Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / November 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

3 or 4 engines

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 18 Nov 2006 18:43 GMT
I was talking about my Nosen Trainer in another thread, and it got me to
thinking again about building a plane with 3 or 4 engines.  I had a
Telemaster a few years back with a Saito 65, which could be removed and
replaced with an OS 20 FP.  I built two engine nacelles that went on the
wings to make it a triple 20 FP airplane, and the best part was that I
could switch back and forth in about 15 minutes.  It flew very well and
the power from either configuration was about the same and was perfect
for the plane.

My Nosen Trainer had a similar arrangement.  It had a 91 Surpass in the
nose, and a cover plate that would cover the hole in the cowl when the
engine was removed.  I built four nacelles with OS 26 four-strokes that
were linked together with some very nifty throttle linkage.  The
nacelles were balanced so that changing engines would not affect the
center of gravity, and they had overlapping propellers that looked very
cool.  The sound of all four engines was incredible.  I'd like to build
another plane with a this engine configuration.  Here are some photos
that I took back in the good old days when digital cameras took really
crappy pictures:

http://www.kcnet.com/~robbie/nosentrainer.jpg
http://www.kcnet.com/~robbie/nosentrainer2.jpg
http://www.kcnet.com/~robbie/nosentrainer3.jpg

The only problem is that either configuration was just too much engine
for that plane.  I wanted a plane that was light and easy to handle, but
the Nosen Trainer was too much of that.  With the four engines running,
it would taxi at almost take-off speed, and it didn't want to land at
all.  I ended up selling it to keep from wrecking it.

I've been thinking that I need to build another plane with four engines,
preferably OS 26 four stroke because I still have all four of those
engines.  I want something with a bit more drag.  I was thinking about
scaling up a set of Great Planes Big Stik 60 plans because of its thick
symmetrical airfol.  Any other ideas?  I'm almost finished with a Lazy
Ace, and now I'm thinking that it would have been perfect for four OS
26s, but that probably would look funny and it would be way too much
building for one plane.  It already has wire struts and two sets of
wings....

The reason I made the nacelles so low on the Nosen was to get the
ailerons out of the prop wash.  This was a bit of an issue with the
Telemaster, which had the nacelles right on the bottom of the wings.  So
a Big Stik may present a problem because of low ground clearance.  Maybe
a Big Stik with the cabin stretched upwards to look like a high-winger?
Anybody else ever take on a project like this?  I have a lot of raw
balsa wood to use, and I don't want to modify an existing airplane.  Any
ideas?
Tim Wescott - 18 Nov 2006 23:19 GMT
> I was talking about my Nosen Trainer in another thread, and it got me to
> thinking again about building a plane with 3 or 4 engines.  I had a
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> balsa wood to use, and I don't want to modify an existing airplane.  Any
> ideas?

B17.  B29.  B24.  Lancaster.  There were some nifty tween-war biplane
transports, the names of which escape me (but not the number of struts
-- a way-stand-off-scale WWII bomber or post-war airliner would be much
easier).  Sikorsky built a 4-engine bomber for white Russia before they
fell to the commies in WWI.

etc.

Signature

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google?  See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" came out in April.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 19 Nov 2006 00:15 GMT
> B17.  B29.  B24.  Lancaster.  There were some nifty tween-war biplane
> transports, the names of which escape me (but not the number of struts
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Tim Wescott

Why didn't I think of that?  I have never built war planes.  Maybe I
should look more closely at the WWI biplane bombers.  There were some
really nifty ones.  Do any come to mind that had four engines?
Geoff Sanders - 19 Nov 2006 20:33 GMT
> Do any come to mind that had four engines?

Here's one by Igor Sikorsky before he emigrated to the USA:

> http://www.hrunway.com/shop/index.html?target=p_141.html&lang=en

That thing must have had a LOT of drag!
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 19 Nov 2006 21:40 GMT
> > Do any come to mind that had four engines?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> That thing must have had a LOT of drag!

WOW!  That's a cool plane.  I might have to build one of those.
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 19 Nov 2006 21:52 GMT
> > Do any come to mind that had four engines?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> That thing must have had a LOT of drag!

I found a review of a static kit of this plane:

http://www.wwi-models.org/IM/Russian/ilya.html
Geoff Sanders - 20 Nov 2006 05:40 GMT
If you DO build one, it's fer sure it WON'T be nose heavy!  ;-)
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 20 Nov 2006 20:30 GMT
> If you DO build one, it's fer sure it WON'T be nose heavy!  ;-)

I was just thinking the same thing.  Pre WWII airplanes always stir the
most excitement in me.  I love looking at biplanes, and these big
four-engine monsters are some of the greatest pieces of work in
history.  However, once the initial excitement wears off and I start
thinking about cutting balsa, the weight and balance issue always comes
up.  There's a plane in the RCM catalog called the Doppledecker.  It's a
10 size biplane designed by Fred Reese to look like a WWI biplane, but
it's not a scale model of anything.  Maybe that's the best approach.  If
I make something that looks like an old Caproni or Gotha without
actually being one, it would be just as much fun for me.  I could also
avoid all of those pusher props that way.
Geoff Sanders - 21 Nov 2006 03:34 GMT
>  If
>I make something that looks like an old Caproni or Gotha without
>actually being one, it would be just as much fun for me.  

That was my thinking with a little electric I built earlier this year.  
I saw a free plan in Fly RC last year by Thayer Sime that was billed as
a "coulda-shoulda been" 1930s racer.  I didn't think it looked like a
typical racer of that period, so I designed my own.
It's not a scale model of anything, but it looks as if it is.  Flies
well too!  :-)
Tim Wescott - 23 Nov 2006 06:06 GMT
>>B17.  B29.  B24.  Lancaster.  There were some nifty tween-war biplane
>>transports, the names of which escape me (but not the number of struts
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> should look more closely at the WWI biplane bombers.  There were some
> really nifty ones.  Do any come to mind that had four engines?

You got me thinking.  If you want British, look up www.handleypage.com 
and www.imperialairways.com.  You could also consider a Ford Tri-motor
-- for that matter, the tri-motor layout seemed to be popular in the mid
to late 30's, so there are numerous non-Ford examples to be had.

Signature

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google?  See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" came out in April.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 23 Nov 2006 06:26 GMT
> You got me thinking.  If you want British, look up www.handleypage.com
> and www.imperialairways.com.  You could also consider a Ford Tri-motor
> -- for that matter, the tri-motor layout seemed to be popular in the mid
> to late 30's, so there are numerous non-Ford examples to be had.

I just wish my Jane's encyclopedia wasn't buried under a pile of
boxes...

I love the old monster biplanes with forests of struts, although I
wouldn't want to build all of that bracing on a model.  The Ford and
Junkers trimotor planes score very high on the cool scale.  There was a
Junkers construction article in RCM about 15 years ago.  If I remember
correctly, the designer used K&B 20 Sportsters.  That one would be great
with OS 26s instead.  I ALMOST ordered the plans when I read the
article.  

Can you still get RCM plans?  I've been away from RC for about a year
and a half.  I heard that RCM went down the tubes, but I also heard that
the plans were still available.  I don't know if I should send money and
trust that I will get plans in the mail.
Morgans - 23 Nov 2006 15:32 GMT
>> Why didn't I think of that?  I have never built war planes.  Maybe I
>> should look more closely at the WWI biplane bombers.  There were some
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> matter, the tri-motor layout seemed to be popular in the mid to late 30's, so
> there are numerous non-Ford examples to be had.

How about the Vickers Vimy bomber?  It only had two engines, but they were big
ones!

http://www.aviation-history.com/vickers/vimy.htm

There was a replica built that had V-8 engines in it, a few years ago.  It flew
to OSH, and was quite impressive.  It is huge!
Signature

Jim in NC

Ken Cashion - 19 Nov 2006 16:54 GMT
>I was talking about my Nosen Trainer in another thread, and it got me to
>thinking again about building a plane with 3 or 4 engines.  I had a
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>it would taxi at almost take-off speed, and it didn't want to land at
>all.  I ended up selling it to keep from wrecking it.

I think that reversing the props of a couple, or all four engines
would have permitted it to run in the rpm range it needed and sound as
good, yet it would have developed less thrust.

Ken, general lurker.

>I've been thinking that I need to build another plane with four engines,
>preferably OS 26 four stroke because I still have all four of those
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>balsa wood to use, and I don't want to modify an existing airplane.  Any
>ideas?
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 19 Nov 2006 18:06 GMT
Ken Cashion wrote:ng it to keep from wrecking it.

> I think that reversing the props of a couple, or all four engines
> would have permitted it to run in the rpm range it needed and sound as
> good, yet it would have developed less thrust.
>
> Ken, general lurker.

That's a great idea.  I wish I had thought of that.  I'll have to keep
that in mind.  

I've been looking for photos of early 4-engine planes online because my
Jane's encyclopedia is packed in a box.  We thought we were going to be
selling our house and moving last year, but it hasn't happened yet...  

I found a photo of the Junkers G 38 4-engine transport.  That's a pretty
cool plane.
Paul Ryan - 21 Nov 2006 06:14 GMT
Robbie-  that plane (nosen trainer) is totally cool with those four
engines, I gotta say, but the basic trainer in pretty simple.  If you're
talking multi engines and wings-  my hat's off to you-  that's a
commitment.  I'm just trying to build a couple new wings for my EZ 2.70
size Christen eagle- and not having too much luck...-    Paul

> Ken Cashion wrote:ng it to keep from wrecking it.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> I found a photo of the Junkers G 38 4-engine transport.  That's a pretty
> cool plane.
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 21 Nov 2006 14:47 GMT
> Robbie-  that plane (nosen trainer) is totally cool with those four
> engines, I gotta say, but the basic trainer in pretty simple.  If you're
> talking multi engines and wings-  my hat's off to you-  that's a
> commitment.  I'm just trying to build a couple new wings for my EZ 2.70
> size Christen eagle- and not having too much luck...-    Paul

Thanks, but it was a bit more simple than that.  The engine pylons were
removable.  They were joined in pairs at the top by a piece of hard
plywood, held to the bottom of the wings by nylon bolts.   This plane
had only one set of wings.  The part that I was most proud of was the
linkage to couple the pairs of throttles, and the fact that taking them
off and putting the 91 on didn't change the CG.  

Do you have a set of plans for the Christen Eagle?  Or are you designing
the wings yourself?
gords@idirect.com - 23 Nov 2006 00:13 GMT
I modified a Kadet Sr. with two TT36's on it.  Also added flaps,
ailerons and modified the outline a bit.  Can send a pic if you are
interested.  Flew incredibly well.  I think that 4 20s would be
amazing.

Gord Schindler

> I was talking about my Nosen Trainer in another thread, and it got me to
> thinking again about building a plane with 3 or 4 engines.  I had a
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> balsa wood to use, and I don't want to modify an existing airplane.  Any
> ideas?
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 23 Nov 2006 06:33 GMT
> I modified a Kadet Sr. with two TT36's on it.  Also added flaps,
> ailerons and modified the outline a bit.  Can send a pic if you are
> interested.  Flew incredibly well.  I think that 4 20s would be
> amazing.
>
> Gord Schindler

I'd love to see your photos.  I am curious about your nacelle
construction.  Did you make it convertible to single engine
configuration, or was it twin only?

I have the RCM plans for the original Twinstar, which was of course
originally called the Twinstar 15 for the recommended size of each
engine.  I have seen the ARF version fly with twin OS 40 LA engines
instead, which seems ridiculous to me.  These planes can be a handful
with that much power.  I like the idea of something big, slow, and
draggy with lots of lift.  The Kadet seems like a great choice.  The
Ford Trimotor is sounding better and better the more I think about it.
There was a really old Trimotor plan in RCM from the 1960s that used one
60 in the nose and 049s in the wings just for show.  This was most
likely because the original plane had tiny nacelles behind huge radial
engines.  I would rather fly with three OS 26es instead, but it would be
hard to work out the nacelles.  Didn't the Junkers trimotor have more
reasonable nacelles?
Geoff Sanders - 28 Nov 2006 02:24 GMT
If you wnt a tri-motor that NOBODY else has, go French!

> http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~kasatosi/E.Arc-en-ciel.html

You might want to add a bit of vertical stabilizer, though!
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 28 Nov 2006 21:35 GMT
> If you wnt a tri-motor that NOBODY else has, go French!
>
> > http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~kasatosi/E.Arc-en-ciel.html
>
> You might want to add a bit of vertical stabilizer, though!

That's a cool plane.  There's something decidedly French-looking about
the styling...

If I were more of a scale builder I would be thinking very seriously
about this design.  For now, I think I figured out what I want to build,
as soon as I get my Lazy Ace finished.  I have a couple of Cloud Dancers
that I framed up from the 40 size RCM plans.  All I have so far is the
individual wing sections and fuselage sides.  I think I'll do one of
them with three OS 15s.  Depending on how well I like that, I'll
probably do the other one with two 20s or 25s.
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 29 Nov 2006 04:48 GMT
>   I have a couple of Cloud Dancers
> that I framed up from the 40 size RCM plans.  All I have so far is the
> individual wing sections and fuselage sides.  I think I'll do one of
> them with three OS 15s.  Depending on how well I like that, I'll
> probably do the other one with two 20s or 25s.

That's funny.  I was reminiscing about the sound of four OS 26 Surpasses
on my old Nosen Trainer, and I ended up deciding to put three 2-strokes
on something.  What I really need is multiple OS 26es.  The Cloud Dancer
would sound nice with two of them.
 
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.