Don Fry

Chicken hopper it is, works well, but the pipe flows, gradients have to be downhill towards the feed tank to the engine.

I’ve just done some measuring. A laser 100 of that sort of era has 12 fins, and is 122mm from the bottom of the crank case to the top of the rocker box cover, ie distance off workbench to top of rocker cover. laser 150, same era, 12 fins, 123mm, measured as above. Note I seem to remember they shared a crankshaft, which makes some sense as the 150 is a lot bigger than the 120 in cylinder diameter.

Never seen such a conversion widgit. To make them, small job on a lathe. Or pillar drill, as they aren’t precision things. Or for the more creative 2 bits of brass tube, slid and soldered together, and the oversize half suck in a drill and sanded to size.

First off, an assumption there is a spar on the underside, near the lowest part of of the chord. So far, I’ve not found a wing that hasn't. Paint this spar with Balsaloc or Impex fast tack interlining glue (haberdashery shops). IF the fabric has not got a heat sealed glue, you need to paint all of underside structure. Leave to dry, then tack the fabric to the low spar. Then run over it again with the heel of the iron. Good tack, all the spar surface. Now, note well, when you do the rest of the surface, it will try to pull the fabric off the spar, get heat on the spar and the joint will fail. So I pin a spar sizes bit of wood, foam, whatever on the spar, can’t mess it up then. And then do the rest, front or back half first. Remove when finished. If using Solatex self glued type fabric, tack the fabric is the same. You can skip the Impex, but I don’t. I still use the protective temporary false spar. I use Ceconite (LAS). I don’t like the glue system. Smelly, messy, and I find just not needed on small aircraft like ours. I seal it with non shrinking dope. Reads more difficult as it is in practice.

Caviate, I live in France. Am I missing something.. Down my local recycling centre is a steel bin for batteries. Any battery. I asked the bloke, if it was Ok to dump a 5s 4000 in there. It was discharged, wires shorted together. He is God. “of course” he says, “ but why the trouble to discharge it, we assume they carry charge, that’s why the bin is fireproof.

Not when we start falling off perches.

15 x 4 will work, just make sure the throttle cut works. Occasionally the efficiency of the big prop produces enough power to keep the thing aloft. You can also try differential on the throttle, so it’s less sensitive in the positions you are flying in, so reducing workload.

Pedantry I know, but electric motors are the older technology, 1820 and 1860 (ish)

Why not just set the throttle arm to give 80 % power.

I’m in both camps, depending on the cycle of my mind, get on with it, or I really want one of they, and I want it now. But one thing strikes me, over the years, sometimes a build stalls, because what you like just alters. I’ve got a Top Flite P 47, wood finished, glassing nearly finished, all servos etc have been fitted, fettled with control rods, ditto motor, ditto undercarriage and it needs painting and fuel proofing. No issues, nicely made. No longer interested in flying or maintaining that sort of model. I’ve been staring at the fus, standing on its nose in a corner by the central heating boiler for 15 years.

Or a Laser 100 if you want more torque to up a heavier airframe.

M8 metric course

I use LiFe. Both chemistries are bulletproof, but LiFe can be charged really quick if you want a surprise model, or a surprise session, as in 20 minutes and out the door. If you want more load capacity, use a bigger LiFe pack. Note NiMh to me equals Enloop cells. The rest I have concluded over the last couple of decades are rubbish.

I’m a bit reluctant to pick over a carcass. But Laser have always been about £100 quid or so too cheap at retail. So me being tight, can acquire a second hand motor good for a thousand hours, hardly run, tough, for peanuts. Name me a reason, why should I pay a lot more for a Japanese motor, and buy flimsy. Why not sell the company, the tooling is the company, and they have nice tooling.

Can’t the design, bubble or razorback be the same kit. When Topflite did them, the razor back to bubble conversion was only a minor modification kit

Like this thread, I’m in the same boat, 11 year old Dx9, flawless service.

Not sure about the science of some of that, but hey ho. Standing outside on a breezy day, upwind of the jar, heat it with a blowtorch. Don’t melt the glass. Take care not to burn fingers.

But you still get long chain molecules in a 2 pack. Solvents pick at the end. Heat the things to shorten the chains, more ends to pick at. Non technical, but you see the shape of the argument?

For 2 pack, I would, when the wife is out, put the jar in an oven going flat out. Hot enough for the chain molecules to start breaking down, and give your solvent a key to do its work.

I tried the last, last week. Well dry for a long time, and very hard work.

I would not mess about with much theory. Assemble it, use a cg calculator, balance it and go fly. I’v done a few Frankensteins over the years and no huge surprises.

If you have ever had the pleasure of wandering the streets of a night club area at 4 in the morning, watching the rats and gulls sorting the streets out, makes you realise the reluctance to actually pay people.

After you for the first million flights.

No mate. They are hewn by hand, from seasioned oak, by the coach, using worn out sandpaper, only lubricated by his tears of sorrow.

Mid airs, if had two, both times 2 aircraft up. 1. Bloke spun down from high, I wandered under him. 2. Bloke pulled humoungous loop, and took the tail off mine at the end of it, as I innocently wandered along. That one was slightly funny, the tail stayed on long enough to start turning to land. Then it fell off. Both times agreed anticlock circuits.