 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / March 2006Quaker Old Timer and 15 OS Max III
I was at my clubs annual swap meet and picked up a Quaker ( built).....3ch, little over 5ft span, 9 1/4" cord....good shape. Does anyone have info on it....the CG location to start with, high and low rate throws on rud and elev???? If you flew one....flight characteristics??. Recomended engines this plane is about 3lb.... Would a .15 OS max III work ( happened to pick this up at the meet ) , fuel tank size??? ect... I am not much into glow, but given the cost of the engine $15.00 vs the cost of brushless/ lipo setup......glow wins. Mike R AMA 805307 Tri-County Wing Snappers Well... If its the model I'm thinking of, its a slow floater. (whic would be correct anyway given its size and the engine size) I'm thinking of a model that is somewhat similar to the Megow "Banshee of the late 1940's. (the Quaker was larger of course...) I may have the original magazine article when the FF version was firs published... I'll need to check my stack +------------------------------------------------------------------- |Filename: bansheead.jpg |Download: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=777004 +------------------------------------------------------------------- -- fhhuber50677 Check 0ut the pic, click on the link scroll to Quaker Too plans ( large version ).......it looks like this one http://plans.rcmodell.hu/oldtime.htm +------------------------------------------------------------------- |Filename: quaker.jpg |Download: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=777234 +------------------------------------------------------------------- -- mikerenz6 It this plane....check out this addy and scroll down to the Quaker Too plans ( larger version. ) http://plans.rcmodell.hu/oldtime.html > I was at my clubs annual swap meet and picked up a Quaker ( >built).....3ch, little over 5ft span, 9 1/4" cord....good shape. Does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Would a .15 OS max III work ( happened to pick this up at the meet ) , >fuel tank size??? ect... First off, it is not for aerobatics. <g> Slow climb, nose high floating glide, and it can thermal with the best of the old models. I caution you, however, about where the CG might be when it was original (meaning r/c-less). The CGs were well-back then -- don't do that with the RC version. For test flying, put it at the high point of the wing and move it back from there. I do not remember if it had a lifting stab and how much incidence was in it. This will alter where the CG should go. I would bet yours was a kit and was meant for r/c so these things (CG, stab, incidence) would have been adjusted for. If the model was as built for a FF, it would have be a ROG, slow climbing turn, and an easy transition into a nose-high, thermal seeking trim. These are not good for general r/c flying. We fly in the wind and the FFer tried to fly in the early a.m. when there was none...saved walking. You will find that the most fun is keeping it near and just lumbering along and doing one touch and go after another. Yes, I have flown one several flights and helped a guy trim one that was bought in a garage sale (built). It was a piece of misaligned junk when he brought it to the field...but I got it going for him and we had fun with it. Good luck. Ken Ken.....your right. This was an r/c kit. Everything is true, even stright on it and even lucked out to have a sporty monokote finish on it. Pushrods are already in it for rud, elev, and throtttle. Mike R "Mike R" <Renzi6669@aol.com> schrieb: > I was at my clubs annual swap meet and picked up a Quaker ( >built).....3ch, little over 5ft span, 9 1/4" cord....good shape. Does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Would a .15 OS max III work ( happened to pick this up at the meet ) , >fuel tank size??? ect... The .15 OS might be too small for that model. I would prefer a .40 four stroke. My NE-LA 541 B http://www.dlangenohl.de/temp/ne_la/ which will be finished soon will be powered by a PAW .35 Diesel. Dietmar > "Mike R" <Renzi6669@aol.com> schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Dietmar Rubbish. I am flying a 60" black magic on less than 200W of electric power - 3lb of model. terrific rate of climb.. These old timers will fly on very little power..they are slow planes. A .15 will be more than adequate. You could probably fly it on an 09 if carefully done. Hello Mike, > I was at my clubs annual swap meet and picked up a Quaker ( > built).....3ch, little over 5ft span, 9 1/4" cord....good shape. Does > anyone have info on it.... This sounds like the Ben Buckle Quaker Flash. the CG location to start with, 2.5 inches back from the LE of the wing. high and low > rate throws on rud and elev???? Low rate, start with no more than an inch total deflection on elevator and slightly more on rudder. High rate, add about .5 inch to these values to start with. If you flew one....flight > characteristics?? Plane has a standard Clark Y airfoil. The more power you give it, the more it wants to climb. Very very nice flying airplane capable of very slow flight/thermalling and limited aerobatics. . Recomended engines this plane is about 3lb.... > Would a .15 OS max III work ( happened to pick this up at the meet ) , > fuel tank size??? A .15 would fly it, but in much wind I would have more power. I am running a Saito FA-.40 with a 6 oz tank. A Saito FA-.30 or an OS .26 would be the perfect match for this airplane. ect... > I am not much into glow, but given the cost of the engine $15.00 vs > the cost of brushless/ lipo setup......glow wins. Give it a try, the .15 will probably do just fine! I have 2.5 degrees downthrust added and a 1/16" shim under the TE of the wing. This will get you pretty close. I also have a slight amount of washout added to the wing panels. Here is a link to my website.......... http://mysite.verizon.net/psjustis/modelplanes.htm Hope this helps, Scott > Hello Mike, > > "Mike R" <Renzi6669@aol.com> wrote in message ect... >> I am not much into glow, but given the cost of the engine $15.00 vs >> the cost of brushless/ lipo setup......glow wins. Hah. My 60" span vintage used an ex ebay speed 600 motor for $5, an old belt drive I had lying around an a free sample LIPO pack.. Use plenty of down and sidethrust, but these old FF models are not designed to fly straight - expect the power on to power off trim to change a LOT. At least YOU won't be swinging a 10x7 like my (geared) old timers do. Helluva turn under power.. <snip> >Give it a try, the .15 will probably do just fine! I have 2.5 degrees >down thrust >added and a 1/16" shim under the TE of the wing. This will get you pretty >close. I also have a slight amount of washout added to the wing panels. Scott, I forgot to point this out to Mike. It is a good thing you did. Yes, there is a lot of drag well above the thrust line so there needs to be sufficient down thrust in it. With a more powerful engine and inadequate down thrust, the power would pull you "through" those first few seconds to let a fellow know he had better shove the elevator down to prevent a stall. With less power, when the model rotates to an increased nose high attitude because of the lack of adequate down thrust, the drag increases even more as the air-speed is falling off at the same time -- a stall could arrive very quickly. Remember...ROG...touch and go...touch and go....touch and go...only with that floater on springy landing gear, it would be touch...bounce...bounce...go...touch...bounce....bounce...go... <g> Ken Ken, > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > more as the air-speed is falling off at the same time -- a stall > could arrive very quickly. At full power, I have to hold a little down elevator to maintain level flight with both of my Quakers. I rarely use full power though. They will fly along ok at fast idle :^). > Remember...ROG...touch and go...touch and go....touch and go...only > with that floater on springy landing gear, it would be > touch...bounce...bounce...go...touch...bounce....bounce...go... <g> I have big Trexler balloon tires on my 84" Quaker. I enjoy doing 'bounce and go' landings at 1/3 throttle. Turns a few heads at the flying field when I do this. You can do some really neat things with these planes, especially with a little extra power. Scott >Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >level flight with both of my Quakers. I rarely use full power though. >They will fly along ok at fast idle :^). I was trying to get the fellow's Quaker thrust trimmed so the down stick wasn't necessary. He was an old guy with some coordination problems. This was before I became an old guy with coordination problems. I decided it would need so much down thrust, it would look like a lawn mower, but I did get it to take-off and climb hands-off by showing him where to set the throttle and with the elevator trim in near full down. <g> >> Remember...ROG...touch and go...touch and go....touch and go...only >> with that floater on springy landing gear, it would be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >go' landings at 1/3 throttle. Turns a few heads at the flying field when I >do this. Perfect tires. But I took his off and put on some big William Bros. Vintage tires. These put the bounce in the stiffer landing gear wires, and the thin tires tracked better for him on grass. I told him to put the Trexlers back on after he got used to it. I don't know if he ever did. If you are doing lots of skipping touch and goes, then, Scott, you are flying it right! <g> Ken Does he have a computer radio? Easy enough to mix some down elevator with the throttle.... PCPhill > I was trying to get the fellow's Quaker thrust trimmed so the down > stick wasn't necessary. He was an old guy with some coordination [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > where to set the throttle and with the elevator trim in near full > down. <g> >Does he have a computer radio? Easy enough to mix some down elevator with >the throttle.... Phil, that was the last thing he needed. He was more of a Luddite than even I could be. I know what you are saying though and that would have been a perfect solution. As I recall, he was flying with an old Ace something on one of the just-ruled against 72 frequencies. There was so much dirt in the ball socket gimbals that the plastic had been worn and the ball "wallowed" on the right stick. It worked good, though. <g> This matters for naught, but I was flying a scale Kestrel sailplane in competition and I had one of those red Ace's. I got the model judged on the ground and needed to put in three flights. On the first winch launch, just about the time it was releasing the winch over the turn-around, it started getting jerky. It was all white in an overcast sky, and it had a small front/rear view. I thought it might be me so I zipped it around and brought it back where I could see it. I got a pretty good flight straight overhead and because it was so slick and had no spoilers or flaps, I had to go way, way out there for my base leg before final approach and the landing spot. At about 30' altitude, just as I was starting my base leg, it started acting up again, and I brought it back and got a decent landing. Danged, if it didn't do the same thing on the second flight. Though again I got good lift straight overhead. They weren't killer thermals but just light stuff I could "S" turn in and break even with the clock. I pulled the canopy, pilot, cockpit floor and instrument panel, and I replaced the 270 mah pack. On my last launch, it got the same screwy flying over the turn around but this time when I made my final turn, fortunately, just as I leveled the wings for a long flat glide back into the wind and landing circle, it got a little down from somewhere and it drove itself to the ground. Wings were level and it was just landing fast...and way out there. It made a skip on the soft grass and slid off the energy. Nothing was damaged but I missed that landing and got second because of it. As I was tearing it down for the car, I pulled the white vinyl tape from the wing joint and I got a sense that something was wrong. I took the tape off the other wing and that seem wrong, too. As I pulled the wing rods, I knew. Normally, I would have had the antenna coming out of the edge of the canopy and held in place against the fuselage with the edge of that tape. The antenna wasn't there. For static judging, I had taken the antenna, rolled it tightly around my finger, and shoved it down in a crack between two servos. There is where the antenna had been for those three flights...wedged between the servo motors. It is amazing that I didn't total the model about half-way up on the first launch. I just thought of all this while talking about that red Ace something radio system. <g> Ken, just a kid trying to learn a trade. While I haven't done that particular "oops", I've had my share. Forgetting to reinstall servo arm screws, getting to the flightline with the motor running and the ailerons unplugged( found before takeoff), taking off with the wrong model selected(everything moving the right way, but way off in trim, very interesting flight!), and accidently reversing the rudder servo(found the hard way). Glad there was no carnage... PCPhill > For static judging, I had taken the antenna, rolled it tightly around > my finger, and shoved it down in a crack between two servos. There is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken, just a kid trying to learn a trade. >While I haven't done that particular "oops", I've had my share. Forgetting >to reinstall servo arm screws, Done that and put in three flights before I noticed. Lucky. > getting to the flightline with the motor >running and the ailerons unplugged( found before takeoff), Three attempts to take off quarter midget with ailerons reversed. On third attempt got airborne and about 30' high. There was nothing left for a fourth try. While trouble shooting the debris, I found what I had done. Dum...dum. > taking off with >the wrong model selected(everything moving the right way, but way off in >trim, very interesting flight!), Tore the nose to the leading edge off a competition Old Timer because I had picked up the wrong xmitter. I had three alike and all on Ch. 56. I should have checked it closer. Elevator was reversed. I noticed my trims were way off but it was a launch of four models at one time in an attempt to neutralize the air. Stupid idea. The only way to neutralize the air would be to connect the four models with about 10' of string between each one. >and accidentally reversing the rudder >servo(found the hard way). As I often say...I am not good; just lucky. Ken It was orignally a FF... Not the one I was thinking of though. Depending on the tailplanes... (some RC versions of FF models the revise the tailplanes) the CG could be in the modern typical appx 30 "MAC" range (near the "main" spar)... or it could be as far back a 65% MAC.(near the rear spar!) The plans picture LOOKS like there's significant + incidence on th main wing and near 0 incidence on on airfoiled (for + lift) tailplane. That makes it likely to be nearer the 30% MAC CG. If the main wings an tailplane were near the same incidence, I would expect the CG to be nea 60% MAC. Rudder is a bit on the small side... 30 deg deflection each directio (more is really only useful for 3D types) Expect respnse to b somewhat sluggish compared to many modern designs. Elevator is reasonably large. Start at 20 deg each direction and i your radio has it program in some expo to "soften" the center. You'l probably find that you want LESS elevator throw to have its response i proportion to the rudder. 3 lbs is right on the weight of some "Powered glider" models I hav flown using an OS .15 FP. You'll want the 8X3 prop because static thrust will be important, to speed will be lower with a 7X5 than with the 8X3, even though th calculated "pitch speed" will be higher with the shorter prop. Tr both on it... you will see a huge difference. (be careful when usin the 7X5... the plane won't want to climb worth beans) My article index does say I have the original FF version article. Can't get the thing scanned for a few days... old scanner broke and th new one is in the mail -- fhhuber50677 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.