Nice in theory, but flawed in practice, it simply doesn't work for the average stud. That people struggle through and learn despite it is the miracle, more often than not a case of the blind being led by the blind. It's easy to pick 'em out shortly after solo. They're the ones who need someone to buy them a throttle servo.

Student performance isn't proportional to sheer intelligence. Flying, be it full size or RC, is a demonstrated competency thing, which in a large degree has to be learned by repetition and facilitate by using the best tools to ensure success and rapid assimilate at a pace with which they can cope with mistakes and reinforce success, which the 46AX isn't.

Even basic semi-competent throttle management requires awareness translated into action. It takes time literally and figuratively for students to react and learn this until it becomes anticipative rote. Excessive power or speed don't assist the assimilation curve. They detract from it. You lose half the effective teaching period of their useful concentration span in the air perpetually telling them to slow the model down because the model is ahead of them and exacerbating their problems, then waiting for them to hear you after you've said it for the fifth time because they're still load shedding under stress trying to catch up mentally with the model .... before they "Oh', just a minute I've got to turn again" eventually action it.

And this ultimately is the root cause of the problem dressed up as economic justification. A false premise, because the inevitible consequence is that everyone buys more than one engine if they continue, and within the first few months. But more importantly, the huge $$$$ saving ammassed by flying within one's capability as they learn which is complimented by the 46LA in the first important confidence & experience gaining months, easily comes out way ahead in cash terms versus any preceived bigger pie for just a few pennies more misperceived "better value" triage. Dunno' how the morons who can't figure that out can stand the crash and replace dash for cash, let alone having to put an new ARF together every week!

no it is easy to land...i mean the looks on the monitor kill me when setting up...lol

G'day Kendall,
Allan here again, I only have taildraggers, 1 apprentice, 1 Senior telemaster, 1 livewire champ, 1 Diabolo, 1 Sportsmaster, 1 Giles 202, & I had a Katana, all taildraggers. They are the best, when you learn how to take off & land.

most of the reason for me not landing is we have been have 25 - 35 mph wind gust crosswinds..so it has been a bear flying as it is

G'day Sigrun,
Where is it written that one must extract every last rev out of an engine, we run an OS 46AX, with an APC 12x6, & a Taipan green plug, my girlfriend flys it, in her Skyraider mk1, at half throttle, & even at full throttle it is still very controllable, the motor don't care, it is always a first flick, against compression start, & runs sweet.
Come to our field sometime & we'll show ya.
Here it is at Armidale last year, that is her plane at the home page, & we are not even members,
http://nemac.com.au/

man that has to suck having to wait until Sunday to fly...or did i misread that... we can fly everyday at our club. www.hawksrc.org really nice field...even enough room to fly the smaller turbines... have to the bigger ones over to the airport

Thanks for that.

For all those disputing whether or not it is a good idea to get an 'overpowered' engine, I honestly don't care about this particular one, because it is not that overpowered, and I understand that as soon as you have enough speed to get off the ground, you've got enough speed to back off to at least 3/4 throttle, and probably 1/2 at altitude...like I said earlier, I do know how to fly, and for any actual plane pilots reading this, should understand, that it would come more naturally as they understand better what the plane is going to do as they have probably made the mistakes/done the same movements in learning how to fly...

Cheers for all the advice everyone!

Kendall

3/4, 1/2 throttle on a boomerang? bah!

The boomerang is just a big glider with an optional engine in the front. When i got my wings i was messing around in it i pulled the throttle all the way back to idle put in full up elevator and with the headwind that i had at the time i stayed perfectly stationary. You could even do spirals to put in into a slow descent.

At my field we can fly any day of the week but we share it with different clubs. Unfortunately though during the week people like to come down on the weekdays for some really "relaxed" flying and don't bother to stick their radio tags in and generally do illegal flying. But my club is talking about getting a new field now with a main 200mx20m runway! It will almost be impossible to miss.

field: http://www.wamasc.org.au/

club: www.boomerangswa.org

G'day Mate,
That club is in Armidale, about 5 hours drive away from where we are, the pic just happened to show up on their front page.
We can fly every day of the week here too except for Saturdays during summer, because of the cricket.

Where is it implied, but more importantly, what is it that deceives you to believe that's what a 46LA needs to do?

Alan if you truly believe it's necessary to "extract every last rev out of a 46LA" in ab initio training, or performing the Gold Wings manoeuvres consecutively, or even the Sportsman pattern with a model weighing just 5¼lb with 775in² of wing area, then (a) you're never used the 46LA, certainly not in a Sky Raider Mach I, and (b) your belief system is as flawed as your understanding of aerodynamics, engine & propellor theory and resolution of the balance of forces, with specific regard to understanding the purpose of excess power available vs power required, how it's determined and purpose it serves.

And your point is what exactly Alan? "very controllable"? Every well designed model is "very controllable". It's just that it needs capable 'driver' on the other end, the salient point you either errantly or inadvertantly overlook. Bottom line is that the LA performs with the same user friendliness and reliability as the AX, but delivers only about 70% of the AX's power at 60% of the AX's price. Bang for the buck, or superior for purpose, for training and that first and second model, LA wins hands down. If you've seen one perform in a Sky Raider Mach II or similar, you'd understand that the engine is <understatement> very capable and has considerably in excess of "power required" both for the task, and as much as your wannabe' space cadet can competently handle when put to the test.

But m8, I'm pleased for you & your grlfriend. OK? No...truly....I am [sm=tongue_smile.gif]

The AX is a reliable, powerful sport engine engine no argument. It's just not an recommended first engine, and definitely not an ideal training engine. The reasons why are known to those with a clue about considerations in teaching and learning in the dynamic 'classroom', and should be to those who are actually as smart as they like to think they are if you read my former post. After you have, if you still don't understand, go and drop circa AUD$10k on a real CASA instructor rating, do the study, prep & deliver the briefs, pass the exams & flight tests, but don't forget to get the minimum of a CPL first, then progress through GR3, 2 & 1, do the hard yards in GA before you achieve RPT and eventually become a checkie, + etc, spend a 30 years in professional and sport aviation including aeromodelling, and then we'll talk some more on the subject when a semblance of understanding might prevail. MAAA toy 'rating'. Yer, got one of those too. Use it often. And...the pamphlet D E S P E R A T E L Y needs re-writing.

No matter what you might choose to believe, a 12x 6 is too large a prop for the 46AX to swing for it to"run sweet". About all that marvel represents is testimony to the idiot-proofness of the engine. That's just the math. Nothing to do with opinion.

G'day Mate,
Who said anything about a Boomerang?

So tell us all Kendall, apart from in your imagination, how many hours of actual air experience have you logged? What CASA licence/s & ratings do you hold?

G'day Mate,
Quote" No matter what you might choose to believe, a 12x 6 is too large a prop for the 46AX to swing for it to"run sweet".

Have you ever tried it? We do almost every weekend, runs sweet.
OS state that a 46 AX can swing up to a 12x7,

G'day Alan,

Will the AX thow a 12 x 7 = yes. Runs "sweet"? Let's just agree that you and I have different interpretations of the non-quantitative approbation "sweet". With a 12 x 7, the 46AX is so far out of it's it's optimum RPM band the way it's ported and intended to be run, the sacrifice of power through engine inefficiency is such that you may as well be running the LA instead and saving weight and money. [sm=cry_smile.gif]

But as long as you're happy with it.

What is the best size prop for the 46AX?

None ...for you.

Don't forget to take your digital camera with you 'ace'. We all hate to see anyone crash, but we hate to miss one even more. [sm=tongue_smile.gif]

...you could just give a proper answer instead of trying to be funny...I'm assuming that you're at least an adult, but acting like a child, so grow up, and since when did I say I was an 'ace'? I look for advice and get it from just about everyone, except you, everyone has something decent or relative to say about helping others get into the air, except you. Now I don't know if it's because your mummy abused you as a child, but I think if you're not going to make a positive contribution to the thread, then maybe you should go somewhere else camera boy!

G'day Kendall,
An 11x6 is a good starting point, usually a Master Airscrew, because they are a bit more forgiving, when it comes to striking things, like the ground, on landing.

Hi

There is no ideal prop, it depends what you want to fly with it.

But i would say a 12*6 is ok will give you lots of power without to much speed.

Simon

Cheers, so maybe the bigger prop, and down the track if I want a bit faster, in maybe a more aerobatic plane, get a smaller prop? I also like the idea of getting one that is less likely to break :P

Sounds reasonable. Around about how much do props go for?

Cheers

Listen up dipstick, a prop needs to be matched to the specific airframe type, engine and intended manoeuvring envelope, ie: intended purpose to you, and not just picked at random from the one size fits all generic "Props for Dummies" suggestion list supplied by the manufacturer like it's the edict from the burning bush.

As for being funny. Surely you jest? I wasn't trying to be funny. Apart from the fact I don't "try" at anything, but just do, I was serious. You may understand that one day when you're collecting your wreckage and actually have attempted to put a run on the board. In the meantime a garbage bag might also come in handy in your kit.

No, you weren't and aren't looking for nor wanting useful advice. You're here looking to have your ego stroked.

PS: m8, with your 'qualifications' & self-professed knowledge and talent, what are you doing wasting your time with RC? RAAF pilot recruiting have a Hornet sitting on the tarmac with your name on it, although I don't think even it'd have sufficient excess thrust available at full reheat to lift your ego it if made it through flight screeening.
Now not to persist, but what CASA licenses and ratings were you saying you held with all that flying experience & knowledge you were telling us you had?

My oh my.. the natives are restless. Must be a full moon.

Calm down, count to 10 and consider that this is a hobby, not national defense. If you are that offended, then maybe you need to find something else to pass your time. Insults like that are surely not welcome here.

DS.

Didn't say I had heaps of flying, just said I knew how to fly, does that require a CASA license? No, don't believe it does. As I want to get into the RAAF, they don't want me to have civilian hours anyway...

As for my ego, well what suggests I want my ego stroked? I am just looking for advice, as I am very interested in getting into the hobby as I LOVE flying, so I do it for fun, not because I HAVE to, which you seem to be doing.

So instead of attacking me personally you could some advice, or not say anything. If you are sick of noobies such as myself, why are you posting in the beginners section? I am in the beginners section, because, well, I am a beginner! So, since YOU'RE the EXPERT, why aren't you in the more advanced parts of this forum, instead of demeaning people looking for help and advice. Since you were so quick to assume my ego needs to be stroked, then maybe I think you're the one that needs it.

Cheers

Ok, I think that it's time for everybody to take a step back and catch their breath. There have been several posts and some feelings seem to have been bruised. I've removed the posts in hopes that the thread will get back on topic. If it doesn't get back on topic I'll have to lock the thread and close it.

Ken

Hi

Yes smaller prop with the same pitch will rev faster.

Which is ok as long as you don't go to far and exceed the rev range for the engine. The revs will increase a bit in flight to what you can measure on the ground.

Props that are even better than master airscrew ones for not breaking easily are Kavan

http://www.hobby-lobby.com/kavanprop.htm

As a moderator perhaps you should alter the name of the thread to reflect how it mutates instead of threatening to close it.

Simon