressure of some pressure systems such as used by the YS engines and you will never pop A bung plug in the airplane from to much pressure and there is no need to filiment wrap the tank in these applications.

In fact in one particular type of competition here in the states one venue requires the use of a Hayes within the rules if a YS engine is used.

For most airplanes (and of course there are exceptions as always with all types of tanks) the standard hayes are narrower and taller and this makes them a piece of cake for most airplanes.


The Hayes tanks are essentially designed to work with two line systems and this greatly simplifies the plumbing over three line systems with all the extra failure points and using the two line system simplifies the installaion in cowling enormously and certainly no problamatic refueling valves.

I could go on however last but not least a genuine hayes (I say genuine Hayes because there are cheezy chinese ripoffs out there that ommited the "O" ring and these are worse than bad) Will last in dry storage or even with residue litterally for years and you will never end up with tank replacements after only a few years due to petrified BUNGS.

Thats a Fact

John

Team Geritol

landeck

My Feedback: (1)

John, while I agree the Hayes tanks are good tanks there are two problems with them. You must install them right side up because of the molded in vent nipple. If you have a plane that takes a tank that is wider than it is high, you can not use a Hays tank. Second, if you have a cowled in engine requiring a three line fuel system, the Hayes tanks won't work because there is no way to locate the fill line inside the tank so that the tank can be emptied. Most of my planes fall into one or both categories.

Bruce

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Yep Bruce as I noted they are not perfect for every airplanes installation size requirements however for the vast majority of twenty to ninety sized airplanes size needs they are perfect. Heck I even use a number of the one ounce and the three ounce hayes for some airplanes and in this case just on packageing alone they are far superior to say the sullivan two ounce with that humongous hard bung.

As far as the third lines goes well I have posted many times how I have never ever used them and never will with a rather hugh variety of many types, two line system is in my opinion of course easier to install, easier to refuel, easier to set up in airplanes with cowls and more reliable with fewer failure points.

Two line systems are obviously talked down by those raised on the old adage or the computer that if you have a cowl you must have a three line system. That is simply not so I have posted multiple pics many times exactly how its done. Although I only have two gassers I even use a similar setup on those, No needless third lines with their corks that I see so much time lost at the fieldby the fellows Looking for lost corks in the sand.

John

landeck

My Feedback: (1)

Well, after building and flying RC and control line glow planes for 58 years, I too am set in my ways. BTW I am really impressed by the videos of you flying control line.[:-]

Bruce

jaka

Hi!
Agree with you John that they are simpler to use ...but it seems that newbies always get the wrong impression and think that Hayes tanks are mandatory to use if you want sucess!

As for the OS .55. No it's not too big if you can fly! But putting execcisve power in the hands of a newbie is not that good.

ratshooter

I looked up the difference in an OS .46 and an OS .55 and the power rating is 1.63HP @ 16.000 RPM for the .46 and 1.68HP@ 16.000 RPM for the .55. If the .55 is too much engine then the .46 is also too much engine. I really don't think five one hundredths of a horsepower will make the slightest bit of difference.

And I agree Hayes tanks are just about perfect and are my number one choice also.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Ya I suppose getting set in our way is just another of the diease' that comes along with old age and I am probably just as guilty of that as any.

Actually though my preferance for the Hayes tanks has only come in about the last ten years and I am a newcomer to those tanks. Thirty years ago when they were Kraft tanks I ignored them. But do now use them whenever possible.

I do have a question for any who may have used them when they were made by Phil Kraft and that is did the originals use the same 'O' ring type seal? I found an old Kraft in my stash a while back and if I remember correctly it had some type of screw cap.

I had an interesting talk with the folks from Hayes at the big AMA Expo recently and the one major fault of the Hayes tanks is the omission of any larger sizes with the largest being the 16 ounce and even though I use this one one of my 50cc airplanes (Turnigy 52cc) for the other (OS 55cc) it is slightly small.

They said they have no plans for making anything larger and seemed to indicate without really admitting directly, that at the price of capital investment for new molds for larger tanks that the market just was not there especially with the proliferation of the electrics.

Jaka my apolloies to you for seeming a little hardheaded. I actually think now that the situation may even be reversed in our respective countrys judging from your last post. Here they are not held in much esteem and avoided any mention by all the conventional tutorials.


John[8D]

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Just a thought or two of my own on the displacement argument for the Goldberg Senior Falcon.
A superb old Icon of an airplane either kit built as original or the various later versions.

First while I wound never call the Senior Falcon specifically a trainer I would be among the first to say it could be used for that especially under the tuttaledge of a good mentor. I have never owned one either 'back when' or now but have flown a few here and there. I beleve up to a .61 displacement is reasonable for that airplane.

Now using a ninety Something in a Senior Falcon is silly and pointless but fun, especially knowing the American penchant for the engine displacement. For example in my case one of my airplanes is a Goldberg Wildstick with a Moki 1.8! Silly? sure, Pointless? sure but fun.

Also I think some folks here may be mistaken the the Senior Falcon for the Jr. Falcon or the Falcon 56 or ?.

One of our locals even has a ball with his old Senior Falcon using a .60 something in our Wingless Trainer races.

Just this last weekend I attended a fun fly at a nearby club on the river and a fellow had an old but real purdy Senior Falcon with an older OS .61FX for sale cheap and man I almost POP'ed for it thinking of this thread but alas no I was good a boy!

John[8D]