.60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
09-13-2004, 03:53 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (45)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hebron,
KY
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
I'm thinking about bashing my old .60 sized high wing trainer into a twin. Just for fun and basic twin experience. This plane will fly on a single .46 2 stroke with no trouble. I was thinking about using two .35's or .40's on the wings. Build some simple necals and round off the current nose. As a single she weights in at about 7 pounds with a large 70 inch wing span that has a typical flat bottom and dihedral. I could remove some of the dihedral. Should be pretty simple. Am I missing something that will pose a problem?
Thx,
Kregg
Thx,
Kregg
09-13-2004, 09:20 PM
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Kregg:
You aren't missing a thing. I'd advise making the nacelles under slung to keep the thrust line low, but it will still fly fine if you put them up high.
The pictures are an airplane that started out as a Hobbistar 60, I did some extreme bashing on it, going to a two piece plug in wing, with a pair of Magnum XL 46 engines it will fly over 100 mph in level flight.
Have fun with it. No matter how you do it, by starting with a proven airframe you almost can't screw it up.
Bill.
You aren't missing a thing. I'd advise making the nacelles under slung to keep the thrust line low, but it will still fly fine if you put them up high.
The pictures are an airplane that started out as a Hobbistar 60, I did some extreme bashing on it, going to a two piece plug in wing, with a pair of Magnum XL 46 engines it will fly over 100 mph in level flight.
Have fun with it. No matter how you do it, by starting with a proven airframe you almost can't screw it up.
Bill.
09-14-2004, 07:08 AM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (45)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hebron,
KY
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Thanks for your comments Bill. I'm an experienced flier and I have two scale twin projects on the table. I have a Ziroli DC3/C47 that is ready to be sheeted and a smaller P-38 from a strange British kit (AeroTech?). The power system for the "trainer twin" needs to also work for the P-38. I have been getting more experience in electrics (when I'm not flying my big ones) and I'm seriously thinking of making this trainer twin a electric set up for several benifits. It should make a good test bed and the expensive power set-up can be used in my P-38. Please help with a few questions.
1. If the .60 trainer used to fly with excess power on a single 70 four stroke, will a pair of .35 sized motors be enough power or do I need .40's? The P-38 calls for .25's to .35's so It should also be sufficient for the second plane set-up.
2. Your twin example has a symetrical wing. Mine has a flat bottom with a fair amount of dihedral. Will this still work OK or should I remove some of the dihedral and reshape the wing tips?
1. If the .60 trainer used to fly with excess power on a single 70 four stroke, will a pair of .35 sized motors be enough power or do I need .40's? The P-38 calls for .25's to .35's so It should also be sufficient for the second plane set-up.
2. Your twin example has a symetrical wing. Mine has a flat bottom with a fair amount of dihedral. Will this still work OK or should I remove some of the dihedral and reshape the wing tips?
09-14-2004, 08:43 AM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Kregg:
Considering a single engines 0.60 size plane. The nominal conversion for equal thrust is two engines 40% of the original engine's size, The increased efficiency of the greater propellor disc area is what does it. Since the airplane will gain weight and drag (more frontal area) 60% is considered the practical equivalent. In other words a pair of 0.25 engines would give equal thrust, going to 0.36 engines would give the same performance. You are not limited to these smaller engines, of course. I think I heard that Twinman put three 0.46 engines on a plane that originally had only one 0.46 on it. So long as the wing loading doesn't get too high, and you don't try to fly in excess of the airframe's Vne it will work fine.
Generally speaking, the flat bottomed wing will be the easier plane to fly, the symmetric will be better at flying inverted and doing aerobatics.
When both engines are running the dihedral will contribute to stability, but the offset thrust with one out will tend to make the plane go into a spiral dive, just as rudder only input will with a single engine and high dihedral. Remember also the "Trainer" style will usually be easier to fly in a glide, if you lose one of the pair chopping the throttle on the other will make the plane your easy to glide plane again.
Blunt tips give the effect of wash out in the wing, and they give the effect whether upright or inverted whereas wash out works against you when inverted. Just as a swept leading edge gives effective dihedral both upright and inverted, the blunt tips are effective either way.
Summing, there are advantages and disadvantages to any changes (or unchanged things) in the finished bash. You have to decide what you want the plane to be, proceed accordingly.
Electric? In the VQ P-38 thread (I think that's where it is) a fellow has built a VQ or KMP plane with electric power. Search for "Electric .AND. P-38" or "+electric P-38." One or the other should bring it up.
Bill.
Considering a single engines 0.60 size plane. The nominal conversion for equal thrust is two engines 40% of the original engine's size, The increased efficiency of the greater propellor disc area is what does it. Since the airplane will gain weight and drag (more frontal area) 60% is considered the practical equivalent. In other words a pair of 0.25 engines would give equal thrust, going to 0.36 engines would give the same performance. You are not limited to these smaller engines, of course. I think I heard that Twinman put three 0.46 engines on a plane that originally had only one 0.46 on it. So long as the wing loading doesn't get too high, and you don't try to fly in excess of the airframe's Vne it will work fine.
Generally speaking, the flat bottomed wing will be the easier plane to fly, the symmetric will be better at flying inverted and doing aerobatics.
When both engines are running the dihedral will contribute to stability, but the offset thrust with one out will tend to make the plane go into a spiral dive, just as rudder only input will with a single engine and high dihedral. Remember also the "Trainer" style will usually be easier to fly in a glide, if you lose one of the pair chopping the throttle on the other will make the plane your easy to glide plane again.
Blunt tips give the effect of wash out in the wing, and they give the effect whether upright or inverted whereas wash out works against you when inverted. Just as a swept leading edge gives effective dihedral both upright and inverted, the blunt tips are effective either way.
Summing, there are advantages and disadvantages to any changes (or unchanged things) in the finished bash. You have to decide what you want the plane to be, proceed accordingly.
Electric? In the VQ P-38 thread (I think that's where it is) a fellow has built a VQ or KMP plane with electric power. Search for "Electric .AND. P-38" or "+electric P-38." One or the other should bring it up.
Bill.
09-19-2004, 03:50 AM
#5
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Kregg
Here are the simple underwing tub nacelles that work very well indeed on flat bottomed wings. I,ve used these same nacelles from the same patterns on two Cadet seniors With four .28's, Two unknown forty size trainers with two .20's & two .28's and am currently adding them to a Hanger nine 80 inch Cub, will probably use a pair of .46's.
John
Here are the simple underwing tub nacelles that work very well indeed on flat bottomed wings. I,ve used these same nacelles from the same patterns on two Cadet seniors With four .28's, Two unknown forty size trainers with two .20's & two .28's and am currently adding them to a Hanger nine 80 inch Cub, will probably use a pair of .46's.
John
09-19-2004, 11:00 AM
#6
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Medford,
OR,
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Question about fuel tanks -
I have just finished bashing a Sig Kadet Senior into a twin, or tri motor.
Hope to break in the small engines today, and maybe fly it with the single engine.
It wound up tail heavy with the Twins, so mounted a .46 in the nose.
Twins are two Magnum .32’s.
I thought I would have something unusual, but see this has been done about a million times -
About the fuel tanks -
The helicopter guys mount a main fuel tank, where-ever they can, and then use a small header tank near the engine.
Is there a reason why you couldn’t have a central tank in a multi-engine plane, and use small, ( one or two ounce header tanks ) mounted close to each engine?
Pressure lines feed the main tank, with maybe a check valve, to prevent pressure loss, if one of the engines quits.
If it worked, sure would make things like retracts, and fuel a piece of cake -
LEM
I have just finished bashing a Sig Kadet Senior into a twin, or tri motor.
Hope to break in the small engines today, and maybe fly it with the single engine.
It wound up tail heavy with the Twins, so mounted a .46 in the nose.
Twins are two Magnum .32’s.
I thought I would have something unusual, but see this has been done about a million times -
About the fuel tanks -
The helicopter guys mount a main fuel tank, where-ever they can, and then use a small header tank near the engine.
Is there a reason why you couldn’t have a central tank in a multi-engine plane, and use small, ( one or two ounce header tanks ) mounted close to each engine?
Pressure lines feed the main tank, with maybe a check valve, to prevent pressure loss, if one of the engines quits.
If it worked, sure would make things like retracts, and fuel a piece of cake -
LEM
09-19-2004, 11:33 PM
#7
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Larry:
A central tank on a multi, even with header tanks, does not work well for anything but level flight. While you see the header tank, the carb still has to draw the fuel from the central tank.
Straight muffler pressure wouldn't work as you noted, if one engine was out the pressure would bleed out the other. Check valves also wont work, since the pressure would stay high when the throttles are pulled back. Instant flooding and dead engines.
A central tank will work fine, though, with either Perry pumps or Iron Bay/Cline regulators. And with either you have no need of the header tanks.
The header tank works fine in a helicopter because the total distance from carb to the main tank is still well within the capabilities of muffler pressure. And they are running a single engine.
I like the Perry pumps, I've had good results with them when I use one clunk and fuel feed for each engine. Using a tee with a single clunk didn't work well at all.
Bill.
A central tank on a multi, even with header tanks, does not work well for anything but level flight. While you see the header tank, the carb still has to draw the fuel from the central tank.
Straight muffler pressure wouldn't work as you noted, if one engine was out the pressure would bleed out the other. Check valves also wont work, since the pressure would stay high when the throttles are pulled back. Instant flooding and dead engines.
A central tank will work fine, though, with either Perry pumps or Iron Bay/Cline regulators. And with either you have no need of the header tanks.
The header tank works fine in a helicopter because the total distance from carb to the main tank is still well within the capabilities of muffler pressure. And they are running a single engine.
I like the Perry pumps, I've had good results with them when I use one clunk and fuel feed for each engine. Using a tee with a single clunk didn't work well at all.
Bill.
09-20-2004, 12:10 AM
#8
Senior Member
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
You will probably find that the ducted fan guys also use header tanks.
I have used a center tank with 1 oz. header tanks and it works well As a matter of fact once while testing I placed the center tank on the ground (6” below where it would normally be) and let the engines idle until they drained every last drop of fuel from the tank on the ground. I did not use check valves. Muffler pressure from both engines was plumbed to the center tank with a T. To my surprise one engine could be cranked and run at full RPM without flooding the engine that was not running. One might guess that there was simply enough resistance in the fuel lines and needle valve for the dead engine to prevent flooding.
If there is any doubt about how your setup might work it is easy to experiment by mounting two engines to a sheet of plywood at the spacing that you are using. You need to run and synchronize the engines anyway.
Preventing fuel foaming and the associated engine shutdown is another matter much more serious. The harmonic frequencies can be many and strange. Structure too stiff is a problem. Structure too flexible is a problem. Solve the problem on the ground and the instant the wheels leave the ground everything changes.
I am working on a similar project. How about a picture.
I have used a center tank with 1 oz. header tanks and it works well As a matter of fact once while testing I placed the center tank on the ground (6” below where it would normally be) and let the engines idle until they drained every last drop of fuel from the tank on the ground. I did not use check valves. Muffler pressure from both engines was plumbed to the center tank with a T. To my surprise one engine could be cranked and run at full RPM without flooding the engine that was not running. One might guess that there was simply enough resistance in the fuel lines and needle valve for the dead engine to prevent flooding.
If there is any doubt about how your setup might work it is easy to experiment by mounting two engines to a sheet of plywood at the spacing that you are using. You need to run and synchronize the engines anyway.
Preventing fuel foaming and the associated engine shutdown is another matter much more serious. The harmonic frequencies can be many and strange. Structure too stiff is a problem. Structure too flexible is a problem. Solve the problem on the ground and the instant the wheels leave the ground everything changes.
I am working on a similar project. How about a picture.
09-20-2004, 02:21 AM
#9
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Medford,
OR,
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Many thanks for the replies!
The fascination with these things, is seeing how far you can push your luck!
A little word of caution! Getting at the needle valves is a little trickier than the single engines. Got a few band-aids today to prove it -
Broke in the new engines on the wings today. I got carried away with the paint, epoxy and a few other things. Was getting concerned about having enough power, as the weight piled up.
Not a problem! The single .46 in the nose, has more than enough power, and I would guess the two .32’s put out more-
Will fly it tomorrow or the next day, if the weather holds.
Engine pods are almost exactly the same as posted by Buckner. Mount to the bottom of the wing. Open bottom with a door, for full access to the fuel tank, and servo.
I did beef the wing, and sheeted top and bottom out past the engines. Landing gear also needed braced for the extra weight.
Only problem. I packed too much foam around the right fuel tank and got it too tight.
Had just a bit of fuel foaming, with that engine. Guess you can over-do anything!
Five minute fix -
Will leave all three engines mounted, and just plug the twins in to the receiver, or just fly it single engine with the twins un=plugged. Don’t think my nerves will handle all three at once.
LEM
The fascination with these things, is seeing how far you can push your luck!
A little word of caution! Getting at the needle valves is a little trickier than the single engines. Got a few band-aids today to prove it -
Broke in the new engines on the wings today. I got carried away with the paint, epoxy and a few other things. Was getting concerned about having enough power, as the weight piled up.
Not a problem! The single .46 in the nose, has more than enough power, and I would guess the two .32’s put out more-
Will fly it tomorrow or the next day, if the weather holds.
Engine pods are almost exactly the same as posted by Buckner. Mount to the bottom of the wing. Open bottom with a door, for full access to the fuel tank, and servo.
I did beef the wing, and sheeted top and bottom out past the engines. Landing gear also needed braced for the extra weight.
Only problem. I packed too much foam around the right fuel tank and got it too tight.
Had just a bit of fuel foaming, with that engine. Guess you can over-do anything!
Five minute fix -
Will leave all three engines mounted, and just plug the twins in to the receiver, or just fly it single engine with the twins un=plugged. Don’t think my nerves will handle all three at once.
LEM
09-20-2004, 03:31 AM
#10
Senior Member
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
I intend to fly mine four or five flights with the outboard engines stopped to check out the aerodynamics and the change in glide slope. Then I intend to make several flights with the outboards idling.
Thanks for the picture. It looks mean. Has the airframe been flown with one engine?
Thanks for the picture. It looks mean. Has the airframe been flown with one engine?
09-20-2004, 05:45 PM
#12
Senior Member
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
We do hope you have good luck and please let us know the results. Actually it is probably a matter of thoroughness and not luck.
Anyway long ago I decided that most engine outs were a result of fuel foaming but foaming is not easy to verify or fix. One might conclude that if the fuel foaming problems could be solved there would almost never be an engine out. Latex foam rubber has vibration-damping characteristics. Many types of foam will protect against impact but not vibration. Likely there are better foam materials that will offer more vibration protection. Anyone know? Twins/triples are different from singles in that they generate a wide range of harmonics that must be dampened somehow (either the airframe or the foam around the tank). Maybe someone here will have experimented and steer us to a better foam or maybe a method of testing for foaming. Meanwhile I enclosed my tank with a piece of transparent red plastic (actually a piece of a file folder from Staples) in order to be able to easily observe the tanks.
Anyway long ago I decided that most engine outs were a result of fuel foaming but foaming is not easy to verify or fix. One might conclude that if the fuel foaming problems could be solved there would almost never be an engine out. Latex foam rubber has vibration-damping characteristics. Many types of foam will protect against impact but not vibration. Likely there are better foam materials that will offer more vibration protection. Anyone know? Twins/triples are different from singles in that they generate a wide range of harmonics that must be dampened somehow (either the airframe or the foam around the tank). Maybe someone here will have experimented and steer us to a better foam or maybe a method of testing for foaming. Meanwhile I enclosed my tank with a piece of transparent red plastic (actually a piece of a file folder from Staples) in order to be able to easily observe the tanks.
09-20-2004, 07:02 PM
#13
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Bill I cannot offer anything on improving foaming problems that you don,t already know but I can offer a simple solution that will totally eliminate foaming. These tanks are know as 'bubbless tanks' and have been a well kept secret of the pylon fraternaty now for about ten years. These tanks look like an ordinary tank but have an inner flexable bladder. only the fuel feed line goes into this bladder. The pressure line is vented between the hard outer shell and the inner bladder. They are fueled with a large syringe that removes air and then the fuel is pushed in, the result is only fuel within the bladder. No air, no bubbles. They cannot foam and the fuel pickup is in the middle of the tank with no clunk. The pickup tube is always immersed despite any manuvering within the fuel bubble.
They are more expensive and a bit more trouble to fuel with requireing the large syringe. This type tank offers far better fuel delivery characteristics than any conventional system.
I have not used them to date on any of my multi's as I have not felt the need but beyond my racers I have used them very successfully on a few problamatical sport singles.
On my Quad Cadet There has not been any major flameout problems But during aerobatics under some loads the outboards have a tendency to drop out of a smooth two stroke mometarily and I have given some thought to trying a set on this ship for that reason.
Do give some thought to the fact that your triple will suffer less dissymetry of thrust when an engine is lost than a twin. A Quad is even less so. For that reason I think testing on the wing engines or just the fuse engine would be a bit redundant. Just my opinion would be to test with all engines running.
This is the link to learn a little more on the Tetra bubbless tanks:
http://www.darrolcady.com/Tettra_Tan...tra_tanks.html
John
They are more expensive and a bit more trouble to fuel with requireing the large syringe. This type tank offers far better fuel delivery characteristics than any conventional system.
I have not used them to date on any of my multi's as I have not felt the need but beyond my racers I have used them very successfully on a few problamatical sport singles.
On my Quad Cadet There has not been any major flameout problems But during aerobatics under some loads the outboards have a tendency to drop out of a smooth two stroke mometarily and I have given some thought to trying a set on this ship for that reason.
Do give some thought to the fact that your triple will suffer less dissymetry of thrust when an engine is lost than a twin. A Quad is even less so. For that reason I think testing on the wing engines or just the fuse engine would be a bit redundant. Just my opinion would be to test with all engines running.
This is the link to learn a little more on the Tetra bubbless tanks:
http://www.darrolcady.com/Tettra_Tan...tra_tanks.html
John
09-20-2004, 10:02 PM
#14
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Medford,
OR,
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Strange, this foaming fuel subject should come up. Test flight today with the single engine in the nose ( all engines mounted, but only the single running ).
After a battle with a plugged needle valve, and replacing questionable fuel lines, got it in the air. Slow gentle flight - no trim problems.
Back to the same problem. Crammed the nose too full of the wrong foam.
Will have to re-do the main fuel tank.
Looks like three engines won’t be a problem - going to be fun -
LEM
After a battle with a plugged needle valve, and replacing questionable fuel lines, got it in the air. Slow gentle flight - no trim problems.
Back to the same problem. Crammed the nose too full of the wrong foam.
Will have to re-do the main fuel tank.
Looks like three engines won’t be a problem - going to be fun -
LEM
09-20-2004, 10:42 PM
#15
Senior Member
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
John thanks for the good information. You have been very helpful. I appreciate the knowledge that you have shared.
The â€bubbleless tanks’ are a good idea. The Senior Kadet dead sticks very well and is not the same concern as the P38 my friend is building. The P38 is expensive, fragile and there will be a lot of time and effort invested. Likely there is no such thing as a successful dead stick with a P38. The 90’s will need 16 oz. tanks.
The engineer in my background forces the redundancy (the devil makes me do it). Anyway I will enjoy the flight time and maybe gain some small additional knowledge. Also the repaired wing has not been flight-tested.
Has anyone tried â€bubbleless tanks?’
The â€bubbleless tanks’ are a good idea. The Senior Kadet dead sticks very well and is not the same concern as the P38 my friend is building. The P38 is expensive, fragile and there will be a lot of time and effort invested. Likely there is no such thing as a successful dead stick with a P38. The 90’s will need 16 oz. tanks.
The engineer in my background forces the redundancy (the devil makes me do it). Anyway I will enjoy the flight time and maybe gain some small additional knowledge. Also the repaired wing has not been flight-tested.
Has anyone tried â€bubbleless tanks?’
09-22-2004, 06:36 PM
#17
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Medford,
OR,
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
The Kadet bash job, came with a few problems, most of which had nothing to do with the conversion. Got all of the bugs worked out.
As I mentioned, the plane balanced perfect, with all three engines mounted, so I don’t remove any. Just plug the engines I want to run into the receiver and fly.
Plane is quite heavy - would guess about 11 pounds. I was concerned about power.
The 46 two stroke in the nose. Fly’s it fine! Not a barn burner, but fun.
To my surprise, the two .32 two strokes, do a much better job. Plenty of power!
No nasty problems, just change the trim a bit, to fly the twins.
The only thing I would change, is heavier landing gear.
Haven’t worked up the nerve to run all three at once - but it is coming!
Go for it! You are in for a lot of fun - fun!
LEM
As I mentioned, the plane balanced perfect, with all three engines mounted, so I don’t remove any. Just plug the engines I want to run into the receiver and fly.
Plane is quite heavy - would guess about 11 pounds. I was concerned about power.
The 46 two stroke in the nose. Fly’s it fine! Not a barn burner, but fun.
To my surprise, the two .32 two strokes, do a much better job. Plenty of power!
No nasty problems, just change the trim a bit, to fly the twins.
The only thing I would change, is heavier landing gear.
Haven’t worked up the nerve to run all three at once - but it is coming!
Go for it! You are in for a lot of fun - fun!
LEM
09-22-2004, 09:28 PM
#18
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Hi all,
My first multi was a 40 sized trainer bashed into a triple. 25la's slung under the wings with a 4oz tank each and a 40la in the nose with a 6oz tank. ZFW 3kg. flies great. almost too much power at full throttle, if one of the wing-mounted engines is pulling harder than the other the wing 'twists' under the rubber bands!
I wouldn't worry about test flying with only the nose engine first, just get 'em all turning close rpm and running well enough not to quit and you'll be fine. power up slowly, use an extra long take off roll and have a blast! Don't throttle down too far on approach either, mine tends to become a brick below 1/4 throttle.
My first multi was a 40 sized trainer bashed into a triple. 25la's slung under the wings with a 4oz tank each and a 40la in the nose with a 6oz tank. ZFW 3kg. flies great. almost too much power at full throttle, if one of the wing-mounted engines is pulling harder than the other the wing 'twists' under the rubber bands!
I wouldn't worry about test flying with only the nose engine first, just get 'em all turning close rpm and running well enough not to quit and you'll be fine. power up slowly, use an extra long take off roll and have a blast! Don't throttle down too far on approach either, mine tends to become a brick below 1/4 throttle.
09-23-2004, 01:08 PM
#19
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Medford,
OR,
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
John,
Can't control the lust! I see your picture is what looks like a Kadet with four engines.
You also mention building a couple.
Just finished bashing one into a twin and love it. Just happen to have another wing framed, no diheadral. Wouldn't take much, to beef it and add four tubs.
Bad idea? Can you post a couple pictures, or email them?
LEM
[email protected]
Can't control the lust! I see your picture is what looks like a Kadet with four engines.
You also mention building a couple.
Just finished bashing one into a twin and love it. Just happen to have another wing framed, no diheadral. Wouldn't take much, to beef it and add four tubs.
Bad idea? Can you post a couple pictures, or email them?
LEM
[email protected]
09-23-2004, 03:09 PM
#20
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Yes LEM it is a Cadet Senior that spent the first eighteen years as a single and now has four Magnum .28's. This is the second one, the mods include in addition to the nose includes reduction in dihedral to around two degrees, glass main gear with spring beefing, leading edges fully sheeted to the tips, Wingspan increased by seven inchs (one bay each tip, large barndoor ailerons, bottom sheeting to the trailing edges in the area of the nacelles, Carbon fibre tape on the top of the spars under the sheeting top and bottom spar, Full length yellow internal glowire lighting in the fuse and wings (thats why the yellow clear monocoat), Internal Wireing, switch, mounting for a 3000 Nimh power for the three removable color coded wingtip and tail orientation incandesscent lights for night flights and all servos are standard except the four HS 225's for throttle.
This is the second one the first was lost to a midair on the 26th flight. It was such a delight I had to do another right away. Total flights between the two is now around 66 and two night flights. Does delightful close in aerobatics and a joy to fly. One advantage is you will never have to wait to fly. As soon as you takeoff everybody lands to watch.
The third photo is one of my bashed twins using the same nacelle tubs. Its just an unknown forty size trainer with a couple of K&B .20's.
This is the second one the first was lost to a midair on the 26th flight. It was such a delight I had to do another right away. Total flights between the two is now around 66 and two night flights. Does delightful close in aerobatics and a joy to fly. One advantage is you will never have to wait to fly. As soon as you takeoff everybody lands to watch.
The third photo is one of my bashed twins using the same nacelle tubs. Its just an unknown forty size trainer with a couple of K&B .20's.
09-23-2004, 04:39 PM
#21
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Medford,
OR,
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Thanks for the reply and pictures!
Didn't take much to push me over the edge.
Ordered two more engines, and will go to work on the wing and landing gear -
Thanks again -
LEM
Didn't take much to push me over the edge.
Ordered two more engines, and will go to work on the wing and landing gear -
Thanks again -
LEM
09-23-2004, 05:25 PM
#22
RE: .60 Trainer bashed into a TWIN?
Cool LEM, you won,t be sorry. I used two degrees out thrust on the inboards and four degrees out on the on the outboards. If you complete everything but attaching the nacelles first its a simple matter to tape the nacelles complete with engines, props, servos and tanks to the bottom of the wing and hang it then very simple to ust slide the nacelles for or aft to adjust CG where you want it. No need for weight ever. Then just epoxy the nacelles to the location on the bottom sheeting then I just make some vertical posts that protrude into the nacelles that will glue to both the spars and nacelle sides. Last just custom fit some top hatchs for tank access. I just use rubber bands to hold them on. Can change out a tank in about two minutes at the field.
The first twenty or so flights I did with no gyro and due to the almost impossibility of a totaly even throttle ups you had to work pretty hard on T/o but was easy to learn, not such a big deal. I later added a Hobbico gyro on the rudder which made takeoffs a piece of cake. Even with the engines coming up pretty uneven not much need to touch the rudder, it just tracks straight on its own. The gyro along with the out thrust will buy you a little time to identify which rudder needs to be applied when one goes out . Have had every possible combination of one out. Mostly on purpose by short tanking and at most all that is required is full rudder trim into the good engines side and you can complete the flight even do some three engine aerobatics. Also have had two out on opposite sides still easilly controllable but do to the power loss its time to do a pattern and land.
On one occassion I short tanked both on the right side got some altitude and waited. First one and then both went dead, back on power and add rudder into the good side and found with full rudder I could carry about half power and maitain control for a landing. Never had it on one that most likely woud be a good time to make like a glider.
You will be flabergasted at what a joy this ugly thing is. Everyone who has see it fly or a few others who have flown it newtimers and oldtimers alike usually manage to break into uncontrolled laughter.
John
The first twenty or so flights I did with no gyro and due to the almost impossibility of a totaly even throttle ups you had to work pretty hard on T/o but was easy to learn, not such a big deal. I later added a Hobbico gyro on the rudder which made takeoffs a piece of cake. Even with the engines coming up pretty uneven not much need to touch the rudder, it just tracks straight on its own. The gyro along with the out thrust will buy you a little time to identify which rudder needs to be applied when one goes out . Have had every possible combination of one out. Mostly on purpose by short tanking and at most all that is required is full rudder trim into the good engines side and you can complete the flight even do some three engine aerobatics. Also have had two out on opposite sides still easilly controllable but do to the power loss its time to do a pattern and land.
On one occassion I short tanked both on the right side got some altitude and waited. First one and then both went dead, back on power and add rudder into the good side and found with full rudder I could carry about half power and maitain control for a landing. Never had it on one that most likely woud be a good time to make like a glider.
You will be flabergasted at what a joy this ugly thing is. Everyone who has see it fly or a few others who have flown it newtimers and oldtimers alike usually manage to break into uncontrolled laughter.
John
