Michael Boland

Well put Bob, Yeah, what he said

How much doom and gloom can we stand ??? If we all thought like g rigg we would just hide in the darkest corner of our houses and be too afraid to do anything. And if the sky is filled with police drones, then make your FPV or RC model look like one too The best place to hide a tree is in a forest. Seriously, if you expect the worst, the worst will happen. At our field I have taken just about every member up as a passenger, and those more experienced have handled a full flight with ease. The nay sayers were much more receptive once they had experienced the rush of flying from the cockpit of the model. As for any registered model field (which is where this should be done) just how many RC aircraft stray above 400ft and out of the boundaries of the model field. Has anyone ever been to an "old timer" contest, they sometimes endanger satellites and how many years have they been doing this? and how many manned aircraft have they brought down? But I guess there will always be those that go screaming off into the distance the moment any new technology appears. To all those not afraid to have FUN, many happy landings.

Ralph, I am in Australia, so unless you are too I don't think the Insurance would be valid. If in doubt about what is happening with fpv check this link out http://www.rcmovie.de/video/99b8619b6349165556f6/FPV-Air2Air-Wasserflug-einer-BV-138

There is you know, a very simple solution for us FPV flyers. Insure ourselves, as I have done, and then you can tell the BMFA to take a flying leap. You control freaks still don't see it, do you. If you put up walls there will always be those that just go around them.

Having just come home from the flying field where I had a couple of excellent sorties using my new FPV setup I was heartened reading the article and dismayed by the comments. The BFMA seem to have it right except for one small point. The head tracking units use the trainer port on the transmitter. So how the &*^&^& do I hook up another transmitter as well. Mind you, I always make sure I have 2, yes 2, observers keeping track of the plane, which is always in sight, and I HAVE had video failures, while in the debug stage, and had to hand off to an observer/pilot on hand. Like anything new there will always be those who fear it, well I have some sorry news for those people. It is here and it is here to stay. The gear is readily available off the shelf at affordable prices and it is opening new doors of experience and excitement for us aeromodellers. So if you try to squash it you will drive the users underground (is that a pun?) So like a lot of new technology that is fun why don't we embrace it and assist those that want to use it to do so in a safe and fun way. PS: We didn't always have buddy cord compatible transmitters but still managed to train pilots, even if we did have to drag the transmitter from their clenched, sweaty, trembling hands when things were about to go belly up.

is this a UK only one like the subscription specials - if not, I'm in.

In for a penny

1. DH Mosquito - 60" to 70" 2. DH Beaver - 60" to 70" 3. FW 190 - 60" to 70" My preference is for IC but electric can power anything these days. This size seems to be a good choice as they are still easily transportable but large enough to be good flyers. 60 to 90 motors would be good.

First off, I want to say your mag is one of the better available, dare I say the best at the moment, for diverse coverage and to the point technical info. However, I want to add to what Jon Hulatt had to say on ARF reviews. I agree with everything Jon had to say. The ARF reviews have become very ho-hum, all virtually identical. As an ex-quality control engineer I guess I notice more than most what is glaringly missing from your product reviews: Reasonable Foreseeable Abuse Testing (RFAT)- I am sure no ARF supplier would try and sell a plane that did not go together or fly. But what is lacking in the reviews are tests of how well they handle the sort of use the average ARF flyer would subject them to. Heavy landings would be most common (we have a strip I refer to as our Goat Trail), how does the landing gear/mounts/air frame hold up. Vibration would be another, how well does the airframe hold up to out of balance prop/spinner/rough running motor generated vibrations. The list can go on, but these are just a couple off the top my head. and Dissection and analysis - Once the plane has been used (and abused) the next step would be to dissect it to check the air frame and components. At the very minimum would be a removal of the covering for inspection of the joints and materials, up a complete band saw job to get to internal components for checking. This would be essential for models that failed the RFAT. Just my 2cents worth, but I have seen other readers commenting on the same issues, so I wanted to raise my voice in the hope we can deepen the meaning of these many reviews filling your mag.

Sadly I have a final solution from RCV on the 120SP problems I have encountered. "‘RCV have, as a matter of good will, offered to fully reimburse me with the cost of the engines in spite of the fact that it considers the failures are due to aspects outside of its control’" The local agents here in Australia, Command Controls, were just giving me technobabble answers full of holes and wrong facts, despite (or is that because of) having Mr Brian "bulldust" Winch, as their technical adviser. RCV would have to be one of (if not 'THE' ) most accomodating and responsive companies to deal with. I will probably be getting another 58CD for a small P40 I have repaired as the 58CD I have has performed flawlessly and clocked up many, many hours of air time. The 120SP's on the other hand have a problem here in Australia, and my observations and investigations indicated that it was the 20% oil mix the local agents were telling us to use. RCV resolved the issues before I had a chance to test the final motor to destruction to prove it. So anyone having vibration problems, and/or overheating problems with their 120SP, try lowering the oil content to ABSOLUTELY no more than 15%, of which 3% to 5% MUST be Castor (this is RCV's recommendations as per their manual with the motor). I look forward to any feedback on this. Bottom line: if you are having any problems with an RCV motor, deal with RCV UK direct. You will be assured of satisfaction. Just watch out for local agents in "excuse mode". _____________________________

Thank you Douglas, I have also found that Model Engines in Melb have them as well. We now have a local warranty repair in Australia and I am waiting on them for some verdict on reasons for failure, they have the dead one and a running one. Corsair grounded again :-(

I have runin and installed a 60SP for a friend, and we had problems getting any smooth running at mid to low range. But the plane had a midair on it's 5th flight, so until it gets more running time, we wait and see. What I had noted in the short time of use was that the more running time it got the better is sounded and ran. In the bad old days it was not uncommon to have to put some lapping compound (Brasso:-) of some sort in the fuel to run the motor in as the parts were of such tough quality that they would not 'wear in'. After having investigated inside these motors after they have swallowed hardened metal (58CD swallowed bearing, 120SP swallowed pinion teeth) I was amazed that the bore/piston/ring in both cases was totally unharmed. This seems due to the hardened steel cylinder revolving around the piston. This could also be causing the motors to NOT runin easily. I was wondering about the screws in the muffler, there are 2 on the way to me. I was considering brazing the ends on, which I will now do.

I have to source a new supply of Nitro as the stuff I have been getting is the Chinese, but some Angus can be sourced locally. I will try the 15% for more cooling and let you know, but it will be a week or two before the motors are back and installed again. To gap the idle needle I used the shank of a 1mm drill bit which I could easily poke down the carby and slowly adjust the idle needle till I gained an interference fit. The other fuel mixture I will be trying is just 20% Coolpower, no Nitro, no Castor. I usually run 5% Nitro but have tried 10% with no discernable difference. The next runin procedure might be to hook up a 5L container and let the motor run for a day or two ;-)

Those are the exact same symptoms I have been experiencing wiht my 120's. I ran them in for 2 hours on the test stand, but even after another 3 hours in the air it was still vibrating, running poorly in mid to low, blowing mufflers apart and very very hot. The motor was just starting to noticeablt settle in and could be tuned for smoother running, but unfotunately it failed. I think they grossly understate the runin time for these motors. It should be more like 10 to 20 hours than 2 hours. Australia now has a local warranty repair agent, Command Controls, and both he and RCV have given me the formula of setting the idle needle to a 1mm gap at the spray bar with the throttle body held open, then a drop of resin down the idle screw hole to make sure it does not move, and should never need moving. Have yet to try it. I have just stripped the good engine out of the Corsair at CC's request and sending both motors back to them for analysis. I will keep this thread posted with any updates.

Saito is the way I am leaning, but they are proving hard to get here in Australia.

Thanks, it's always nice to get compliments. Now if I caould just that ^&&&%^( motor running it will be sweet. This is what I am now reconsidering. and this is why

Just a few pics of the Corssair for your edification

RCV are sending me 2 new main needles for the remaining 2 motors. Also a new muffler. From what I am seeing their good motors are being let down by less than adequate carby's and just plain crap mufflers.

Thanks for your suggestions. I have taken one of the 120's from the Black Widow and put it in the Corsair. Until I find what is going on with these motors I am not going to trust them in a large twin. As I mix my own fuel I will be trying your suggestion of no castor and will report on any differences. The other variable in my equation has been the use of CoolPower MultiViscosity Synthetic Oil (the purple stuff) instead of the ordinary blue. Next batch of fuel will be CoolPower blue and no castor. I have avoided leaning the motors right out as you suggest, and yes I had noticed better mid range with a leaner top end, but I have always been very careful about running new motors lean, and prefer the drop in performance for the safety of the motor until I am comfortable with it.

Good question. At this stage they have just asked for the engine back and have not yet stated their intentions to replace it. I wonder if they will be backing away from Aeromodelling now they have that US Defence contract?

I have also lost muffler ends on this motor. Solved it by using an OS muffler which has the end plug welded in place. At the time of failure I was testing a new caby sent over from RCV to try and solve the rough running problems at mid to low rpm. Fuels used consist of 10% to 15% Coolpower synthetic oil, 5% Castor, 5% Nitro. In our conditions 20% oil is recommended although RCV recommend only 15% oil in total. The engine was running fine, strong and no adverse noises. It started to run a bit rough at the top end so I backed off the throttle to half and all was fine for 5 minutes. When I opened the throttle again the engine started to miss and cough at the top end so I backed off to half throttle again, called landing and started the approach. That is when the rather not nice noises started, and a second or so later the engine cut. Luckily I had not lowered flaps and was on the final leg. It is my policy to keep new engines on the rich side. Idle was sloberingly rich, and the top end is about 600 rpm from peak. Fuel is pressure fed from the muffler. The 58CD I have runs very well.

Sadly I have experienced another failure of a 120 SP. This time in flight, strange sounds then silence. I was able to dead stick the Corsair onto the runway without damage. The engine has sheared off a good section of pinion gear. Hardened metal through the rest of the motor has not done it any favours. RCV state this has never happened before but I am finding other accounts on RCUniverse of 120SPs doing this exact same thing. I am really coming to the conclusion that these motors are nice in concept, and may work in the smaller sizes, but the 120 has very real problems. I do not think I will be trusting the twin to two of these.

The 120SP is very "barky" in its exhaust sound. The detonations are much more audible. This is probably why the muffler gets such a hard time. It is louder than most other 4 strokes. The exhaust temp is also much higher than other 4 strokes I have noticed. The next project is well under way and will be using 2 x 120SP's. The sound of 2 running in sync should be ausome.

Just an update on the 120SP cowl mounted, after a dozen flights the motor is getting stronger each flight. No cooling problems encountered, but I was sure to set up the baffles in the cowl as described by RCV. The only problems I have encountered are vibration problems, cowl bolts and engine mount bolts rattling loose, and the muffler end plug coming out of the muffler. Locktite on all bolts and using an OS muffler (welded in end plug) has solved these minor problems. These motors have ample power and their profile makes them a snap to cowl mount. Currrently fitting 2 of them to a P-61 Black Widow.

When you get an answer would mind posting it here for those of us that have spring air? Thanks.