PDA

View Full Version : Jet X - has anyone had any luck?


Dave Lofthouse
Apr 10, 2003, 02:00 PM
My nostalgic side kicked in and I purchased a jet-x 50 and a Jet Setter kit from Peck Polymers. In my youth I experimented with jet - x but to no avail. I had trouble getting the thing to light off. I excitedly put the plane (basically a sheet balsa hand launch glider with inverted tail designed for the Jetx 50) together in one sitting. With a few adjustments I got a smooth flat glide out of her and proceeded to the field.
About 30 pellets and some glue later I have yet the pleasure of a flight report. I have tried several methods of launch including a typical glider launch (strong nearly vertical throw) all the way to a gentle flat toss. I have finally gotten the lighting and fuse removal figured out but the plane is downright finickey. I have had a few crack ups due to a stall followed by poor recovery and a few due to a strange tendency to loose alt. as a powered turn is made. I would almost say it "slides" to the down wing side in a turn. I built the plane very straight and according to plan. I only varied on the use of an adjustable rudder instead of clay weighting on one wing to adjust turn. Noting the poor stall recovery (a rather long dive would take it nose down all the way to the ground from as high as 30 feet) I changed the elevator incidence to produce a more positive angle of attack on the wing. I adjusted the motor position to maintain a good glide. That is about it. I am stumped. Anyone have experience with this?? I value your feedback.

T. Lyttle
Apr 10, 2003, 09:16 PM
Where is the motor mounted, and will it fly as a handlaunch on its own?
If the motor is mounted on the cg, it should fly the same with or without a pellet. If it is mounted on top, the cg is likely too high, more dihedral or move motor to the bottom of the model. If the model is squirrelly as a hl glider only, it is a design problem, and all the power in the world won't correct it :( .

If they are trimming the design with tip weight, I suggest that there simply is no margin for error, and that more dihedral/larger tail surfaces will help...

My nickel's worth...