hey guys ...i feel unterpower with my p120se on my hotspot..(10kilos dry)

im thinking to upload a p160sx on...i always perform proper throtle managment..so

full power would be on level flite and verticals...do you think ill have any promblems with the airframe?...


thanx in advance for any posts[8D]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P_7TrG3OoA

hey Sean!
it rocks man!
any high speed passes video?

My friend had one with P-160.......flew fine, until he hit the treetops, and the hotspot became 2 football fields long


Flyby`s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQBuXE78Ld4
He hit the treetops right after this movie......A shame i was not filming.
We had to use a dog too sniff out and find the turbine in the tall grass fields......In the end, the dog found the cat

Ouch... my condolences to your friend.. it should looked like a meteor shower!


DGG:As your HS is already flown and it will be overpowered with the P160, my suggestion is to check for "soft" areas in the fuselage, specially at the aft fuselage/wing leading edge and right after the main wheels openings. Also check for slop and servo torque on the elevons, as they will need to work harder than ever.

My Hotspot had the usual fiberglass finishing in the rudder and wing panels and plenty of CF inside the fuselage.. the only "diferent" main structural feature was the twin wing tubes we installed on it. however this plane was built to endure full throttle dives with a quite sharp pull up with a JC Titan, and it was quite successful ..

Sonnich your video left me an evil smile ! "i want too" lol
..


hey Enrique!wasss up friend [8D]

i do have twin 5955 per wing! estimate 40kilos of power on each wing or more cose im running as much as posible servo degrees

to get the recomented throws....not much reduse end points..so lots of torque

i have also add kevlar tape on the fins and 2oz fiberglass on it..vacium down the holle think..

....im still thinking to put a 160 on...i wont perform any "walls" just level flite on full throtle...

will let you know if i do it or you will find out on the news

Gia sou file

I have a p-160 on mine for almost 4 years now. It is a standard airframe with absolutely no modifications. the flying surfaces are only covered with self adheasive type oracover. I use full power almost all the time for hundreds of flight without the slightest issue. Its a good desighn.

Delgato an exis kamia alli aporia stile mou PM

Paul

Just what ARE you guys on ? Totally, absolutely stupid. Fine till it all goes pear shaped and it will, sooner or later, big time, guaranteed, if we go on this way.

Whatever next, an Olympus in a Spark, , just where DO we draw the line ?

Should we all just keep quiet until someone gives us all the big black eye ?

In despair,

DG.

hey Paul [8D]
sigoura tha epikinonisoume giati to ximona me vlepo kapies fores kypro!efxaristo filaraki!

David as you know or read i guess all our toys will brake one day!

i just want mine to have more chanses on brake from speed and not from a bad landing lol



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tErGXfwMI0I

David, I'm not sure what the requirements are elsewhere, but as long as the jet is flying at 200MPH or less, there are no restrictions on turbine thrust here.

If someone wants to accelerate straight up to 200 MPH, they are entitled to do so. I'm not sure why you appear to have a problem with that. There is no more stress on any of these aircraft at 150 MPH with a bigger engine on it, than with a smaller engine on it beyond the increased weight and loading issues of the additional pound or so of turbine.

A BTU of jet A will get you so far whether it's in a Jetcat P-60, or a jetcat P200. All efficiencies being the same.......

Well.. as experienced modelers we are looking for higher levels of performance. This quest brings progress, otherwise we all would be flying A-framed rubber powered models instead. (wich I reckon are a lot safer)

That´s not stupidity.. that´s freedom.

Enrique

Edit: Take a look at some of this boys.. they put twice the power in their planes, while they knew that they could flew them fine with just one prop instead.

cool down your engines boys ..ill stay with the 120 to avoid mess up[8D]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87lal...eature=related

Sean. You are stating the obvious, BUT when someone, as in another thread states he is putting a much larger engine into an airframe not designed for it in order to to go FAST then I do have problem with that. You may, if /when it goes wrong may, also share that problem whether you like it or not.

To suggest I am against advancing any aspect or parameter of aviation is nonsense, and I've been closer to the front than many of you but stuffing more and and more thrust into existing airframes which have not been designed, equipped or tested to handle that thrust is a foolish way to do it.

Where do YOU suggest we draw the line and say enough is enough, or should we all just keep quiet and await the inevitable if this treand continues. ?

and for Ebroens information, hand in hand with our freedom to make our advances goes the requirement to do it responsibly.

Regards,

David G.

Easy, to answer: when the rules have been broken. You have stated the obvious as well, just because you are putting a larger engine in an airplane is meaningless, going structurally beyond what a manufucturer suggest, now that brings someone's mental capacity in question.

In no way do I mean to undermine your accomplishments, I read with anticipation most of your posts, and find most of them to be well thought out even keeled, and even some spot on and not to be argued with, however, on this particular issue, I think you are off the mark.

The mark being what any particular airframe is designed to handle LOAD, G, AND STRESS wise. The powerplant getting it there is meaningless to the airframes capabilities of handling flight loads.

Maybe you need to reword your argument for me to get it, or maybe I am too dense to understand what I'm reading. But I believe what I'm saying to be more right than what you are saying.

Well not leaving Delgatos topic, my hotspot has been fine for almost 4 years now with this powerplant, proving the good design of the hotspot and I am just trying to give his question a spherical answer. I do fly it alone on a remote airbase that only I have permission to fly models at though and the few times that I have performed public displays elswhere I have used the power reserve very cautiously.
I must say though that I used to have a P-120 installed and the top speed difference is not so noticeable, its mostly the rate of acceleration and vertical performance that has a dramatic difference and it actually may have been more fun with the 120.

Paul

Where do you even buy the hotspot in the US?

Well Sean, I will ask you this : How do we KNOW what limits in terms of G, flutter characteristics, etc have been designed into the model. Has any stress analysis or wind tunnel testing been carried out, probably not and even if it had been how do we know when we are getting near to those limits, because until we have telemetry with IAS and load factor we are just guessing that too.

Every structure whether a bridge or an aeroplane can be taken to its failure point, in an airplane putting an oversized engine into it may quickly take it to that previously undefined failure point. Even when NOT overpowered we have heard of and I have seen some ARTF jets and prop machines fail in flight, deliberately overpowering them in order to obtain high speed, is in my view, for what thats worth, irresponsible and the possible consequences may do the hobby irrepairable damage.

Perhaps few of you in the US have heard about the high speed crash in Germany recently, caused in that case by a pilot losing control, for whatever reason, of a grossly overpowered machine. Only luck determined where the bits went.

I believe that jet operators are in general the most disciplined group of model fliers, but we just cannot be complacent and HOPE all will be well if we just stand idly by and continue to let this trend develop, a trend indulged in by very few but a few too many. We have this wonderful freedom to operate almost without any outside interference, I want to keep it that way and thats I'm prepared to speak up.

It interesting that no reps. have so far contributed to this debate.

Regards, David Gladwin. Rep for no-one.

Sean + co,
I'm not sure what you're seeking performance wise fitting a P160, mine has one of the original Simjet 2300 turbines fitted, it's blazingly quick and vertical is unlimited, where's the gain? Overall weight would be higher and you would need to fit a bigger tank or cut flight times , I would also think the higher residual thrust would make more difficult to land a model which already goes straight past unless you get the nose high ?? Mike

im seeking of more thrust in my manuvers where is nesecery Mike
proper throtle control is a must with this models and i have well master this section.

the weigth wont be higher..unless if you mean estimate 200gr.

as for landings easy i can install two more airbrakes ander the fuse to slow down on landing...remember nothink stayed up there.


David i can couse an inflite felure in a hotspot with a p80 on.

bottom line i have mount and the speed sensor.i can limit the speed to 200mph

...the DIFERENCE will be how i ll get to this speed

If you truly enjoy this sport, please do what you can to protect it.
Quote from BVM website, makes sense to me.

Gross overpowering of any airframe hardly, in my opinion, fits into this philosophy, but your need to do extreme manoevering, whatever that may be, may override it.

Regards, David.

David,
Just a curiousity...
The BVM phantom, originally designed for Ducted fan power, same as the bandit, producing what? 12lbs of thrust on a good day? The phantom was a twin I think, so maybe 24lbs on a good day? It was designed around fan power, same with the bandit, so how is putting a titan in a BVM F4 (a well accepted practice) any different than a P160 in a Hotspot? Or a titan into a bandit? P120's in Bandit's are common (talking about the original DF style bandit). I remember reading in RCJI years ago when you put a Pegasus into your F4. That was far more thrust than it had originally, back at that time, there were only a handful of F4's flying with Pegasus engines in them as I recall, but the airframe can obviously take it. I don't see that as being so totally different than putting a P160 into a Hotspot. There are people doing it, the airframes are holding together, as long as you are within your countries safety code (to play by the rules) where is the harm? Is it so wrong to put a P160 in a hotspot to overpower it as opposed to putting engines into 40% scale airplanes that allow them to hover and accelerate strongly out of a hover? I doubt some of those 40%er's are as structurally strong as a hotspot and if pushed hard at full throttle, the 40%er would probably suffer catastrophic failure.
Just an observation and a question as to why it's ok to do things like overpowering an airplane in most sides of this hobby, but when somebody does it to a jet people stand up and squawk...

The F4 is IMMENSELY strong with with moulded carbon spars connected by steel bolts to carbon formers mounted in a glass fuselage with carbon and kevlar reinforcement. You cannot IMO compare a minimalist structure like a Hotspot (some early versions of which are known to have blown apart) with a BVM F4 which IS approved by the manufacturer for Pegasus installation. When I first flew MY F4 it had a Pegasus of LESS than 24 pounds of thrust.

As for overpowering Hotspot and BobCats etc and things one poster said he was doing it for speed, he wanted to go FAST fast, fast, , THATS when structural failure is likely.

But what does a Hotspot weigh, don't know, but is 36 pounds of thrust required to hover it.

But I repeat, just where DO we draw the line, (does the AMA still have rules about T/W ratios/) or as I asked earlier do we just wait until someone screws up big time and stand idly by waiting for him to do it ?

At least we are now discussing the issue and THATS a step forward.

Regards,

David G.

David my 46% 150cc bipe takes more G's than our jets.and its just monocoat and some wood.

your bvm f4 is an airbrake frame compear to a hotspot.

if G's wonnt take apart this frames but the airspeed will ,hotspot would be a winer i bet with +100mph my friend before it will go down.

your extra kevlar and carbon are for G's ...for "fast FAST FAST " you need a clean shape.

bvm approves the use of a pegasus and the reason is not the top end speed.

the reason is so you can reach wings flying speed as soon as posible so you wont spent the day try to take off.

so flying fast is no promblem with a hotspot. but before perform a high G's manuver its good to have slow down.

i think this is what you try to say: proper throtle managment..

here are my G's on training enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jWNAQmBlM

p.s.dont wach while eating

b.r.
George

DGG: don´t worry on adding a extra speedbrake on the Hottie.. the residual thrust of the P-160 is not a issue. It lands as nicely as a P120 powered one. Nice Bipe footage too!



David: What´s your opinion in this particular case?

The C-Arf Rookie is much more frail and minimalist than the HotSpot and in this video it is being flown with a P-160 by Thomas Singer , wich I consider a inteligent, responsable and skilled r/c jet flier. Of course, unfortunately this plane crashed by a engine problem, but in my opinion he flew it brilliantly and safely in this public event.

So I question: Do you think than it is needed to draw a line and forbid less known but not less experienced jet pilots overpower his jets for any particular reason? And how many people would like do it in the entire world.. two dozen? In my opinion there is not need to do it.. the biggest peril we face is someone without the training or discipline needed to fly a "standard" turbine powered plane have the bad luck to hit someone or cause a big fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC0PjhLlIjA

With great respect George, I dont think you know much about the BVM F4, It needs power because of its high wing loading as much as anything. Take of was fine with 22 pounds of thrust, even better with more, mine has an HPES, approved by BVM for an airframe in which I have TOTAL confidence. It is, like the real F4, heavily dependant on thrust and knots over the wing to fly well and like the real F4 it is incredibly strong. I do speak with first hand experience of this model as a builder and owner. See the BVM web site where it says exactly that.

So far as Thomas Singer flying a Rookie with a 160 I believe it is a poor example to set to the modelling fraternity at large. Too many people will see this trend, its already happening, and with minimal skill, go to the local model shop, buy an ARTF jet , bung in a big Jetcat or similar, simple to operate, and go fly with virtually no restrictions. A simplification , I know, which could be discussed at great length but thats my view.

That said, a160 in a Rookie is just inappropriate in my view and if this trend continues it will end in tears, and a big black eye for our sport. I do not wish to see that happen, and if I may say so, I do have a reasonable understanding of high speed jet flight at a professional level with real jets, and thats why I am speaking up BEFORE it all turns sour.

Regards, David Gladwin.