Paul james 8
-
Posts
239 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Everything posted by Paul james 8
-
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 01/06/2020 15:29:37: Something not right there Paul... I had an older Lo-boy 5 with the ply engine mounting plate and it had no downthrust and nor did it need any. The model has a HUGE tailplane which allows you to carry a surprisingly rearwards CG (IE 33-35%) but retain solid stability. I wonder if either your CG is too far forwards or there is an error in the decalage, especially the tailplane incidence). I think that would be unlikely due to the very prefabricated nature of the kit - hard to go too wrong! Here's my old one getting wet: Just put it all back together and checked c of g (inverted with no fuel) The chord is 9 inches and c of g 3 inches back from leading edge so 33% . I've taken out the B.A. fixed nuts and put 3mm ones in so the engine can definitely seat properly on the aluminium wedges I've made up for it. Will have to try it again when we get another fairly calm day and report back what I find.
-
It flies well at low speed with no tendency to "porpoise" so I'm not sure, having looked at loads of photos of the model I don't see any that seem to have much downthrust. Mine has a slightly bigger canopy so maybe it is an early "LoBoy 5" I've got the receiver battery way up front and the Thunder Tigre should weigh at least as much as the OS 40 LA? Going to double check the c of g and see if adding a bit of weight up front might help.
-
Thanks guys!! It is an older type model with wooden engine bearers so need to pack the engine itself, I made up some aluminium wedges but think the 4ba screws are a bit tight in the engine so will try to knock out the nuts from the bottom and go for 3mm. C of g seems to be pretty good at low speed so I'm prettu sure my problems are with engine thrust line.
-
An old thread but might be some of you who still have some details of the LoBoy5 perhaps? I have put a Thunder Tigre GP42 in mine and it has plenty of power, it climbs when I open the throttle so I'm thinking I need more engine downthrust. Anybody got details of what it should be please? Also might be handy to have CofG info as I've only got the model with no plans or instructions.
-
I'm just finishing putting one together, looks nice!
-
Who wants to share a new Flair Baronette build?
Paul james 8 replied to Simon Knight's topic in Scale and Semi-Scale kits
Don't know if any if you guys who have Flair WW1 planes might be interested but I'm trying to put together a meet for some time in the summer 2020. It may be as a part of another warbird type meet and possibly over a weekend. Will post more details when we are further on with organisation. Paul -
No need to hunt for that, just use aerial biological washing powder and hot water, works a treat!!
-
Posted by Jon - Laser Engines on 19/11/2019 08:26:07: Paul your short 90 is actually an 80, or perhaps a very late 75 like your other example. The 80 was just a bored out 75 and the 100 was a bored 90. A simple check is to see if the piston from the 90 fits, if so its a 75, if not its an 80 I was trying to see if there was anything stamped on the mounting lugs that would give a date of mfr and help pin down the size but the photos dont show it. Hi Jon, Just clearing up my office and found the piece of paper I wrote down the engine sizes on while I was rebuilding them (for some odd reason quite a few didn't seem to have the capacity marked on them?) The taller one was Bore: 26.5mm Stroke: 27mm The shorter one was Bore: 28.7mm Stroke: 22.9mm I still make them both around 0.9 cu inch.
-
Who wants to share a new Flair Baronette build?
Paul james 8 replied to Simon Knight's topic in Scale and Semi-Scale kits
Very interesting thread on the Dutch site Martin, I used the google translator to get a better idea of what it was all saying and noticed quite a few references to "ferrets". -
Never did get round to converting my electric one to IC, which is handy as I've just found an excellent local field that drains well that I can fly electric models from. Will post a couple of photos once I dig it out of the shed and sort some batteries for it.👍🙁
-
Looks like the information overload has sent the poor lad running for the hills! 😊😂
-
We should be talking about a new business venture Jon, you sound slightly disillusioned with the current situation (been there, have that shirt) so why not give it some thought.
-
Posted by Manish Chandrayan on 19/11/2019 12:35:15: Posted by Paul james 8 on 19/11/2019 10:44:32: I've always used pi r squared x height for volume of a cylinder, I am intrigued now so will have to take the head off and measure again. Lol That perfectly works for calculating the swept volume as long as we know the bore and the stroke. For example if the laser 75 had a bore of 26.42 mm (radius of 13.21 mm) and stroke of 22.22 mm Applying the formula give us a volume of 12.18147 cc Or in other words a radius (of bore) of 0.52 inches and stroke of 0.875 inches will give you a swept volume of 0.74 cubic inches Edited By Manish Chandrayan on 19/11/2019 12:37:44 Edited By Manish Chandrayan on 19/11/2019 12:38:41 It does work perfectly, the swept volume of an internal combustion engine is its swept volume. 👍😊 If Jon's figures shown above are put into the equation I use the same results are achieved.
-
Sorry duplicate post Edited By Paul james 8 on 19/11/2019 14:48:08
-
Posted by Jon - Laser Engines on 19/11/2019 11:03:04: Posted by Paul james 8 on 19/11/2019 10:44:32: I've always used pi r squared x height for volume of a cylinder, I am intrigued now so will have to take the head off and measure again. Lol That works for cylinder volume but not engine capacity plugging .87 and 1.04 into this gives me the same .74 result so im not totally mad **LINK** Seriously, there was me thinking that engine capacity was the swept volume??? Ergo piston radius squared x 3.1417 (near enough to pi for our purpose) x stroke. Assuming for the sake of argument a bore of 20 mm and a 20mm stroke the c.s.a of the piston would be 100 x 3.1417 so 314.7 square mm. Multiply that by 20 would give 6295 cu mm so divide by 1000 to get cc equals 6.295. That converted to cu inch is 0.384 The only way I've ever used to find engine capacity. Edited By Paul james 8 on 19/11/2019 14:49:35
-
I've always used pi r squared x height for volume of a cylinder, I am intrigued now so will have to take the head off and measure again. Lol
-
Posted by Chris Walby on 19/11/2019 10:01:05: If in doubt measure the bore and stroke and calculate the volume, job done! Erm, that is what I did.
-
Posted by Jon - Laser Engines on 19/11/2019 08:26:07: Paul your short 90 is actually an 80, or perhaps a very late 75 like your other example. The 80 was just a bored out 75 and the 100 was a bored 90. A simple check is to see if the piston from the 90 fits, if so its a 75, if not its an 80 I was trying to see if there was anything stamped on the mounting lugs that would give a date of mfr and help pin down the size but the photos dont show it. Interesting comments Jon, I put it down to be a 90 as I carefully measured both bore and stroke while it was apart for refurbishment and it came up at 90? Could it be an experimental one perhaps? Edited By Paul james 8 on 19/11/2019 09:23:46
-
An old 90 refurb, bearings really bad, all very dirty but soon sorted out, marks on the piston crown where the valves had touched but thankfully neither was bent and it all went back together. Bearings!! Both of these are 90's, the bigger one to the left is an earlier, longer stroke model..... Edited By Paul james 8 on 18/11/2019 23:15:18
-
-
-
-
-
-
