Let's gasify a Vanquish
#26
Hello
Friend of mine told me that exhaust header forZDZ 4O RE is the same as PTE36R except dimension HF (see picture)
Dimensions HF of PTE36R is 15 mm.
Header :
I think it's easier to machine it.
http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items...HEADER-25.html
Friend of mine told me that exhaust header forZDZ 4O RE is the same as PTE36R except dimension HF (see picture)
Dimensions HF of PTE36R is 15 mm.
Header :
I think it's easier to machine it.
http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items...HEADER-25.html
#27
Thread Starter
Senior Member
ORIGINAL: papaone
Hello
Friend of mine told me that exhaust header forZDZ 4O RE is the same as PTE36R except dimension HF (see picture)
Dimensions HF of PTE36R is 15 mm.
Header :
I think it's easier to machine it.
http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items...HEADER-25.html
Hello
Friend of mine told me that exhaust header forZDZ 4O RE is the same as PTE36R except dimension HF (see picture)
Dimensions HF of PTE36R is 15 mm.
Header :
I think it's easier to machine it.
http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items...HEADER-25.html
Just a quick heads ups....The Macs header for the OS140RX has the exact bolt spacing needed for the PTE36. The exhaust port is also practically identical.
I checked this with a new header I had laying around. Apparently the old header I was using was a Webra header so what I stated earlier about needing some relocating of the bolt holes is wrong. The MACS OS140RX header is a drop in fit. The only thing it will need is to drill out the holes to accept M5 bolts (original holes are for M4)
#29
Thread Starter
Senior Member
ORIGINAL: vatechguy3
thats good news.
have you run the pte36 before, or will this one be a first for you matt?
tony
thats good news.
have you run the pte36 before, or will this one be a first for you matt?
tony
My original intent was to run the OS in the plane. But since I had the PTE on hand as well as the header, why not? Plus the rear exhaust configuration really makes it elementary.
On the other hand, I made mounting the soft mount common to both engines so I have options just in case the PTE is inadequate. The OS is a known at this point
#30
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Here are a few more photos of the structural conversion. Triangle stock placed in strategic places. Then 1 layer of 4 oz glass epoxied around the firewall and the box sides, as shown.
The added lite ply top with cross members will keep the top side from flexing too much
All holes in the front of the fuse will be covered over with paper to better channel hot air away from inside the fuse
The added lite ply top with cross members will keep the top side from flexing too much
All holes in the front of the fuse will be covered over with paper to better channel hot air away from inside the fuse
#31
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Decided to also add doublers just aft of the landing gear box. This areaonly had a 1mm plywood perimeter as shown in one of the photos.It may not really need any other reinforcement but I felt that with the balsa sheeting only 3mm thick in this area, a bit more balsa is likely warranted.
Added 3mm doublers as shown, recessing the edgesto sit flush againstthe 1mm plywood perimeter frame. Recessing was simple with a sanding block. I probably used more gorilla glue than necessary as shownby the foamed glue around the edges of the doubler
Added 3mm doublers as shown, recessing the edgesto sit flush againstthe 1mm plywood perimeter frame. Recessing was simple with a sanding block. I probably used more gorilla glue than necessary as shownby the foamed glue around the edges of the doubler
#32

My Feedback: (84)
ORIGINAL: MTK
No, it's the first one. Can't vouch at all for anything pertaining to this powerplant. It's pretty cheap engine at $270 so it was a no brainer to get one for testing
My original intent was to run the OS in the plane. But since I had the PTE on hand as well as the header, why not? Plus the rear exhaust configuration really makes it elementary.
On the other hand, I made mounting the soft mount common to both engines so I have options just in case the PTE is inadequate. The OS is a known at this point
ORIGINAL: vatechguy3
thats good news.
have you run the pte36 before, or will this one be a first for you matt?
tony
thats good news.
have you run the pte36 before, or will this one be a first for you matt?
tony
My original intent was to run the OS in the plane. But since I had the PTE on hand as well as the header, why not? Plus the rear exhaust configuration really makes it elementary.
On the other hand, I made mounting the soft mount common to both engines so I have options just in case the PTE is inadequate. The OS is a known at this point
I have never owned a pattern ship, but after watching a fellow hobbyist put the focus 2 thru it's paces, I just had to have it. Amazing speed and quite literally unlimited vertical. That joker will get out of site in a hurry, accelerating straight up.
I didn't have a way to bring her hoime from the field after striking the deal, but I should have her in my hangar sometime this week. You pattern guys and the ships you fly are simply.... AMAZING.
#33
Thread Starter
Senior Member
The SAP180 is a great engine. I've done a whole thread on it alone. Learned an awful lot about gas engines in this size from the SAP experience. Still have one on hand.....Good luck with your set-up...
#34
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Back to the topic at hand.....During the fitting of the stab I encountered a problem that any of you guys contemplating the Vanquish as your next ride should know about. The set-screws used for stab adjustment would not go in easily so I chased the threads with an M4 tap, The adjustment block inside the stab is aluminum so you don't want to cross thread anything here.
Well, the first side worked fine. Chasing threads is a simple task and should be done where ever one encounters resistance in existing threads, cleaning them up rather than X-threading them
The second side was a different issue..... the aluminum block came off inside the stab. Easy enough to take out and inspect the part. One small screw was allit was held by, plus some adhesive, possibly ca. It just wasn't enough to hold the torque of the tap and popped off.
No big deal and actually I'm kinda glad it happened on my bench. The aluminum block has two mounting holes so I am tapping these for some 4-40 screws and reinstalling the part with a pair of flat heads through the root ply rib. I'll take a few photos and show you what I did
Well, the first side worked fine. Chasing threads is a simple task and should be done where ever one encounters resistance in existing threads, cleaning them up rather than X-threading them
The second side was a different issue..... the aluminum block came off inside the stab. Easy enough to take out and inspect the part. One small screw was allit was held by, plus some adhesive, possibly ca. It just wasn't enough to hold the torque of the tap and popped off.
No big deal and actually I'm kinda glad it happened on my bench. The aluminum block has two mounting holes so I am tapping these for some 4-40 screws and reinstalling the part with a pair of flat heads through the root ply rib. I'll take a few photos and show you what I did
#35
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Here's what I did... Tapped the aluminum block. The ears are about 2mm thick so there are enough threads to hold things together. The 4-40 flat heads make for a neat install. Also some JB-weld will hold things together long term
#36
Thread Starter
Senior Member
The model is unbelievably light.....I musta missed something....Just10 # rtf,with an XOAR 19x10laminated woodie.Very nice
If this model was converted to an OS140RX, it would weigh 9 1/2 lbs...very sporty. Except the 140RX can't haul big props
BTW Shaved 35 grams from the landing gear and decided to build a mold for the modified landing gear. I prefer a lighter, springier gear that absorbs the energy rather than transfering it to the frame. Strength is fine
If this model was converted to an OS140RX, it would weigh 9 1/2 lbs...very sporty. Except the 140RX can't haul big props
BTW Shaved 35 grams from the landing gear and decided to build a mold for the modified landing gear. I prefer a lighter, springier gear that absorbs the energy rather than transfering it to the frame. Strength is fine
#38
Member
My Feedback: (3)
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Orangevale,
CA
Just thought i would add, that my Dad bought a pte36 and todayi test flew it for himin a 80+ inch arf pt 19.
it acts like it was pre run by the factory or redwing before he got it. it started right up and idled perfectly and ran very strong at full throttle. we didnt even adjust the needles, i didn't think we could have made it better it ran so well.
no ground running besides the first start and run of a couple of minutes and then we refueled it and flew it.
the pt had unlimited vertical at full throttle but looked more like a big yellow P51 speed wise (i'm surprised we didn't blow the pilots out of the open cocpits). it flew better at less than half throttle (a little more scale at that speed) i think he had a zoar 19-8 on it.and it pulled that easy.
instant throttle response from idle andinstant response from half throttle.
it is clearly the best gas engine i have run recently.
i might be putting one in place of my ys170 soon
Dave.
it acts like it was pre run by the factory or redwing before he got it. it started right up and idled perfectly and ran very strong at full throttle. we didnt even adjust the needles, i didn't think we could have made it better it ran so well.
no ground running besides the first start and run of a couple of minutes and then we refueled it and flew it.
the pt had unlimited vertical at full throttle but looked more like a big yellow P51 speed wise (i'm surprised we didn't blow the pilots out of the open cocpits). it flew better at less than half throttle (a little more scale at that speed) i think he had a zoar 19-8 on it.and it pulled that easy.
instant throttle response from idle andinstant response from half throttle.
it is clearly the best gas engine i have run recently.
i might be putting one in place of my ys170 soon
Dave.
#39
Thread Starter
Senior Member
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Wow, excellent weight at this point!
I know you hate plastic, but do you still plan to re-cover?
Wow, excellent weight at this point!
I know you hate plastic, but do you still plan to re-cover?
Yeah, at some point Ithink I'lldo that. First I want to see how it flies and what else I need to change whenI peel the plastic off.
One thing I see right off is the leading edge of the wing...just too blunt for my taste. And wing adjusters....
One thing at a time. Heck it may not live long enough if the radio goes south
#41

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
If I recall correctly, the e-version has always had a 1-piece cowl, as shown in Matt's photos on the first page.
Maybe the g-version prototypes had chin cowls but they never made it past prototype...
Maybe the g-version prototypes had chin cowls but they never made it past prototype...
#42
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Stewartsville, NJ
Hi Bob, how are you? Hope Matt and the other NJ pattern guys made it through Sandy ok, Matt? No AC where I live but no property damage either, a blessing. Did fly the Vanquish back to back with the Nuance last week, very different feel and I am thinking of selling the Vanquish now. Both are very nice models, just different enough to drive me nuts! Anyway, hope all and their birds are well. Keep the faith.
#43
Thread Starter
Senior Member
ORIGINAL: rm
Does this plane still have the chin cowl? or is it a 1 piece cowl now?
Does this plane still have the chin cowl? or is it a 1 piece cowl now?
Actually the current cowling is not a problem in any way. The whole engine fits inside and the mounting bolts are easily accessed from the various holes up front. In fact it may be a bit easier to fit better baffles in a one piece cowling and then slide the whole thing in place from the front. In addition, once the cowling is removed, it fully exposes the engine and mount and provides access to a front mounted CDI for example. To me, it's simpler
Dana,
W/o power, phone and internet as of Thursday. Minor damage to home and property.
This is the second hurricane to affect us here in the NE in as many years. We've had blizzards, hurricanes and earthquakes here in Joisey in the 7+ years since my return.
Having lived in Florida for 20 years and Texas for 10 prior to returning to Joisey, we experienced only one hurricane in those 30 years combined. I think Joisey is toast!!
#44

My Feedback: (45)
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
If I recall correctly, the e-version has always had a 1-piece cowl, as shown in Matt's photos on the first page.
Maybe the g-version prototypes had chin cowls but they never made it past prototype...
If I recall correctly, the e-version has always had a 1-piece cowl, as shown in Matt's photos on the first page.
Maybe the g-version prototypes had chin cowls but they never made it past prototype...
The electric version that the thread was started on had a chin cowl. They changed it on later shipments.
Arch
#46

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
ORIGINAL: danamania
Hi Bob, how are you? Hope Matt and the other NJ pattern guys made it through Sandy ok, Matt? No AC where I live but no property damage either, a blessing. Did fly the Vanquish back to back with the Nuance last week, very different feel and I am thinking of selling the Vanquish now. Both are very nice models, just different enough to drive me nuts! Anyway, hope all and their birds are well. Keep the faith.
Hi Bob, how are you? Hope Matt and the other NJ pattern guys made it through Sandy ok, Matt? No AC where I live but no property damage either, a blessing. Did fly the Vanquish back to back with the Nuance last week, very different feel and I am thinking of selling the Vanquish now. Both are very nice models, just different enough to drive me nuts! Anyway, hope all and their birds are well. Keep the faith.

Yes, those are definitely different models!
Very interested to see how Matt's gassified version works.
#47

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
The electric version that the thread was started on had a chin cowl. They changed it on later shipments.
Arch
Arch

Thanks for the correction. I should have referred to the photos I have of the model in your original thread.
#48
Thread Starter
Senior Member
ORIGINAL: Shimano
Good stuff, MTK! Subscribed!
Glad to hear you made it through the storm okay!
Good stuff, MTK! Subscribed!
Glad to hear you made it through the storm okay!
Some parts of our neighborhood had power restored this morn. We hope that today is the day for us too....
The gas lines are an unwantedtrip down memory lane back to 1973. Smart marketeers should sell 10 gallons gas along with those generators. I would do that anyway, but I'm not in that business.
#49
Thread Starter
Senior Member
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Another glow-motor artifact bites the dust.
Thanks for the correction. I should have referred to the photos I have of the model in your original thread.
Another glow-motor artifact bites the dust.

Thanks for the correction. I should have referred to the photos I have of the model in your original thread.
I guess that some e-fuses allow nose access only from the front? That would be a better, stronger and lighter arrangement for an e-fuse. Also, a firewall (if you can call it that) wouldn't needmuch beef to work properly if it was glued as a ring around the whole nose. Makes good engineering sense to me
#50
Thread Starter
Senior Member
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Very interested to see how Matt's gassified version works.
Very interested to see how Matt's gassified version works.
It is just about completed. I will maiden it this coming weekendif weather holds up. I'll try to take some snaps of it at the field and I'll give a flight report in these pages.


