Originally Posted by flypaper 2

Fan Swept Area.

Cute. makes sense. But who coined that one? Since we're wanting to use thrust cones and such for our fighter jets why not something more military technical like "thrust compression chamber"?

Nitro - that's not that heavy enamel paint is it? Brushed or rattle can? Of course it's been a few years since I airbrushed a model but I assume you want the thinnest lightest coating possible.

Just wondering what the lightest practical thrust cone material is out there. Use to be something called onion paper that I thought was pretty light stuff. I'll make mine temporarily out of printer paper just to get the gist of it. Then switch to a more light weight material. Most seem to be recommending thin plastic sheet. lighter than paper?

Most use the thin plastic for overhead projectors, it is light enough

Tamiya is light weight paint in a small 100g rattle can.

Make the thrust tube sturdy. Drafts-man paper, overhead projector plastic sheet etc. There is negligible weight penalty.

Originally Posted by 52Sabre

Cute. makes sense. But who coined that one? Since we're wanting to use thrust cones and such for our fighter jets why not something more military technical like "thrust compression chamber"?

mainly because there is no Compression and there is no chamber.

FSA has been used since the 60s. Bob Violet, Dick Sarpoulis and others did a lot experimenting with graphs and such back then. I had a pile of articles I tore out of the magazines from back then but loaned them to another club member a few months ago that wants to get into the ducted fans.

Gord.

Originally Posted by 52Sabre

Hey Flying Maus! Welcome- we have the same problem! Hopefully these guys here can get us properly airborne on our existing 7.4v equip. Followed previously posted advice - used the mylar media out of an old 3.5" floppy disk to make an excellent aileron hinge. Kudos to the guy that came up with that one. Funny I must have a hundred of those things (and 5 1/4) from 16 years ago or more that I swore I needed. But don't think I'll be re-installing ms-dos etc. anytime soon.

Thanks for the welcome. I remade some hinges this afternoon using plastic from a 20oz soda bottle. I am charging up the battery right now and getting it ready for another attempt at flying. I dont think I am hand launching it incorrectly. I just dont think it has enough power. Ill whip up a thrust tube and see what happens and report back in a few hour or so.

Give it a good heave when you launch it. 30 degree angle or so. Make sure the wings are level. A little bit of head wind will help enormously.

Both the F-86 and the red Mig-15 flew nicely on stock 350mah 2S w/o thrust tube. My first r/c flights since '92! 78deg. F, dead calm, sunset. Launched from a spot about 20' above a soccer field. Both Jets had aileron throws set to minimum.

Mig is balanced spot on & flew w/drop tanks. Required no trim adjustments. Has 7g of lead epoxied under nose. Climbed quickly and once at a safe altitude it was brought back to <1/2 throttle. Cruised around nicely allowing me to get a pretty good feel of the ship. Turns were smooth as silk and easy without much perceptible loss of altitude. Very pleasant fun flyer.

To cut weight and drag, the F-86 was flown w/o tanks. Again backed off on the gas at altitude. It was bit more tricky to fly. It did not have the 7g of lead in the nose relying instead on battery location. Although balanced to spec she still appeared slightly tail heavy in the air. She also required full left aileron trim. Even though ailerons did appear to be perfectly level prior to flight. But she did finally trim out ok. Turns were not as nice as the Mig, wanting to drop altitude with every aileron input.

My conclusion is the Mig has much more available surface area to fly on. A mid wing design vs. the Sabre's low wing may be a factor. The wings also seem to be a bit larger as is the fuselage. Aileron servo input was reversed between the two planes. I had to throw the switch on the transmitter. But, I like the Mig's smaller outboard ailerons vs. the Sabre's more sensitive larger inboard ones. The Mig would fly easily on less throttle than the Sabre. So for folks getting frustrated with the F-86, try the Mig. Regardless, you'll be flying soon. The secret of course is in the throw. Getting this is essential. Get a few meters above your field if possible, keep the wings level, nose slightly up and give it a good toss. And don't give it too harsh a control input too soon. You'll soon come back from the field with a big grin and renewed confidence.

Thanks for the info. I feel a bit more educated. Still lots to learn. Wasn't flying r/c back then only working on full scale military stuff. Didn't get the r/c aircraft bug until '87 and then was only in it until '92. Just flew high wings and stiks. Never learned any aerobatics. Guess I will now.

Originally Posted by flypaper 2

Funny you mentioned that Nitrocharged. In post 789 I mentioned the LA 15. It had a hatch over the motor/fan so you could start it with a piece of shoelace wrapped around the flywheel. With the hatch on it would just do a long glide. Accidently forgot to put the hatch cover on and it finally would climb to about 60 ft. in big circles over a period of a couple of minute motor run. Where was electric when I needed it.

Gord.

Love it! Pioneering stuff.
I did the same trick to my first and last nitro engine -an ASP .15. I could never start the bugger easily and couldn't afford an electric starter back then (I was just a pup but I had a shoelaces). Luckily electric came along for me

Congrats 52Sabre

These birds need a fair bit of effort but there's just something very cool and rewarding about them!

Originally Posted by 52Sabre

To cut weight and drag, the F-86 was flown w/o tanks. Again backed off on the gas at altitude. It was bit more tricky to fly. It did not have the 7g of lead in the nose relying instead on battery location. Although balanced to spec she still appeared slightly tail heavy in the air. She also required full left aileron trim. Even though ailerons did appear to be perfectly level prior to flight. But she did finally trim out ok. Turns were not as nice as the Mig, wanting to drop altitude with every aileron input.

I had originally ordered the F-86, then got tired of waiting as it went on backorder, so I ordered the Mig instead. From all of my reading though, the F-86 has always had a tendency to be slightly tail heavy. I was going to fight that with a 460 nano-tech. Sad part is, the Mig's been sitting at the shippers for an entire week now, and the F-86 just came back in stock! Seems I would've received it at the same time as this Mig is going to get here had I waited longer.

I posted this in the other thread but I'm not sure folks are reading both... so if I may, I'd like to repost my question:

Originally Posted by MRGTX

How in the name of Brian Doyle-Murray do you guys fit everything in these planes?

I have the Banana Hobby version with the preinstalled servos. I swapped out the connectors to standard servo plugs and installed a HK SS "8-10A" esc. I'm running (or trying to run) a HK AR6110e knock off (with no case).

I have both Rhino 360mah 2s packs and Nanotech 460 3s packs... neither are going to fit in that little cockpit area.

Can anyone share pics of how you got it all in there?

Thanks!
Mike