Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

Reaction 54 Jet Kit

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

Reaction 54 Jet Kit

Old 06-20-2018, 12:31 PM
  #4076  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default









Vertical stab is up, definitely use a fresh exacto blade here.

Last edited by CARS II; 06-20-2018 at 12:34 PM.
Old 06-20-2018, 03:29 PM
  #4077  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default









Wing fairing is done, also fixing a few little gaps here and there ( cosmetic details )

When I get the retracts set ( soon ) I will build the wheel well, so far that is the only thing to build on the jet.

I'm glad it is build, my free time has gone South, I got 9 days work weeks ahead of me for the next 6 months

Last edited by CARS II; 06-20-2018 at 03:42 PM.
Old 06-22-2018, 05:13 PM
  #4078  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default

I forgot to tell that I'm not building the rear hatch, the UAT and shut off valve will be located in the front.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	20180620_132535.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	1.16 MB
ID:	2261058  

Last edited by CARS II; 06-22-2018 at 05:20 PM.
Old 06-25-2018, 08:14 AM
  #4079  
jsnipes
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SC
Posts: 955
Received 18 Likes on 18 Posts
Default

Awesome job by N99JH building his R54. Josh is an excellent builder with meticulous detail. This is a good trait for building and flying rc jets! This R54 will be a great platform for his training and journey towards turbine waiver.

The CG was bang on right off the table thanks to all the great input on this forum and use of the Xicoy CG machine. He is using a Jetsmunt M100XBL and so he extended the nose to help with CG and to change the aesthetics more to his liking. I think it came out very nice!

Pictures below after one of the first 5 flights that we now have on it. It’s now fully trimmed out and ready to begin turbine training with Josh. The high viz scheme shows up very well in the sky!

Very nice kit and resulting jet by BTE! I look forward to more flights on it as training progresses.



Last edited by jsnipes; 06-25-2018 at 08:19 AM.
Old 06-25-2018, 08:42 AM
  #4080  
afterburner
My Feedback: (18)
 
afterburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New City, NY
Posts: 3,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

That looks great! Congratulations on the maiden.
Old 06-25-2018, 02:07 PM
  #4081  
LGM Graphix
My Feedback: (22)
 
LGM Graphix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Abbotsford, BC, CANADA
Posts: 5,799
Received 58 Likes on 40 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CARS II
I'd recommend against this set up. Those aluminum arms are great. The clevis's are great, but not together. Metal on metal connections are a no no. It used to be due to RF interference which I don't think is as big an issue with 2.4 but the aluminum arms have threaded holes (or at least all I've seen do). The aluminum arms are really meant for ball link clevis's that are attached with a bolt and nut. The snap link clevis's should really have a nylon bushing to ensure a slop free fit.
I would either go to heavy duty nylon servo arms (not the dubro ones) or preferably go to a ball link instead of the snap link.
Old 06-25-2018, 02:39 PM
  #4082  
N99JH
My Feedback: (66)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hartsville, SC
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I do not see any problem with this set up. I have seen them at work on numerous giant scale models and large jets, and, never heard or seen slop developing. The forces are simply not strong enough to create an elongated hole over the life span of a model airplane. I am far more concerned about the rolled threads on typical 4-40 push rods breaking due to stress risers at the transition are from round rod to threaded section.
Just my 2C of course.
Old 06-25-2018, 03:21 PM
  #4083  
grbaker
My Feedback: (29)
 
grbaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: La Porte TX
Posts: 3,566
Received 26 Likes on 19 Posts
Default

Congrats!!!. That is the best looking Reaction 54 I have ever seen.
I have used metal clevises on Hitec metal servo arms on every jet I have had and I just switched to 2.4 a couple of years ago.. Never had an issue. I'm flying a Facet that I built in 2004 that has hundreds of flights.
Old 06-25-2018, 03:37 PM
  #4084  
BruceTharpe
My Feedback: (1)
 
BruceTharpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rogue River, OR
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by LGM Graphix
the aluminum arms have threaded holes (or at least all I've seen do). The aluminum arms are really meant for ball link clevis's that are attached with a bolt and nut.
If memory serves, only the outermost hole of these Hitec servo arms is threaded. The rest are sized for a good fit with a clevis pin. I'm not crazy about metal on metal either, but that's just an ingrained memory that goes back to early radio days. Even then, it took vibration to cause an RF problem, so not an issue with turbines and modern radios.
Old 06-25-2018, 03:50 PM
  #4085  
N99JH
My Feedback: (66)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hartsville, SC
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grbaker
Congrats!!!. That is the best looking Reaction 54 I have ever seen.
I have used metal clevises on Hitec metal servo arms on every jet I have had and I just switched to 2.4 a couple of years ago.. Never had an issue. I'm flying a Facet that I built in 2004 that has hundreds of flights.
Thanks for the compliment. You have a great collection of jets and warbirds. Your 125% Turbinator looks awesome!
Old 06-25-2018, 07:13 PM
  #4086  
LGM Graphix
My Feedback: (22)
 
LGM Graphix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Abbotsford, BC, CANADA
Posts: 5,799
Received 58 Likes on 40 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by N99JH
I do not see any problem with this set up. I have seen them at work on numerous giant scale models and large jets, and, never heard or seen slop developing. The forces are simply not strong enough to create an elongated hole over the life span of a model airplane. I am far more concerned about the rolled threads on typical 4-40 push rods breaking due to stress risers at the transition are from round rod to threaded section.
Just my 2C of course.
You're going to think I'm full of it I'm sure, but my 2 experiences with the steel quick links into aluminum horns ended as follows.
First one was the metal pin in the clevis broke from the fixed side. This was not an offshore pin but a dubro clevis. Now whether it was faulty or not I don't know, but it was in an aluminum servo arm.
Second one was on a plane with a large throw and it also broke the pin in the clevis however that one had actually caused the aluminum in the horn to gall and it seized the pin into the arm. The pin broke free in the clevis and allowed it to rotate. Admittedly these were both in 4 stroke powered pattern airplanes where there was more vibration and that may have added to it but every other pattern airplane I had was heavy duty nylon servo arms and never ever had an issue.
Since that time I have NEVER put steel clevis's into aluminum arms.
Old 06-25-2018, 11:55 PM
  #4087  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default

I'm listening, new HS 5645 servos have a HD arm that I have used on my Boomerang before, I most likely will be using them on this jet, since you mention your experience with the HD Dubro before I checked the arms on the Boomer and I'm using the HD HS ones not the Dubro as I thought.

Thank you for the suggestion Jeremy, always welcome.

Last edited by CARS II; 06-26-2018 at 12:00 AM.
Old 06-26-2018, 12:02 AM
  #4088  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default



Installing the tank.
Old 06-27-2018, 07:36 AM
  #4089  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CARS II


Installing the tank.
Old 06-27-2018, 10:53 AM
  #4090  
Instructor
My Feedback: (16)
 
Instructor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Swoyersville, PA
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by LGM Graphix
You're going to think I'm full of it I'm sure, but my 2 experiences with the steel quick links into aluminum horns ended as follows.
First one was the metal pin in the clevis broke from the fixed side. This was not an offshore pin but a dubro clevis. Now whether it was faulty or not I don't know, but it was in an aluminum servo arm.
Second one was on a plane with a large throw and it also broke the pin in the clevis however that one had actually caused the aluminum in the horn to gall and it seized the pin into the arm. The pin broke free in the clevis and allowed it to rotate. Admittedly these were both in 4 stroke powered pattern airplanes where there was more vibration and that may have added to it but every other pattern airplane I had was heavy duty nylon servo arms and never ever had an issue.
Since that time I have NEVER put steel clevis's into aluminum arms.
After reading through this thread, I have had the aluminum arms seize up on me also when using a metal clevis. I still use them after I spray them with silicon spray. This keeps the metal pin from seizing to the aluminum arm. Hopes this helps...

Larry
Old 06-27-2018, 04:34 PM
  #4091  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default

It helps a lot.

Tks.
Old 06-27-2018, 07:34 PM
  #4092  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default


Reactions fuel system.
Old 07-02-2018, 07:16 PM
  #4093  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default









Working on the fuel system, this to confirms my ideas, I will be getting me some Nelgene bottles to complete it, the balsa mock up is for the 16 oz bottle, it looks like I will be able to install the 16 oz bottle and the 4 oz bottle ( UAT ) in the same compartment, I will add a ply floor to enhance the strength of that section because of the extra weight from the fuel, the pump will go right on front of the UAT or under.

Last edited by CARS II; 07-02-2018 at 07:59 PM. Reason: 6
Old 07-02-2018, 07:56 PM
  #4094  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default

That's all for tonight, my head hurts from working to many 16 hrs days, I am NOT cut out to work like this.

Any ways, I will have the gear some time this month and then is covering time.
Old 07-03-2018, 02:03 AM
  #4095  
N99JH
My Feedback: (66)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hartsville, SC
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CARS II








Working on the fuel system, this to confirms my ideas, I will be getting me some Nelgene bottles to complete it, the balsa mock up is for the 16 oz bottle, it looks like I will be able to install the 16 oz bottle and the 4 oz bottle ( UAT ) in the same compartment, I will add a ply floor to enhance the strength of that section because of the extra weight from the fuel, the pump will go right on front of the UAT or under.
Why not simply fit a 80 Oz. tank in place of the 50 that is shown on the plans and call it done? At the end of the day I am pretty sure that you will find out that there's no room for the 16 Oz. tank you want to place per your sketch.
Joshua
Old 07-03-2018, 10:26 AM
  #4096  
CARS II
My Feedback: (7)
 
CARS II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,589
Received 122 Likes on 106 Posts
Default

That is a very good idea to install an 80 oz, tank, i will look into that.

Tks.
Old 07-03-2018, 10:40 AM
  #4097  
jsnipes
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SC
Posts: 955
Received 18 Likes on 18 Posts
Default

My $0.02 .... With a 100N turbine I would not want anything smaller than the 80 oz. We takeoff, fly 5.5 minutes then land with enough fuel for a couple go rounds if needed. If you’re going to run a smaller turbine you may or may not want to consider something else ... you’ll be running at a higher power setting with a smaller turbine so its hard to say which would have more/less actual fuel consumption with mixed throttle use. It seems to fit well and is close, maybe a little forward to target CG location so as you fly it will be coming back toward target CG. Josh’s rotates on takeoff very well and flair’s for landing very well at our current CG position. Takeoff, fly, and land with same control throws.

Hope this helps.

JS

Originally Posted by CARS II
That is a very good idea to install an 80 oz, tank, i will look into that.

Tks.
Old 07-03-2018, 10:51 AM
  #4098  
joeflyer
My Feedback: (48)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

An 80 oz. Dubro tank fits if you move the elevator and rudder servos to the rear. I made the back of the fuse 1 inch wider to accommodate the servos. this has the added advantage of eliminating those long cables. I also had room for a 24 oz. smoke tank under the receiver.
.
Old 07-03-2018, 10:56 AM
  #4099  
joeflyer
My Feedback: (48)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

If I had it to do over again I would have made the whole fuse 1 inch wider to accomodate more equipment up front. I had to mount the smoke pump in the back.

Joe
Old 07-03-2018, 11:28 AM
  #4100  
Art ARRO
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Holland Patent, NY
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Carlos,
On your Post #4091 showing your planned 80 oz fuel system layout, you should vent the main 60 oz tank, not the 16 oz auxiliary tank. Venting the aux tank will drain the main tank due to gravity flow as the main is higher in the fuselage. Personally I favor JoeFlyer's concept (Post 4098) of widening the fuselage rear and installing the rudder and elevator servos to the back. I will follow his concept in my own 85% scale reduction of a Reaction 54. This reduced scale Reaction 54 will employ a single 60 oz Dubro tank to feed a Wren 44K turbine. You may be too far along to widen the fuselage rear but be sure to vent the main 60 oz tank not the 16 oz aux tank.
Regards,
Art

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.