abufletcher

So many pots to convert to cowls, so little time!

feep

Just got back from the field and I got some pretty good shots. One of the guys took some video but I havn't learned how to post them yet
Nickbee here are some close up shots of my cowl and the rigging set up

The brass plate makes it sooo easy to set up and break down. It's not even necessesary to attach it to the pylon. the rigging holds it on in the same maner that the pull/pull lines hold the rudder on. I put the front and back flying wires on with nuts and than one side of the landing wires are put on the brass plate and stretched up onto the pylon. It takes only a little more time to do it as to explain it! A shot of the cowl shows the pattern I have used to make the swirls. Abufletcher is right You almost have to stop thinking about it as you do it to prevent from making a repetative pattern.

Don, doing a pinwheel version of this engine would be a hoot. I'll certainly give it some thought.

Cam, you did the stock tail skid drom the SR plans. I found that the skid needs some bite on the ground and I eventually used the skid from procter's E111. It looks good and works just as well.

camdyson

Feep,

I put a brass boot on the skid, with a "blade" bent in at the rear for some bite. Remains to be seen if it's enough, if not I'll put a more agressive one on. Nice pics - you really did a nice job on yours.

Cheers,

Cam

abufletcher

Feep, I like your solution with the brass plate. My EIII was a royal pain to rig at the field. I just hadn't been thinking about that at all. [:@]

nickbee

My Feedback: (7)

What a great way to kill a cooking vessel!

nickbee

My Feedback: (7)

Graet pics feep! I like the idea of making the flying wires adjustable!

feep

Thanks for the kind words guys. I found that most of the changes I've made seem to have form follow function, but msot of the time in 1/4 scale it always pays to look at the way the full size was engineered and start from there. The struts might look better but the motivation for me was because I bent them on a rough landing. The skid was changed because my plane would roll out forever and I would have to go retrieve it or turn it and the rigging made things more simple ,but you should see the pile of wire I have in my workshop that is not usable. I was just getting tired of running out looking for more wire evey time I had to make an adjustment. The same is true for the full flying elevator. That was done to expirement with the idea, but afterwards I realized that it made the SR E1 look more like an E3 which was what I wanted to model anyway.

nickbee

My Feedback: (7)

So where does the brass “blade” on the skid come into play? Does this help the plane track better on the ground? Would you recommend it from the start? I’m also thinking about posting a “build along” thread once I get started. This way I can ask questions as I go along and show people looking to get the kit what is involved. I’ll be placing the order for the kit this week.

feep

The skid as designed by SR has not grab to it. I found that the plane would just keep rolling and more often than not I was chasing it to turn it, or get it out of the deep grass. I first just put a peice of brass with a sort of hook at the end to help the skid dig in a little more and it worked. Later on I got a picture of the Proctor tail skid and used their design. The wood is that shape with plates on either side. Tail wheels were used before WW! in fact Blierot had one on his channel crosser in 1911. But the fields used by aviators were large and stopping was not an issue. When the war began airfieds were often confiscated farms and not completely ideal so tail skid were the norm.One aircraft I think it was the Albatross B 1 had a hook that was deployed from beneath the cockpit.
I'd be happy to help with any suggestions on your build thread. They are also very helpful at SR

nickbee

My Feedback: (7)

OK here’s a stupid question (I know, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people). In researching on G-26 on this site I’ve come across “the ignition mod”. At first it seems silly to replace the stock system with something that needs a battery. Obviously there must be some benefit or it would not be done. I guess my question (and keep in mind I’m a gaser newbie) is what benefit it has for the SR E1 air frame? And does it make the engine easier to operate since this will be my 1st gas engine.

Thanks!

feep

I'm running a G26 but its stock. The only problem I had involved the fuel system. I had one of those plug in fuel valves and it cuased 2 dead stick" crashes" ( that's how I know so much about wing and rigging improvments) Right now my engine runs like a top! I can start it 2 clicks up from stop and it never so much as sputters I honestly don't even worry about it dying and I use throttle quite a lot as I fly. I have resently taken to Blippping the throttle as I land and I have had NO problems. I myself see no need for the upgrade. You can find out a lot on the engine threads and they talk a lot about the G26. Oh I did have a problem with the prop shaft breaking from over tightening but I solved that relativly easy.
The only drawback to the G26 in the SR eindecker is the fact that you can't put a good dummy engine in front of it. You would have to make one of those recessed firewalls and that would throw off the CG and even then the spark plug would still stick out of the bottom and well, Its just not worth it!!

Bud Faulkner

My Feedback: (1)

As I've been told (and this is my first gasser also) The electronic ignition gives you better idling and top end rpm.

feep......what's a plug in fuel valve?

Bud

abufletcher

Isn't this the same as for "on-board glow systems" for FSs that are functionally like leaving the glow starter attached as you fly?

nickbee

My Feedback: (7)

Here is a description from www.rcignitions.com on what mods are done to the G-26 for $125.

-----------
A stock G26 has magneto ignition, no battery required..A conversion on a G26 is $125..I make a new prop hub, remove the magneto rotor and source coil from behind the cylinder..The spark coil is moved from the side of the engine to behind the cylinder in the space where the source coil was...the rear crankshaft is cut flush with the seal and an electronic circuit is mounted on a plate in the space where the magneto rotor was...I make a new narrower carb insulstor block that rotates the carb so that no bell crank is required to connect directly to the throttle servo...Total weight of the converted engine is 2 lbs 5 oz...It will turn a Mejzlik 18-6 prop at 8200 rpm with the stock muffler, 8500 with a Slimline Pitts muffler, and about 9000 with a Dale Abell side mount muffler...Measured thrust with a scale on the tail wheel of the plane is 17 lbs at 9000 rpm....
----------------

I guess I’m looking for an explanation of the net effect and the benefit (if any) it has on the E1 airframe.

Thanks!

feep

Bud , Thats one of those two way valves. You plug in your fill line and the fuel goes to the tank and when you unplug, the valve allows fuel to go to the engine. It only requires 2 fuel lines. The problem with them is that after a while they get some dirt in the valve and the don't seat properly and leak air. I just have a fuel dot now with three lines. simple and absolutly no problems.

abufletcher

Well, it wouldn't really "throw off" the CG. The CG would be right where it always was. Building a recessed firewall just messes up the usual radio and plumbing placement. You have to get REAL creative to figure a way to have the receiver, all the servos, the tank, and the batteries in those few precious inches of space ahead of the CG but behind that new recessed firewall. Well, actually you've got to stick the batteries in the cowl.

But the SR Eindecker isn't designed to be a scale master competetor and fitting a full dummy engine is the least of its worries. I think Feep's 2-D dummy looks just fine on a sport-scale model like this. The SR Eindecker (like the BUSA Eindeckers) are all about slow fly-bys and having fun on a sunny afternoon (or chilly dawn patrol).

camdyson

I'm just fitting my motor (G26) now, and am scratching my head over the carb's throttle arm. My motor has the original perforated, sprung metal arm. From the photos in SR's manual, it looks like they've mounted a nylon arm similar to a servo arm, onto the OPPOSITE side of the carby. Mine has a brass extension about 4mm long here - I was considering using a grub-screwed arm like used on steerable noselegs, plus remove the spring from the other side's arm.

Make sense?

Also, what's with the butterfly valve on the inlet side, opened by a bar with fuel tube over it? Choke? (Yes, I'm a petrol newbie too)

I've ali'-skinned the firewall, so might have a play with the Dremel tonight and see what pretty patterns I can make.

Cheers,

Cam

feep

Cam here's how I did my G26 install. I cut down a nylon control arm and mounted it with a set screw. I used a ball link for the connector and its adjusted back at the servo with a ez connector. The silicone hose is just a way to get the choke open manually. I left the spring in. My starting routine is I check that the engine switch is off and I close the choke. I turn the engine over with the starter for a couple of seconds. Than, I open the choke, turn on the engine switch and make sure the throttle is 2 or 3 clicks up from the off position. It usually starts without a htich. Here are some pics.
Nickbee, I got my new prop shaft from RC ignitions. My original broke from over tightening and this new one was and easy fix.

camdyson

Thanks Feep,

That all looks straightforward enough. Nice photography!

Cam

nickbee

My Feedback: (7)

Nice pics feep! Cam, snap some pics of your 1st alum scuffing!

nickbee

My Feedback: (7)

Here’s another question for you guys. I’ve seen some build reports where people DON’T build the wing with “wash out”. What seems to be the preference with you guys? What is the purpose of the wash out?

Thanks!

abufletcher

Wash out prevents nasty spin tendencies. Basically, building in wash out in effect gives the tip of the wing a lower angle of attack than the rest of the wing. This means that if the wing does start to stall, it will stall inboard rather than tip first which can lead to unexpected snap rolls.

A lot of WWI aircraft seem to have included wash-out by building "twisted" airlerons with the outside TE a couple of degrees higher than the inside TE.

camdyson

Here you go, 1st try at "squiggles"

camdyson

Secret weapon - steel wool in a Dremel. Tedious keeping consistent diameter as kept wearing out.

What is it with Germans and squiggles anyway - kept having flashbacks of painting Fiesler Storchs from my 1/72 days

abufletcher

That's very close to the squiggle pattern seen on the San Diego replica EIII. Personally, I think these squiggles are a bit too large to capture the the look on the original, which as I said almost has the look of galvanized metal.

BTW, the contrast between the WWII squiggled camo and the finishing pattern on the EIII is interesting. I'd describe the former and "conscious" while the later seems more "unconscious." I believe the squiggle pattern on the EIII is more the result of a certain finishing technique than of a purposeful effort to "make squiggles." Think of this like the variety of patterning that a skilled stucco worker can achieve with a practiced move of his hand. He doesn't actally "make" the pattern, the pattern is just the result of what the worker does with the wet stucco. In this sense it is random. It might also have been the result of working with a particular type of tool.

BTW, there are indications that the folks that worked on designing early German camouflage ideas had a good working knowledge of art history. It has been suggested that the lozenge patterned fabric was inspired by the impressionist art of the 1800's.