Lil' Roughneck 049 flight video

Pretty amazing. I'm surprised that you could keep it in sight and still determine it's orientation as fast as it is.
Wonderful flying and vision skills.

Bob

Cox .049 Lil' Roughneck!!

Great job of the project and getting the plane on video. When I started using a head mounted cam I tried zoom settings and such the best thing to do is just fly closer once you are comfortable with the plane. Nice passes low in front of the camera will give you good entertainment of your efforts. = )

rsv1cox wrote:Pretty amazing.  I'm surprised that you could keep it in sight and still determine it's orientation as fast as it is.
Wonderful flying and vision skills.

Bob

GREAT FLIGHT VIDEO!  Nice airplane too! The video reminded me of using a flight simulator on an older computer, the plane got out of sight real quick, and I couldn't tell where it was headed until it crashed or I flipped it in to FPV (pilot seat) view.
Thank you for sharing.  

You should find some more speed with the Cox 4.5x4 once your ready to add some more pep.
The APC 4.5x4 may even allow it to go a bit faster. APC 4.2x4. would be perhaps 22.7k unloaded.

Thanks balogh!! Got me to clean my computer screen so I could tell what was and wasn't the airplane Good flying man she was screaming !! Hope to see more . Eric

Here is a close up

balogh wrote:

getback wrote:Thanks balogh!!  Got me to clean my computer screen so I could tell what was and wasn't the airplane  Good flying man she was screaming !! Hope to see more . Eric

Thx getback actually I had to do the same cleaning thing on the screen of my laptop to see the plane better....The next video will hopefully be a bit better, this was the first I shot with this head cam, and I need to adjust its height as it was pointing too high etc.
The thing is you cannot fiddle too much on the camera while in flight especially because of the castor smear on the fingers after the engine was started, that you do not want to soil the lens with...

I wiped my laptop's screen too!.. haha! Really COOL.. 6+ minute engine-run! Your engine might be the same arrangement I used on my Rare Bear speed model. Is that a Killer Bee style backplate? It looks like one. I'm curious what you used for a fuel tank set-up. I had fuel-draw issues with mine, when trying to use a small homemade 7cc uniflow vented hard-tank. The fix was using lg. size fuel line. I had plumbed the tank with 1/8" (3mm) copper-tube to allow sufficient flow. Compression-sleeves hold the 36mm length line tight on the tank and backplate nipples.

You got a nice long strong steady engine run.. that's for sure.

The 5x3 is not going to help you other than improve rpm and thrust but the speed will be less.
The 3 bladed prop will just add more load and thrust but not improve rpm or your speed.
The 4.5Dx4P is your best cox prop solution due to size of plane it's ideal.
to the APC 4.5x4 best results!

I have to agree with you there, balogh. I found with my late 1970's .049 Black Widow that the best props were 6x3 and 6x4 Masters. Following was quoted from Peter Chinn in the August 1974 Aeromodeller:

http://www.sceptreflight.net/Model%20Engine%20Tests/Cox%20Black%20Widow.html

Peter Chinn wrote:The Black Widow is intended for operation on fuels of a medium nitro rating - i.e. about 15 percent nitromethane. Using such a fuel, our test motor recorded a maximum torque of just over 6 oz.in. at around 9,000 r.p.m. and a peak output of nearly .08 b.h.p. at between 15,000 and 15,550 r.p.m. These are quite good figures for a 'sport' type .049 and are reflected in some useful speeds on various props.

The most useful prop sizes with the Balck Widow should be 6x4 for a control-line stunt or sport and a 6x3 or 'fast' 6x4 for free-flight although, should the need arise, the engine is capable of turning 7 in. diameter props of 3 to 4 in. pitch, such as one might wish to use for a large 'motor-glider' type model for example.

Prop speeds recorded on test included 10,600 r.p.m. on a 7x4 Taipan nylon-glassfibre, 11,200 on a 7x3-1/2 Bartels epoxy-glassfibre, 12,000 on a 7x3 TopFlite wood, 12,600 on a 6x4 Tornado nylon, 13,000 on a 6x3 Tornado nylon, 13,800 on a 6x4 McCoy nylon, 13,900 on a 6x3 KeilKraft nylon. 14,000 on a 6x3 Tornado nylon, 14,600 on a 6x3 TopFlite nylon and 15,500 on a 6x4 (nominal) D.C. nylon. The Black Widow was also checked on 5-1/2x3 and 5x4 Tornado nylon props by these took it up to over 16,000 r.p.m. static which probably means rising to 17,500-18,000 in flight and, as the b.h.p. curve indicates, there would be no advantage in propping the engine for more than say, 16,000 in flight. No problems were encountered during the tests of this new Cox model and the original Cox glowhead survived the entire series of test runs.

Of course, with tweaks and the QZ heritage cylinder sleeved engines that morphed into the Sure Starts, I can understand where slightly smaller diameter props and higher RPMs might lead to better results. At least for the sport type engines the 2 bladed 6x3's seem to do well on standard nitro fuels. At least that has been my impressions.

For a smaller aircraft designed for a .020 Tee Dee, use of smaller diameter props might be more appropriate providing a slightly reduced thrust to bring it in line with the lower output of the Tee Dee. I like the idea of the throttled .049 reedie, because it opens up all sorts of speed envelopes, turning an otherwise nice flyer into a tiger.

Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's, I had very good results flying rudder only with auxiliary 3 step throttle on Ace pulse with my Sterling Minnie Mambo and Cox .049 R/C Bee engine. It basically had a Sure Start style cylinder with rotating exhaust throttle muffler. I flew it both with and without the muffler. To get the 3 speeds to work, had the KRD sequential servo move forward providing about 1/3rd cracked open to provide medium speed, pulled back all the way barely cracked open for idle (about 1/2 speed), and wide open in middle for full throttle.

Had to drill a carefully calculated hole closer to the servo throttle disk's center to get the right action. Worked like a charm. Plane flew well with this setup because I built it light. Wing was clear doped silk, rest of plane used Pactra Solarfilm. Cox in their instructions recommended a 6x3 two blade prop for best flight performance. I imagine the Sure Starts will provide similar performance with a throttle ring.

As usually, YMMV (your mileage may vary) with props and I've also found that whereas at sea level there wasn't much difference between the older Top Flight nlyon 5-1/4x4 and 6x3 with the Black Widow, that at 6,500 feet (1,981 meters) elevation, the 6x3 was the best prop to use. The 5-1/4x4 barely could sustain flight with the reduced power output caused by reduced ambient air pressure at elevation (14.7 psia at sea level versus 11.5 psia at 6,500 feet). That combined with personal preferences in tuning, model weight and aerodynamics will make what works for one not work for others.

Of course my perspective is from a sport flyer's standpoint, not a competitor and thus can only speak from personal experience, which is far less than a lot of others who love to do this out of a passion for it. Love the technical details from the likes of Peter Chinn since I've got a degree in Mechanical Engineering, but as they say, an ex-spurt is a former drip under pressure.

balogh wrote:Roddie,

I am glad that you all enjoyed the video...that backplate sure is a Killer Bee one, except that I have added a mesh screen because of the harsh flying field conditions allowing only landing on deep grass.

Ever since I started to pay scrupulous attention to fuel cleanliness, tight fuel-line with no air ingress, and air filtration, the only thing occassionally plaguing my flights is the loose glowhead...at the end of the video the head was already loose a bit, the somewhat reduced engine speed also tells the story.

I have disembowelled my bird to show my so far most reliable fuel tank arrangement I follow in all my COX size R/C planes ranging from 010 to 051 powerplants: a common party balloon in which a normal rubber stopper with 2 outlets - one for filling, one for engine feed - fits well without the need of using any tension band to hold the baloon neck on the stopper. This tank holds fuel enough for  8-9 minutes flight in fact. (30-35 ccm)



Inverted flights easy with no venting and foaming problem, full tank-compartment occuppation in the nose of the plane no matter what shape the nose has....all these point toward to supremacy of a ballon tank versus any heavy soldered metal, or clunked, thus heavy plastic tanks.

Nice! I love the "Happy Face"!! Thank you for posting that photo. I thought I was being careful with fuel cleanliness.. until I read about how rubber squeeze-bulb degradation can cause trouble with the glow-plug coil. I hadn't been using filters on any of my lines either. I still have one of those little primer bulbs that Sig used to include with their 1/2A airplane engine-starting kit. In later years they switched to a plastic syringe. I liked the little bulbs.. but they're hard to find now.

I made a balloon capsule/tank.. but haven't tried it yet. The capsule is a florist item for cut-flowers. The silicone pick-up line inside has a few wall-perforations made with a paper-hole-punch. They're at different points around the circumference of the line, should the balloon's wall collapse over one of them. I think you may have taught me that trick.. not sure though. Have you made any of your pick-up lines this way?

balogh wrote:Roddie

I puncture the pickup tube in the balloon the same way. I copied that from the late and great Roger Freihheit who sold me a PET type exhaust throttle for Tee Dee 010 engines and my first balloon tank. I have not used any other tank design in COX size RC planes ever since.

As the saying goes Andras.. "If it ain't broke.. don't fix it!"

Says please sign in to view this video Wonder what they mean sign in as you?
Perhaps its set on private rather than public mode for the vid.
Im signed in to YouTube already and on the Cox forum.

I do see this one looks new:

Yes showing to the public now.

Perhaps if you walk out past your car you would be willing to fly closer to the camera. One fun thing I do besides low passes by the camera (within 15ft or say 3.5 meters) I like to fly in a circle pattern around me so I turn with the plane and fly closer in and track some great up close video.

Perhaps you could add a throttle sleeve to allow a comfortable speed up closer. The camera tends to make the craft look further away then what it actually is and when they are small planes going fast this effect tends to be expounded further.