NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/models/rc/5156

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hacgate!4ccvw68!lew
From: [e-mail] (Lyman Lew)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: First Trainer Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:54:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lyman Lew)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 49

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Martin Gallant) writes:
   > <Some stuff deleted for brevity.>
   >I have narrowed down the engine selection to the OS.40FP (~$70) and the
   >OS.46SF (~$140), the latter strongly recommended by my local hobby shop.
   >Do I need to be messing around with ball-bearing engines for my first
   >plane, or is a plain bushing motor adequate?  I am prepared to spend
   >whatever time is required for break-in on a test bench.
   >
I think the store owner just wants to sell you a higher price engine for
a little more profit. The .40 is more than adeqaute for a trainer. The .46
would just be overkill if you are just learning. Every RC/CL flyer I've known
has crashed more than once. To fly a trainer with an expensive engine is a
complete waste of money especially if you are learning the fundamentals of
RC flying. I've flown the OS .40FP in a Sig Kadet and Carl Goldberg Eagle
and it behaves very well for the beginner. The speed does not get outrageous
with this combination and the engine responds very well. I have also flown
an Eagle with an OS.45 FSR and it was very fun to fly but somewhat difficult
to train. I have to cut the throttle down to a 1/3 to have it fly slow enough
for my friend to fly it and respond to it. Flying at this throttle setting,
we discovered the engine would load up after several minutes of flying. This
became a problem when we had to abort a landing on our short runway. The engine
hesitated and we couldn't clear the fence at the end of the runway, oops.
I told my friend to put a simpler lower performing engine in it like the FP.
There are no ball bearings to replace; No rings to eat up; Parts are cheaper
and fewer; And the engine will run closer to its power peak for training.
I would save the .46SF for a sleeper or high speed sport plane.

   >Coming from an automotive background, I am quite concerned about running
   >an engine without any type of air filtration.  My club files on a dusty
   >grass field.  I know there are commercially available filters on the
   >market, but these represent a compromise between reliability and
   >longevity.  Should I bother with these, even just to satisfy my
   >paranoia?
   >
   >--
   >Martin Gallant <[e-mail]> 214-684-5532 (ESN 444)

If dust is a problem, by all means use a filter. I had a Royal .45 and
a K&B .61 that ingested some dirt at the flying field and the results
were not pretty. However, working on model engines is not a problem with
me so I don't use a filter very much unless I'm out in the desert. You
will find the engines running richer with a filter especially if the
element is soaked with fuel and oil. Some performance will be lost when
using a filter also.


Good Luck,

Lyman Lew, [e-mail]