Glowgeek

Is that a self-scan, Dave?

Raleighcopter

it is. i used the kinect from my kids' xbox360 and some free software. now i can actually fly my models.

Glowgeek

Lol, I thought so. That's AWESOME!

But........is he left handed?

Raleighcopter

he's currently, un-handed but i will eventually decide if I will be printing a full body, just a head for attachment to a cloth body, or a bust to replace the typical bust that comes with most models.

1967brutus

Cool!

Cat 1

My Feedback: (1)

Hey Gang.... Been busy with much "non-RC" stuff but want to share a few items from the Boxer install... Using some neat printed mounts to make the install of the plumbing and engine accessories tidy on the boxer.. Not as neat as the "printed Head" idea but another way to make use of a printer...

First is a few shots of the Plumbing - This one will have the "Full House" fuel control system to compliment the Solenoid carb.. The tank is set up with a Unilflow vent and a "barf tank" that has the Pressure vent setting on it. The atmospheric vent is a "static port" silver dot at approximately carb level so the theory is the tank will not be able to siphon. A refill valve and fuel dot (for tank venting) will handle the filling function. Everything fits neatly in the nose although it does look complicated - it really not that bad.




Came up with this little case for a 5V converter I had and with some trick terminals it becomes a voltage supply for the pump/mixture controller and throttle servo - the rest will run on 7.4V (HV flight servos and ignition) from a Dual output Regulator.

Rcplanedan

Thats a pretty neat installation you got going on there cat1 ,
nice job on making progress 👍..
will be a couple of months before i can get my boxer back out of its box🤣..i have to move house 🙄
Got me a seagull models decathlon 2mt wingspan for that ft160 to go in ..of course il be using the old method of gas fueling the engine..well it works pretty well so far,

1967brutus

Are you kidding??? That is one of the neatest and tidiest set-ups I have seen in a while... It is brilliant!

Anxiously awaiting first flight/first run videos.

1967brutus

If you can keep it under 6 kilo, that should be an AWESOME match of engine and plane...

Cat 1

My Feedback: (1)

The "Big Box" full of space helps for this Bert.. Just one more push for the "radio tray" and we will be running. Spring has also arrived here in its Typical sudden fashion and I hope to be flying soon...

Rcplanedan

thanks, well will have to do some weight checks..but seeing this plane fly with the ft160 on glow on YouTube .. it actually pulls through the air great....my 1.6 metere wingspan waco has saito fg19r3 and at 5.2kg it is a gem to fly and has great momentum..can nearly hover for a short moment too

1967brutus

That Waco will have a bit more OOMPFH with the Boxer, probably pull through vertically.
I typically get about 6 kilo of static pull on practical carb settings with an APC 18 x 6W from mine.
For more speed, a 17 x 8W should deliver...

Rcplanedan

thats pretty decent power ..hopefully it weigits in at 5.5 kg ..with luck..i think the little radial is about 890gr so the ft160 1200gr would still be fine on the waco..its got 2 batteries and heavy 3 cyl ignition all behind the fire wall..i could easily achieve good balance with the ft160..even the fuel tank placement is already correct,
that would have the waco ready to fly at about 5.5kg ..so yes would be pretty well suited for better power

1967brutus

FWIW: I run my FT160 on a single battery set-up (actually, that single battery is a set of permanently parallelled 4S 2000 mAh NiMHs) which is a bit overkill capacity-wise, 2500 mAh would be more than enough.
Make that one single 2S LiPo or LiFe and you'd save a bit of weight as well.

Rcplanedan

handy tip,thanks bert..
I wasnt so sure that it was a good idea using one battery pack to power ignition with servos,reciever..
Well this is only what i have read by others..apparent interference between ignition and reciever?

I so far use 2 18650 2000mah for the ignition (overkill) and the usual 6v (5xnimih) for reciever/servos..
Thats easy ,and one less battery to charge..guess i should regulate the 8.4 to 6v for both ignition and reciever..

1967brutus

So far, my own personal experience is a zero-score on interference from the ignition due to single battery feed. I simply modify the standard RcExl killswitch to accept feed from the receiver bus, and plug it in.
Requirement for that is that the ignition supply rating matches that of RX and servo's of course, which was more or less a given up till about 3 or 4 years ago. Nowadays I have one or two planes with separate feed due to the ignition requiring a minimum of 6 volts while I still have a lot of 4,8V rated servo's. so lately I have two or three planes that have a separate feed again. Not because of interference or fear for it, but because of incompatible ratings.

The twin ignition would like a 1000 mAh for about 1 hour of safe operation (with healthy safety margin). What your servos etc draw depends on plane type, flying style, but in general, 2500 mAh should do for an afternoon of flying.
I generally check the recharge afterwards, and I think the highest I ever got was about 1500 mAh recharge, after a fly in where I was flying particularly frequent.
But that is a bit of trial and error.

Rcplanedan

[QUOTE=1967brutus;12769110]

Thanks for the reassurance bert,
i think mostly the cause of interference with a cdi unit is more the fact of some dodgy fitting spark plug caps that wiggle around and loose contact with earth!
the saito caps are just fine ..and the new design rcexl caps are just great for the me8 1/4 32 ..yes well about 30/40mins on my reciever pack 5 cell nimih uses approximately 500mah and correct about 1000mah from the 8.4v for ignition..so definitely a 2500mah 2s would do just fine for that amount of flying definitely....

1967brutus

Yup... Just make sure everything is installed right. One thing I absolutely do each and every plane, is to install a non-conductive throttle pushrod, so as to not conduct any RF noise to the vincinity of the receiver or servo (rare cases, the servo picks up that noise and forces it into the receiver from the wrong end). Other than that, just do a decent range test.
Whenever I do a range test, I turn the plane such that the running engine is between TX and RX. Never failed so far.

Rcplanedan

too easy,
Well thats an error i have made is i just simply used the supplied throttle push rod on all my planes so far..im too used to having glow engines..but i must say the metal push rod hasnt yet caused a complaint..maybe the metal push rod to the metal throttle arm on the asp,s carbs may cause some problems when vibrating..
all the engines im using so far are saito, plastic throttle arms on the carbs..
I too always have had the engine pointing towards me aswell..it makes sense

1967brutus

The "non metal pushrod" thing is just a precaution. Normally it is not a problem, but some cheaper servos are not too well protected against RF noise and then it suddenly CAN become a problem, sometimes not initially but after the servo gets a bit older.
For me more a matter of "peace of mind" than anything else. I had one plane (Calmato low wing 40) where the throttle rod conducted a bit of RF noise back to the servo bay, and strangely enough, it affected only the elevator servo. Did not show up on the signal indication, did not affect range, nothing. Just the elevator jittering. Was not from the start either, because I flew that servo for 2 months before I started noticing the jitter. It was a cheap rebranded chinese servo. Replacing the rod made the problem go away and I flew it like that for a week until a new servo (this time a Futaba, like the other three) arrived. Renewing the servo made the metal rod possible again (I actually tried it, I'm slightly autistic, I somehow HAVE to test that kind of thing) but I prefer using belts AND braces, I guess...

Rcplanedan

aint nothing wrong with being slightly autistiautismost of the time it makes one smarter in the long term..
just when i think im clever ..i turn around and do something stupid..but not quite as in my younger days😄
I probably should be a bit wiser and change out those metal rods!!..

Rcplanedan

aint nothing wrong with being slightly autistiautismost of the time it makes one smarter in the long term..
just when i think im clever ..i turn around and do something stupid..but not quite as in my younger days😄
I probably should be a bit wiser and change out those metal rods!!..

Cat 1

My Feedback: (1)

Dan,

I can back up what Bert says in terms of interference - The only time I have ever had issues is when I had Damaged caps... (2 times) . I do tent to a non metallic pushrod but not really sure if that's really nessasary.. In the boxer plane the HT leads go right past the pushrod so I took the precaution.

I do have a neat power setup for this build - its a dual BEC that has 2 adjustable and independent supplies... will find a picture or take one...

Cat 1

My Feedback: (1)

1967brutus

Oh, wow, those are cool... Gotta remember me those!