bobparks2

My Feedback: (1)

Well, depends on your goals. Airplanes in flight will never get much of a shear load on the bolts, its really only landing situations. Then you can either have the bolts fail to protect the rest of the structure, or you can have them strong and expect to do repairs elsewhere. If you are going for letting the bolts fail, then it helps if the wing can depart the fuselage cleanly, and an R54 should be pretty good for letting that happen.

I have seen some cases where the bolts failed cleanly and there was essentially zero damage to the rest of the structure. Replace the bolts and everything was fine.

But in the fully stalled, 90 deg angle of attack range, the max air load is less than at stall (for the same airspeed). And for just past stall, the load can actually shift forwards. Most stalls start at the trailing edge, and the separated flow there has higher pressure on the suction side at the TE than just before the stall, causing those lift loads to move forward. Alternately, you can think of the separated region on the suction side as if it were a deflected split flap, giving a change in pitching moment.

Actually, the loads are the exact same thing. Newton's third law. Note that the tail lift loads are also a factor on this.


Aircraft designers never have that luxury. What ever you are doing is always too heavy.

I once saw about 210 on mine from telemetry GPS speed, but I don't think I believe it. Typical flights are more in the 160 range, and long, high throttle downhill runs might get to 190. I really need to add airspeed to the system, but I know I would destroy the pitot tube instantly...

I would love to see some video of those square corners!!!


I usually try to get about the same margin on everything… which usually means fixing weak points. Most RC models are like that… hugely strong for most of it, with some dumb little thing being the limit. OTOH, the smaller the part, the easier it is to justify more margin.

Unfortunately, it would have not made any difference on either of the losses. Both were fundamental configuration issues.. putting the "aircraft" along side the rocket booster. And the whole concept has such a small payload fraction (just a bit over 1% of liftoff mass), that any increase in the margins would have wiped out the usable payload (which is why Enterprise never flew in orbit!). So, in retrospect, you can quibble about details, but fundamentally, the whole thing was marginal from the beginning. Of course, it was a WHOLE lot better than the absolute nothing we have right now!

I notice you have a "Coast Guard" type color scheme on your R54, but cannot see much detail in the little image. (I am a Coast Guard vet)

Bob

bobparks2

My Feedback: (1)

I totally agree with this, but put them as secondary causes. If the orbiter would have been on top of the stack, the O ring failure would have cost the mission, but not the crew. (orbiter would probably have gone in the ocean), and the shed ice would have never been an issue at all. And how the system got forced into that configuration is a messy blend of program management and politics.

So what we had was a "fragile" system, that was treated as much more robust than it really was. Oh well… it won't be the last time such things happen...

And now back to much more fun topics..

Bob

Woketman

My Feedback: (6)

I disagree. Had the Orbiter been on top, yes, survival would have been more likely but certainly not a sure thing. Assuming it was still a winged re entry vehicle, it could still have broken up upon booster disintegration.

yes, politics and budgets played too big a part in design. But "shed ice"? If you will recall, Columbia was due to a 2 lb shed piece of Fwd Bipod foam, not ice.

to be certain of relevancy here: I cannot recall seeing ice on any R-54, never!

highhorse

My Feedback: (2)

Now this otherwise fine thread is getting way out in the weeds and just plain silly.

flyinfool1

My Feedback: (2)

I agree.

I work on locomotives, weight is traction. No such thing as to heavy.



I bought my R54 second hand RTF with a P70.
PO said that it was clocked with radar at 170 mph top speed, 18 mph landing. I have no way to confirm or dispute these numbers.

I know a pitot tube would not last long for me either, That big fuse hast to wiggle around 3 corners getting in or out of the basement, I always bump one end or the other. I have rounded off the corners on the rudder and stab just to help with hanger rash. If I build another some day I may see if I can make the tail removable.

It was the PO that put on the Coast Guard scheme. I have tried to find the emblem but it is not on any of the Coast Guard sites that I have found. The one that is on there is a little messed up and I would like to replace it and then make it fuel proof.

I do not have video of any of my aircraft flying. I may have to try to get some next summer. Just need to find access to a halfway decent video camera, and someone that has a clue how to run it, my cell phone cam takes lousy video of moving objects.

Again I agree.

svennoe

Hi!

After 12 flights, I must say Im very happy with this plane. My goal when I choose The Reaction, was that it shouldnt take more time to get airborne than an "normal" plane at the field. Easy start turbine with kerostart and el retracts from Lado(333 series) that work perfekt..
Im still working on my landings, Here is a little video from my last flight. If you hear a scraping sound on the second landing, its because the nosewheel came off..just put i back on and flew on!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZVfzTIdsvpE?feature=oembed

Here is a pic of the Vt80 engine, I use the stock 50oz tank plus an 16oz tank in the radiocompartment with a large feltclunk..



Happy new year to you all!!


Best regards from Svenn
Norway

BruceTharpe

My Feedback: (1)

Happy New Year to you, Svenn, and congrats on the R54. Looks like you are flying it well. The last landing was the best, but I think it can land even slower than that. I like your simple color scheme - great for visibility.

afterburner

My Feedback: (18)

Congrats Svenn. I like that airfield you have there. I just checked my R54 maiden video on youtube from August 06. I don't think I've had any plane that I fly regularly last that long That's a testament to Bruce's design skills. Just changed mine over from a P-60 to a Rabbit last season and it's like flying a new plane. Hope you get many happy flights with yours.

kranie

My reaction is almost ready to cover. Overall it was a pleasure to build. Everything was well designed and good wood quality.

TommyWatson

My Feedback: (1)

I have been out of jets for a few years now, but I am going to build another Reaction 54. This will be my third. I got the bug again after watching the videos on Bruce's web site. The kit is out of stock at the moment but it will give me time to get all the stuff together that I need. My friend Noel Priestley is going to "lend' me one of his Wren 80 Jubilee kero start engines.
I have some nice electric retracts that will fit. This will be a lighter and faster R54 that my others. I think I will glass the fuse and monocote the wings and tail. Still to decide on a colour scheme.

Regards

kranie

Tommy
yes I have spent a lot of time watching r54 videos as well. It passes the time when you need motivation to work some extra hours to buy components. I will be curious to see what you come up with with your 3rd r54!
i spoke with Bruce around the 1st of the year when I ordered my templates from him. After seeing that he no longer supported the R54 ARF I was concerned that the kit was going to be obsolete. He reminded me that it's is only a one man shop and he intended to put more kits together.
covering schemes are always a challenge. You want to avoid making it just like the original and is one of the key things you gain by building instead of assembling an ARF. I thought your first one had some nice lines and colors.
Mine is going to have the standard r54 scheme, but cleaned up a bit. I will leave the blue where it is but make it a corsair blue, the red will be sour apple green and the rest will remain white with graphite grey graphics. The bottom will be a red and white target like Matt Chapman's Cap 580

TommyWatson

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Daniel,
My friend Noel has a PST ARF Reaction and he offered it to me to build but I am sure the ARF will always be heavier and would not fly as well as the Balsa/Ply Reaction. My first one (the yellow and blue one) was very light and flew like a trainer and yet would still go very fast. I am hoping that the new one will be lighter (no air system, or gas start for the engine) and I am sure I can build it a bit lighter as well. The Wren 80 Jubilee will have as much or more power than the old Supersport I had in the red and white reaction.. As far as the colour is concerned, I am still very partial to the yellow and blue. I need the big checks on the bottom at my age. I have a friendly Auto paint shop who will mix me paint that will match the monocote. I am thinking I might paint the blue over the yellow monocote. Has anyone tried this?, does the paint stick to the monocote well?
I am just waiting till Bruce gets the kits ready. I am assembling the servos and other stuff I need for the build. I will use a Kevlar tank as I did in the others. I will keep you informed of the progress.

Regards

bobparks2

My Feedback: (1)

Some paint sticks to Monokote.. sort of. You need to do a good job of solvent cleaning the monokote first, and preferably have scuffed off some of the gloss. In general, the paint will scratch off easily. Ages ago, there were some polyurethane paints that were pretty grippy and flexible and did OK, particularly over matt finish monokote. OTOH, the automotive paints I have used are more brittle and nowhere near as grippy as those urethanes. (Note the old urethanes I am talking about are TOTALLY different than modern automotive urethanes!)

The modern auto paints often have a clear "adhesion promoter" in the line, intended to make the paint stick to modern plastic bumper covers. That could be worth trying.

OTOH, the big issue.. I alway seem to get wrinkles and bubbles in my monokoted planes after a while. (and temperature and humidity cycling, and if you ever carry them on an airliner with the pressure changes). Once you have painted it, its really hard to deal with fixing the bubbles.

If you really want to do this, I suggest trying both Monokote and Ultracote/Oracover. They are very different plastics, and I think Ultracote might give a better bond to the paint. I also seem to have fewer bubble problems with it.

Personally, if I was doing this, I would do the pattern with the appropriate monokote on the wings and tails. If its big blocks of color, then I would just have a 1/4" overlap between the colors. Then glass and paint the fuselage to match.

Bob

kranie

Tommy

Bob sounds a whole lot more knowledgeable than I am with the subject. I do know that when I was researching Meister Scale that they listed in their directions that for the lightest covering method was to cover the structure with clear film and paint. But like Bob had mentioned- how you would deal with wrinkled covering would be a concern

i like the PST R54s. I chose the kit solely because I have no experience with jet set ups of any kind and building one would at least give me a better working knowledge. My R54 has a lot to teach me. I have been contemplating my next project (I'm a slow builder) and the Ziroili Turbinator might be a next good step. Still a trainer jet but a little shorter wings, higher wing loading, and more powerful engine. These days between my wife and 2 teenage daughters I have a bigger need to spend more time in my workshop :-)


Regards

Dan

TommyWatson

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks Bob,
I had not thought about removing wrinkles and bubbles under the paint. I think I will stick to two colours of monocote on the wings and tail and paint the glassed fuse.
Regards

bobparks2

My Feedback: (1)

I had high hopes of paint on film covering being an easy way to a painted finish. (hours of filling and sanding fiberglassed wood is not my favorite thing to do!). What I really wanted to do was the matt "silver" color MonoKote, and then scale paint on top if it. If a bit of paint got scratched off, well that was "scale" weathering. ;-) Great idea, but the wrinkles were pretty ugly after a while.

There uses to be a product from Coverite called "Balsarite". It was like clear dope (but wasn't), There was a thicker version for use with Coverite cloth, and a thinned out version for film coverings. You brushed it on, did a light sanding and then a second coat. It sealed the wood and you got a REALLY good bond of the covering to the wood. A bit harder to put the covering on in the first place, since it was so grippy. But it really reduced the about of bubbles later. But there were still more than I was willing to accept under a paint job.

Bob

maxvertical

Hey Tommy ! Glad to hear you are coming back to Kero burner's. My R54 is still flying however I have other stuff now to fly, the R54 is still my fav. Thanks to Bruce's awesome design this bird I have a real soft spot for. Hope we can get Bruce to cut some more kits sometime soon. I showed mine at the last local club meet and it generated a lot of interest.

TommyWatson

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Maxvert,
I emailed Bruce and he assures me that a run of R54's is next on his to do list. I have a good friend who has a lot of turbines and he is lending me a Wren 80 Jubilee kero start. I can't wait to get it into the air. I hope I can remember all of the things I did and the mistakes I made on the other two Reactions. I hope this one will be the best Reaction I have ever had.

Regards

PaulD

My Feedback: (39)

Hey Chris,

Love those pics of your R54. The nicest one I have seen personally. The tips are very cool.

If anybody's looking for a kit, this one might still be for sale:

http://www.rccanada.ca/rccforum/show...light=Reaction

He had it for sale last year for 400 can $

PaulD

BruceTharpe

My Feedback: (1)

Wow, lots of old friends popping up on here all of a sudden. Good to see you all! As mentioned, I will be cutting a new batch of R54 kits soon. Of course, in my world, soon means a couple of months or so. There's been a surprising number of inquiries about this kit in the last month; that's why it has been bumped up the BTE priority list. As many of you know, I keep a notify-when-ready email list for the R54 - just let me know if you would like to be added.

TommyWatson

My Feedback: (1)

Put me on the list Bruce. I don't want to miss out.

Thanks


Tom Watson

oliveDrab

Add me to your list Bruce. Thanks!

Paul Bail in Winchester, Kentucky ............. "He pulled first - I was justified"

flyinfool1

My Feedback: (2)

Just this last weekend after dropping the wing in the basement and smashing the wing tip, I was thinking of doing wingtips just like what you have on yours. I Like It!!
I have liked that style of wing tip ever since I built my first Airtronics Aquila Glider back in the mid 70s

Mike06659

For you new guys thinking about joining the R54 Club I want to tell you that you will not be disappointed. I bought mine second hand with a RAM500 and it is believed to be the first R54 kit off the line. I flew it for two seasons to learn turbine jets and then sold it to move on. I WILL WARN YOU!!!
DO NOT SELL THIS JET ONCE YOU THINK YOUR DONE WITH IT. I REGRET IT VERY MUCH!!!
They fly great and no matter your skill level or the other types of jets in your hangar there will always be a need for an R54 in my hangar
Mike

stoneenforcer

My Feedback: (23)

dang that's one ugly plane. looks like a good trainer though...