Buyer beware !
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buyer beware !
Hello everyone,
I am currently rebuilding a Modeltech extra 300 for the 6th time. Well the first with this fuselage and notice there is absolutely no way the carb can be above the tank no matter what I do. It was determined that the dead sticks I am experiencing are due to the carb being to low in reference to the tank.
The way the plans mention to mount the tank is at the 8 O'Clock position inverted of course. The only way I can alleviate this problem is to mount the engine at the 2 O'Clock position and bare with the mess it is going to make.
I am currently rebuilding a Modeltech extra 300 for the 6th time. Well the first with this fuselage and notice there is absolutely no way the carb can be above the tank no matter what I do. It was determined that the dead sticks I am experiencing are due to the carb being to low in reference to the tank.
The way the plans mention to mount the tank is at the 8 O'Clock position inverted of course. The only way I can alleviate this problem is to mount the engine at the 2 O'Clock position and bare with the mess it is going to make.
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
Yes, but I am going to attempt to mount the engine right side up and go from there, I don't know what the manufactureres were thinking but it's been two different engines put in this plane that ended in the same result. The proof is in the pudding just making everyone else aware before buying one.
#4
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbia,
SC
Posts: 8,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
I've had 2 different engines in mine and the only deadsticks I've had were my own fault or a couple recent ones that appear to have been caused by bad fuel. Suddenly 3 very reliable planes all developed the same problem. It went away when I used a new bottle of the same fuel.
I don't think there's a issue with the engine location in this plane. I'm curious how it was determined that the carb location is the cause of your deadsticks, I've got planes with carbs that are lower relative to the tank than this one and they still don't deadstick.
I don't think there's a issue with the engine location in this plane. I'm curious how it was determined that the carb location is the cause of your deadsticks, I've got planes with carbs that are lower relative to the tank than this one and they still don't deadstick.
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
It's determined because of allot of factors. I will give you some of them.
1 mounted in my trainer this engine never dead sticked , not even once.
2 same plane to different engines , fuel is brand new and a dead stick occurs.
3 cant cut bulk stock away from fuel tank compartment , because of design.
4 asked the engine forum what was going on and everyone agreed it was the tank height not the position of
the engine.
So I am convinced that the design of the plane is incomplete. If you look at the position of the fire wall it is higher than the carburetor when the engine is mounted at 8 O'clock position. The reason I got a flights in is because the plane isn't level when leaving the ground but a balanced plane in flight is level and this is when the stuttering and stalling of the engine begins.
1 mounted in my trainer this engine never dead sticked , not even once.
2 same plane to different engines , fuel is brand new and a dead stick occurs.
3 cant cut bulk stock away from fuel tank compartment , because of design.
4 asked the engine forum what was going on and everyone agreed it was the tank height not the position of
the engine.
So I am convinced that the design of the plane is incomplete. If you look at the position of the fire wall it is higher than the carburetor when the engine is mounted at 8 O'clock position. The reason I got a flights in is because the plane isn't level when leaving the ground but a balanced plane in flight is level and this is when the stuttering and stalling of the engine begins.
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Johns Creek,
GA
Posts: 7,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
Hmmmm... you seem to have a history of posts regarding problems with engines....
me thinks there just may be a tuning issue out there....
the Extra has been flown successfully by many, many people......
me thinks there just may be a tuning issue out there....
the Extra has been flown successfully by many, many people......
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
Hmmmm... you seem to have a history of posts regarding problems with engines....
the Extra has been flown successfully by many, many people......
#8
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbia,
SC
Posts: 8,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
ORIGINAL: RC-FIEND
the only problem I have with any engine is with the MAGNUM .28 ! , the AP .15 and the other 4 OS engines I have, have ran fine from the beginning until now . So I don't know what history book you are reading regarding me and engines but here it is in plain English.
WHO ? or are you just talking rubbish ? come with a little more facts than this please. []
Hmmmm... you seem to have a history of posts regarding problems with engines....
the Extra has been flown successfully by many, many people......
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
I've had 2 different engines in mine and the only deadsticks I've had were my own fault or a couple recent ones that appear to have been caused by bad fuel.
I read in RCU almost one hundred times a guy posting about an engine that would not run , and some one replying , lower the tank. I have NEVER seen you, Chuck, respond it has nothing to do with the tank position.
My point is simple , the tank position can't be lowered on this plane , thus far the positioning of the engine is a mistake.
#10
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbia,
SC
Posts: 8,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
ORIGINAL: RC-FIEND
It's determined because of allot of factors. I will give you some of them.
1 mounted in my trainer this engine never dead sticked , not even once.
It's determined because of allot of factors. I will give you some of them.
1 mounted in my trainer this engine never dead sticked , not even once.
2 same plane to different engines , fuel is brand new and a dead stick occurs.
3 cant cut bulk stock away from fuel tank compartment , because of design.
4 asked the engine forum what was going on and everyone agreed it was the tank height not the position of the engine.
So I am convinced that the design of the plane is incomplete. If you look at the position of the fire wall it is higher than the carburetor when the engine is mounted at 8 O'clock position. The reason I got a flights in is because the plane isn't level when leaving the ground but a balanced plane in flight is level and this is when the stuttering and stalling of the engine begins.
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
Stuttering and stalling are indicative of an engine that's not tuned right. You had trouble with a Magnum .28, and now you're having trouble with an OS .46 FX (which by the way is WAY TOO MUCH ENGINE FOR THIS PLANE), and you're now condemning the designers?
come on Chuck, if I am guilty of overpowering a plane so are you and tons of other people in RCU thats not the problem I am having . You are so convinced that it isn't tank position , but didn't you mount your tank at the 12 O'clock position ? If yes why ?
Other than that just because you don't dead stick with this set up, doesn't mean your motor to tank position is perfect.
#12
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbia,
SC
Posts: 8,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
ORIGINAL: RC-FIEND
It seems you have no regards for tank positioning , which is fine, but how can you be convinced that all three of your planes problems wasn't from tank position vs bad fuel ? Of course a new bottle of fuel has more nitro potency so it may only seem that this solved the problem, but did it really ?
I've had 2 different engines in mine and the only deadsticks I've had were my own fault or a couple recent ones that appear to have been caused by bad fuel.
I read in RCU almost one hundred times a guy posting about an engine that would not run , and some one replying , lower the tank. I have NEVER seen you, Chuck, respond it has nothing to do with the tank position.
My point is simple , the tank position can't be lowered on this plane , thus far the positioning of the engine is a mistake.
#13
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbia,
SC
Posts: 8,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
ORIGINAL: RC-FIEND
come on Chuck, if I am guilty of overpowering a plane so are you and tons of other people in RCU thats not the problem I am having .
Stuttering and stalling are indicative of an engine that's not tuned right. You had trouble with a Magnum .28, and now you're having trouble with an OS .46 FX (which by the way is WAY TOO MUCH ENGINE FOR THIS PLANE), and you're now condemning the designers?
come on Chuck, if I am guilty of overpowering a plane so are you and tons of other people in RCU thats not the problem I am having .
You are so convinced that it isn't tank position , but didn't you mount your tank at the 12 O'clock position ? If yes why ?
Other than that just because you don't dead stick with this set up, doesn't mean your motor to tank position is perfect.
You have the opinion that the design is bad. That's fine, it's your opinion. I'm providing an alternate opinion, and the results to back it up, that the design works just fine. If the design was as bad as you are implying, I would have expected to see lots of people complaining about it. Quite the contrary, it gets lots of positive comments.
#14
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbia,
SC
Posts: 8,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
ORIGINAL: RC-FIEND
WHO ? or are you just talking rubbish ? come with a little more facts than this please. []
the Extra has been flown successfully by many, many people......
#15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
OK OK OK , it's not the tank position , but as far as overpowering I had a MAG .28 in the plane and still received dead sticks . I put the MAG .28 mounted at 12 o'clock in a SPAD delta wing the engine wouldn't stop running . I didn't fly the delta but the transitioning and idling was fine when mounted up right. So what am I supposed to believe?, what I hear or what I see in front of me ?
You can defend the plane all you want, I LOVE THIS PLANE thats why I am still trying to get it to fly . I was told the plane was squirrelly , and didn't see any signs of this, I guess the guy who told me this didn't know anything about dual rates. To sum up this thread, I will mount the same OS .46 in the 2 O'clock position and post results.
PS .36 to .46 isn't very much and just to let you know , the plane handles better with a .46 vs a .28.
You can defend the plane all you want, I LOVE THIS PLANE thats why I am still trying to get it to fly . I was told the plane was squirrelly , and didn't see any signs of this, I guess the guy who told me this didn't know anything about dual rates. To sum up this thread, I will mount the same OS .46 in the 2 O'clock position and post results.
PS .36 to .46 isn't very much and just to let you know , the plane handles better with a .46 vs a .28.
#16
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbia,
SC
Posts: 8,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
Try mounting the .28 inverted on a test stand and see how it runs. You might find that it's troublesome even on the stand. If it's sputtering, see how it responds to adjusting the carb. I'm also still curious what you are using for a plug.
The difference between .36 and .45 is actually quite a bit. I've got several of both size. The .36 engines are upsized .25s. They are quite a bit smaller and usually several ounces lighter than the typical .45 engine. For example, the TT .36 Pro, a very popular .36 engine, weighs in at 11.4 ounces, while the OS .46 AX and TT .45 Pro are both over 17 ounces. Adding 6 extra ounces to a plane this size is a significant difference, especially when you consider the extra lead it would need in the tail for balance, and the very thin airfoil. The overall effect on the flying characteristics is not going to be positive on anything other than the vertical.
It's also hard to imagine that you will even be able to use the extra power without tearing the thing apart. Mine's a rocket with a Webra .32, and I've got it pitched down to reduce the speed. Much more power and the plane would be subjected to stresses that it probably can't handle.
Personally, this is one I wouldn't overpower. But, it's your plane and if you're happy with the .46, great!
The difference between .36 and .45 is actually quite a bit. I've got several of both size. The .36 engines are upsized .25s. They are quite a bit smaller and usually several ounces lighter than the typical .45 engine. For example, the TT .36 Pro, a very popular .36 engine, weighs in at 11.4 ounces, while the OS .46 AX and TT .45 Pro are both over 17 ounces. Adding 6 extra ounces to a plane this size is a significant difference, especially when you consider the extra lead it would need in the tail for balance, and the very thin airfoil. The overall effect on the flying characteristics is not going to be positive on anything other than the vertical.
It's also hard to imagine that you will even be able to use the extra power without tearing the thing apart. Mine's a rocket with a Webra .32, and I've got it pitched down to reduce the speed. Much more power and the plane would be subjected to stresses that it probably can't handle.
Personally, this is one I wouldn't overpower. But, it's your plane and if you're happy with the .46, great!
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Leesburg,
IN
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
Why not simply mount a small tank at what RC-Fiend thinks is the right position (height-wise) but on the outswide of the fuselage temporarily and see if this makes any difference in flight? Not to worry about drag, etc. with a small tank mounted externally as this is done all the time with combat planes using engines of this size. Simply use strapping tape to hold the tank on.
After all, part of the fun of this hobby is to use innovatiion to solve problems.
After all, part of the fun of this hobby is to use innovatiion to solve problems.
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
Why not simply mount a small tank at what RC-Fiend thinks is the right position (height-wise) but on the outswide of the fuselage
On top of that I am mounting the MAG .28 on another plane in the up right position to see if it will fly the plane with out any problems in this position.
#20
Senior Member
RE: Buyer beware !
RC-FIEND
It does seem that some manufacturers don’t consider details like tank/carburetor relationship. Since the beginning of time the correct relationship (upright or inverted) between carb nozzle and tank has been the same, carb nozzle approximately 1/4” to 3/8” above the tank centerline. Violate the basic principles and most often one ends up constant engine fiddling. While some do get engines to run in adverse tank relationships most will not.
Wonder if the manufacturer has flown the airplane.
Bill
It does seem that some manufacturers don’t consider details like tank/carburetor relationship. Since the beginning of time the correct relationship (upright or inverted) between carb nozzle and tank has been the same, carb nozzle approximately 1/4” to 3/8” above the tank centerline. Violate the basic principles and most often one ends up constant engine fiddling. While some do get engines to run in adverse tank relationships most will not.
Wonder if the manufacturer has flown the airplane.
Bill
#21
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
The difference between .36 and .45 is actually quite a bit.
Was it you Chuck that put a .40 engine on a .15 size SHRIKE ? or am I losing my mind ? [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]
and yea MERRY CHRISTMAS, any new planes ?
#22
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbia,
SC
Posts: 8,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
ORIGINAL: RC-FIEND
I getting the feeling that RCU is truly a matter of oppinion. I can't remember reading one time in RCU where a person used the recommended size engine for a plane built from scratch or bought and assembled. So I go from a recommended .36 to a .46 and I am immediately facing possible problems.
Was it you Chuck that put a .40 engine on a .15 size SHRIKE ? or am I losing my mind ? [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]
The difference between .36 and .45 is actually quite a bit.
Was it you Chuck that put a .40 engine on a .15 size SHRIKE ? or am I losing my mind ? [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]
Apparently you ARE losing your mind . My Shrike does not have a .40 engine! In fact, my Shrike 10 doesn't even have the .25 that so many other's put in it. I've posted what's in it, go find it if you're interested.
Besides, there's a world of difference between the power that one chooses to put in a kit built plane that can be reinforced during building, and that's only designed for one thing, going fast, and what's put in an ARF that's designed for areobatics. Adding significantly more weight (and 6-8 ounces is significant on a 3.5 pound plane) to an aerobatic plane can mess up its flying characteristics. If all you want is a rocket, go for it. If you want a well behaved aerobatic plane, my opinion is that this plane with a .46 is not going to be it.
#23
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
OK I will look for the post and report back , but in the mean time, you shy away from stating the MT extra is rated for a .36 I am wondering why ?
LOL You really doubt my flying skills allot ....another reason for video.
Just don't start crying about poor construction when it starts shedding apendages in mid air, or you go below the (increased) stall speed and snap it into the ground while landing.
#24
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbia,
SC
Posts: 8,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
ORIGINAL: RC-FIEND
OK I will look for the post and report back , but in the mean time, you shy away from stating the MT extra is rated for a .36 I am wondering why ?
OK I will look for the post and report back , but in the mean time, you shy away from stating the MT extra is rated for a .36 I am wondering why ?
#25
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: RCHill,
NJ
Posts: 2,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Buyer beware !
It does seem that some manufacturers don’t consider details like tank/carburetor relationship. Since the beginning of time the correct relationship (upright or inverted) between carb nozzle and tank has been the same, carb nozzle approximately 1/4” to 3/8” above the tank centerline. Violate the basic principles and most often one ends up constant engine fiddling. While some do get engines to run in adverse tank relationships most will not.
Wonder if the manufacturer has flown the airplane.
Bill
Wonder if the manufacturer has flown the airplane.
Bill
This makes since and thanks for the info Bill .