Jon H

Yep, windows and the front door are this weekends mission. I need to get some curtains, and adjust the front door lock thing so it seals better. Currently i can see daylight round the door so that is no good. The freehold...ehhh if this was my forever home then i would consider it, but its a load of agro i just dont need. Also the house/flat sits on top of 3 garages. 1 is mine, the others arent. So if i own the freehold i need to then lease the garages back to their owners and....im bored already. I am not a property magnate and i just cant be dealing with the hassle given the configuration of the block. If it was a freestanding house, you bet i would be on that. Frank...yea cheers mate, forgive me if i dont jump on your suggestion though 😛 My current heating is so dumb there is no way i can make it smarter. The heater in the living room has one button...on. Thats it. A manual rocker switch to turn it on, then a remote with one button to turn on the pretty faux fire effect, one button for 900w mode, and one button for 1800w mode. Thats it, no thermostat, nothing. Its a glorified fan heater and its going to be deleted at the first opportunity. AT the bottom of the stairs is the useless storage heater. That is timed automatically to the dual rate meter and has dials on it which are fun to play with but do not really make any difference to anything. I am far from convinced its not broken if i am honest. The bedroom convector has a manual rocker switch on the wall....and thats it. The timer function wont work as the dial no longer spins, the little light to say its on is broken, the door covering the controls has fallen off....Its junk and not worth spending a penny on. I dont even turn it on now as the oil filled portable rad out performs it so i just use that. The final heating is the 150w heated towel rail in the bathroom. The person who fitted it was clearly a bright spark (not) as they bolted it to the wall and instead of getting an electrician to wire it up with a nice bathroom safe junction box deal they just drilled a hole through the wall into the airing cupboard behind and wired it into an old light switch....this is also going to be deleted asap.

I have not ruled out getting a gas combi boiler fitted, but it's mega expense and upheaval to fit all the plumbing and radiators so I need to consider it carefully. I knew the place would be expensive to run with all electric heating, but currently it's worse than it should be due to the lack of control. While I'm sure insulation can be improved, the main problem is the place is always cold. With the heating on for barely 4 hours a day it only ever heats the air and not the rest of the building. As a result temperature drops like a stone the moment you turn everything off. When I was in the house all day working/decorating the temperature drop was nowhere near as bad. Now, back at work, every day I loose a degree from my maximum and then as a result loose another off the bottom. Last night I got in from work and the place was 11c, fired everything up for 2 hours and got it back to 19, went to the pub at half 8, home at 1 to find we were back to 12c. Stuck the oil filled rad on in the bedroom and woke up to find it at 17c and fairly comfortable. The living room was still at 12 despite the efforts of the useless storage heater.

Thanks all for the input. Some more details. The house is a 1999/2000 era build so the insulation is decent but could be better i am sure. I was chatting with my boss about it and he gave me some info on the modern loft insulation regs and there is room for improvement for sure. Its double glazed but i know its a bit old so perhaps that needs attention. EPC score was D due mostly to the manual nature of everything. Spray foam, thanks for the heads up. I did hear something about that on the news etc now you mention it so i will be sure to ask about it. If they offer i will just decline. Heat pumps are out of the question as its a leasehold place and i dont want to be cutting it all apart. I also just painted it and im not doing that again before i have to! I also didnt want one anyway for the reasons some have mentioned. Buy a new house... i have only lived here 5 weeks after 7 of the most stressful months of my life trying to get the move to go through. The new house/job combo is the culmination of a years work to try and close out a very difficult few years. Im here for 3-5 years i suspect, unless i find a lady friend first...so 3-5 as thats never going to happen. That panel heater might work well in the bathroom as the current 150w heated towel rail is utterly useless and the only other heating in there is a fixed throttle electric heater which is not ideal. The haverland heaters look similar to the one i was already looking at. Something else to consider and a track record of reliability is reassuring. Ron what is the score with the diesel heater? I assume you need some sort of flue for the fumes etc? I have received an email from the energy grant people and they are going to come take a look around. Heat pumps seem to be their favoured option, but you would almost need to knock the place down and start again to fit one so they can forget that idea. Forgot to say, solar is also not going to work as only one side of the roof sees sunlight and even then its only for half the day. Also being leasehold i cant touch the building itself without getting permissions, paying a fee etc. 😞

Looking for insights from the masses. I have recently moved house and my new abode has utterly awful electric heating which i am looking to upgrade. The place is a coach house, so 3 garages at ground level (one is mine! Yaay!!) and then the house/flat plonked on top with a stair case up the side and garden out the back. I have one useless storage heater at the bottom of the stairs, a fake fireplace thing in the living room (aka an 1800w blow heater) and a completely useless 750w convector heater in the bedroom which i have abandoned in favour of a cheap oil filled rad as a stopgap solution. There is no gas in the property at all, everything is electric. My main issues are i have no temperature or timing control over any of the heating, its all manual on/off with no thermostatic control. This means i cant leave any of it running when asleep or out. As a result my 19'c room at bed time is about 16 by the morning and 11'c by the time i get home from work. Naturally, its very inefficient to then try and drag it back up to 19 or 20c only for it to go stone cold again by the next evening so some upgrades are required. I have my eye on some ceramic core smart (or at least not dumb) radiators (Here), but was wondering if anyone had experience with these or similar, or had a better option? I would also be interested in views on the best energy supplier etc. I have a dual rate meter and all that jazz so i get some cheaper electric over night, but its the day that seems to be the issue on the finances. My first months bill was near £200 for electric 😞 Im in for 49p a day line rental, 30p/kwh day and 14p night with my current supplier. I am also waiting to hear back from a mob that offer grants for home efficiency upgrades as i should qualify. They can pay for new more efficient heaters, more insulation etc which is great...But im keen to get on with it so if i just have to pay out of pocket i will. I dont like being cold, and i dont like being skint...but with my current setup i am both so something has to change. If anyone has views on any of this im interested to hear them.

entirely. The right prop is the one that is right for the model and engine together.

In theory i have 13 airworthy models but all of them need some form of inspection/maintenance as i have flown maybe 3 times all year and they will all need some attention before i fly again.

About a year ago through pure chance i was reunited with my old moonraker. Its in a very sorry state, but i will repair it eventually.

control line is another story as they have to contend with significant centrifugal forces which rc does not. In the tried and true 'we have always done it this way' modeller thinking this was carried over to rc somewhat needlessly. the conventional wisdom is that the nose up test simulates the engine leaning out in flight and tests to see if the state of tune will tolerate this. Its a great theory...but its wrong. Engines go rich in flight as they unload due to the model moving forward. This will easily cover any gravitational impact of doing a loop or other climb. Engines with tuned pipes or those that see massive rpm changes (racing engines etc) are different, but bog stock fixed wing engines in the normal breadth of models will go slightly rich in flight and the whole nose up thing is utterly pointless. The other reason for the nose up test was to cover off incorrect tank placement. Most tanks are installed too high and so the needle is set leaner than it should be in terms of number of turns open as gravity is helping the fuel into the engine while on the ground with a full tank. Fast forward 10 minutes and the tank level is low, gravity is against the engine now and then you decide to do a loop. This combination is beyond the tolerance of the engine and so it stops with a lean cut. The nose up test forces you to tune the engine slight rich and so it seems like the nose up test fixes this issue. The problem is, it is not actually fixing the problem and just masks it. Fuel is wasted, models are messier, and its just the wrong way to fix it. if the tank was in the right place you wouldnt have to do any of it. Top of the tank, centre of the carb. Line them up, tune for peak performance and all will be well. This is a very laboured point at this stage but i have not done a nose up in nearly 20 years and have no reliability concerns with any of my models. Another laboured point, but i would also challenge anyone to safely nose up test an 82 inch 23lb warbird with a 60cc engine howling away at the front. The idea of waving a model like that around in the pits is just ridiculous.

Yea i dont really care at this point. The OP had a flooding problem and high tank/fuel level is the most common cause of this issue so i offered advice accordingly. AS you post about tank height was wrong and would make the problem worse i had to correct it so our poor OP wasnt mislead....and here we are

2 stroke, 4 stroke, glow, diesel, inverted, upright, sidewinder, twin needle, air bleed... Its all the same and makes no difference at all. The fuel level should not be higher than the carburettor for any of them and the fact that you try to make this distinction between engines is clear example of you not knowing what it is you are talking about. No, i am disagreeing because you are wrong and your advice is also wrong. If you posted something that was factually correct, i would agree with it.

too true. with the greatest respect to the BMFA, they arent engine manufacturers and as with most people who write articles, run shops, make youtube videos they are enthusiasts working from their own experience without specific technical training or expertise in a given area. As i know myself, they probably also know that anyone who dares to question the old ways is immediately persona non grata. Consequently there tends to be an industry trend towards telling the people what they want to hear as most are impossible to educate. in any case, the nose up test is utterly pointless at best and downright dangerous at worst.

give it a rest pat, your whole reasoning is wrong and your 'i have done xyz for 30 years' argument isnt convincing. To see what i mean, just go for a drive if you like. Plenty of people who have been at it for 30 years are still hopeless at it. Doing the same thing wrong for 30 years dosent make it any less wrong. My tank level comments were totally relevant, as a tank setup like yours is likely why the engine was flooding. We really are approaching broken record status here but water (or fuel in this case) will flow down hill. If the tank is higher than the carb, it will flow down into it. I am fairly sure an 8 year old would understand this simple concept, but its apparently lost on you. As for the rest, for years you have disagreed with me on principal. If i told you the sky was blue you would argue about it. I have no idea why you do this, but its a trend which has persisted for the decade or so i have been on here. Fortunately for me, having left my former position i dont have to be as diplomatic these days.

If hand starting go the b&q and buy a broom handle. Chop off 12-14 inches, and save the rest for future use. As has already been stated, priming can be done with a finger over the exhaust (wont work on a laser!) and i use this method to hand start the saito 45 in my flair nieuport. I am helped out by the engine being inverted, so the fuel charge 'falls' into the cylinder, but it should work with a side mount as well. To be honest though, as i posted in the other thread my choice for a cowled scale model would always be a starter with a lipo. I use the big boy 6.5:1 geared job from JE with a 6s lipo on it. This laughs at my 60cc 4 stroke twins and gives me no trouble beyond the occasional switch welding problem already mentioned. As your 95v is not the biggest of engines the smaller geared starter from JE with a 3s lipo or even a bog stock 12v lead acid would do the job fine. If you are tired of a heavy lead acid, get a small nimh pack instead. I swapped my flight box over to a 3000ish mah nimh and its plenty for the fuel pump and a handful of starts. Its useless on a big motor , but i have used it on my laser 80 without issue.

I would use an external glow and a normal electric starter. If the spinner is aluminium, and i suspect it will be, the worst thing you will do is scuff up the paint a bit and you can always touch it up from time to time if needed. I have numerous ali spinners with some starter burn on the paint and i just hand brush new paint over the top. As the spinner gets more and more worn and chipped all over the paint repairs blend in for a nice weathered effect. With all that said, the OS should have start with ease if you can prime it. Old OS's used to have chokes and you might find that an ASP or SC 90 choke could be fitted. I wouldnt recommend adding any additional stuff onto the model in the interest of saving weight. I would rather have a horse shoe of lead just behind the front of the cowl than twice that weight in stuff but no lead.

saito 100's have tn carbs.

I know, i just enjoy pointing out the obvious mistake. I will never understand why people dismantle complex equipment with care free abandon, then get upset when they cant work out how to put it all back together as they forgot how it all went. It just baffles me completely. It takes but a moment to note/mark/photograph the relevant parts and build your own reassembly guide so why dont people do it? Anyway he's going to have a difficult time as the 180 had 2 or 3 different timings over the years and there is no chance at all i can explain how to work it out as, frankly, i cant remember the older timing myself as its been 10 years since i did one.

I mostly fly scale stuff, WWII fighters and the like. They never fly straight anyway and a 5 inch spinner looks ridiculous with side thrust on it so i just fly around the problem. The only model that has given me any trouble is my 1/4 stampe as it will only stall turn to the left with the engine at 0-0. I cant coax it into going right as i run out of rudder before the model stops moving. Still, its a small inconvenience and it stall turns nicely to the left so that works for me!

Note the position of the cams before you take it apart and then just put them back as they were.

I am in full agreement when it comes to c/g. Too many think its set in stone and the manufacturers recommendation is an immovable value. In reality, most models are massively nose heavy and come with excessive rates to compensate. Most of my models are massively 'tail heavy' vs the plans. When it comes to thrust lines i have gravitated towards just mounting everything dead straight as it saves a great deal of hassle and makes no difference to the handling of the model beyond a need for a little more rudder use. As i use the rudder all the time anyway its of no consequence to me.

i have seen this before and i am not convinced by the principal. its a solution looking for a problem and the reliability and performance of the system is dictated by the competence of the assembly. There are also so many points of potential failure/leak vs a normal system. He also talks about tuning 200 rpm rich of peak with a standard tank set up. that is a myth and consequently i am dubious about his qualifications. When at laser the tank height vs carb issue came up often and header tanks were suggested many times as a solution. A customer Steve Dunne worked out a pressure isolated gravity fed system that worked, but i couldnt recommend it as the system was quite complicated to get right. This caused many a debate, but unfortunately i had to make a recommendation that both an aircraft engineer, and the chap on the phone who was confused by his tank with only 2 pipes on it and couldnt work out where they went. I will always vote for the simplest system with the least failure points.

No, its not. I worked for an engine manufacturer, i know that i am right and you arent. You clearly do not have sufficient understanding to realise this, but its a fact. its a fact that is supported by other engine manufacturers too. The image paul posted is lifted from an OS manual, PAW say the same thing in the manuals for their diesels as well. The fuel level in the tank should not be higher than the spray bar and that is all there is to it. I know you simply disagree with everything i say on principal and will likely try to argue this until the thread is locked, but you are wrong and so is your advice.

I have rx's and servos that are certainly over 20 years old now and even my tx must be getting on for 17 or 18 years. I also have models that are a decade old full of their new at the time equipment. Some are still on their original glow plugs even. They are all working fine and giving me no cause for concern.

If the engine has no fuel in it you should get the thing cranking well before it actually fires. Thats why its important not to prime it

How are you powering your glow plug? The large number of start related prop throws could be due to an over powered glow ignitor causing pre ignition. I have seen this happen before when a clubmate cranked up his power panel to make his glow plug into a supernova. Also do you electric start? If so do you prime the engine first? If its yes and yes i would recommend you not prime the engine and just crank it with the starter. The in air failures are another issue...maybe, its possible that the nut is loosening during start and then gives up once in the air.

way back in history (the 1980's) saito engines were like little sewing machines and would tick away all day long without any fuss. I have a number of these engines (45's) and they are quiet, economical, smooth running, etc but not massively powerful. Then at some point in the 90's saito went 'ah ha, power....we need more power, and less weight, and ideally....more power...perhaps with less weight?'. I suspect this was influenced by the US market as i was once told saito sell 15 engines in the US for every 1 engine they sell in the whole of europe. No idea if its true, but its what i was told. The upshot of all this is they increased compression ratio, made valves and carbs bigger, used more aggressive timing etc and this had a profound impact on the running characteristics of the engines. They became much more on a knife edge, prone to prop throwing, guzzling fuel, increased vibration etc and generally less pleasant to operate. They also ditched bronze bushed rods to save weight (i guess?) which has bitten them in a bum since with failures, and upped their nitro recommendation which increased running costs considerably. The increase in nitro was required to prevent knocking/prop throwing as ignition timing of a glow engine is a function of the catalytic effect of the plug but also the plug temperature. A hotter plug will ignite the fuel earlier so advances the ignition timing. This is great as the plug will get hotter as the engine runs at higher rpm and the timing is nicely matched. However, if you crank up the compression ratio you increase the fuel charge temperature just through this added compression and can cause premature ignition. This can cause knocking before you have managed to tune the engine for peak power. If you run higher nitro you run a richer mixture (number of needle turns) due to the released oxygen from the nitro. This means you have a greater mass of fuel within the engine which soaks up the heat and reduces the charge temperature. Water methanol injection on full size engines works on a similar principal. You can overshoot with nitro though as the increase in fuel volume in the cylinder can also increase compression to the point where it knocks again as the fuel is incompressible. But if you dont want to shovel expensive high nitro fuel down the gullet of your saito engine you can run the normal 5/15 mix i always recommend. I havent had any issues with saito engines spitting the dummy but if they do then a shim under the liner is a good option. You could also use 2 plug washers (careful when you tighten it), you could sleeve the carb barrel down a little in size too. The really sad part about all this is their efforts did not yield significant gains in performance in most cases and they just made the engines less pleasant to operate. The saito 82 on 10% nitro is more or less a match for a laser 80 on 5% but wont swing as large a prop. The laser is heavier/physically larger in length, but the performance is very similar. The OS82 alpha is also on par with both and never fusses about 5% nitro. On your 82 specifically GG, how often do you shed a prop? Is it in the air/on ground, whats the power setting when it pops, what fuel, plug, prop, are you using a spinner...There is a long list of contributory factors and it might not be entirely the engines fault.