Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
December 16, 2019, 08:20:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Cassutt NoCal  (Read 6239 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2014, 12:37:39 PM »

Thanks Don, I'll look into the rubber further.
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #51 on: April 28, 2014, 07:03:33 PM »


It has been a while since I last posted since the model hit a stowed basketball hoop and vertically dived into the ground in January, breaking off the propeller bracket. I took the opportunity to overhaul the model and lighten it to the 6.0g BMFA rules.

A new motor tube and boom were constructed and wing and tailplane mounting tubes fixed to perfectly align with the wing and tailplane posts. The rear motor hook was moved forward 2 inches to the wing trailing edge, giving a 10.4" propeller bracket to peg length. This enabled me to remove the nosweight. The wing was lighted by removing one of the centre ribs and fettling the leading and trailing edges. I glued the tissue back onto the wing ribs with thinned PVA where the Spraymount had failed, this lead to slight wrinkles at the trailing edge. This doesn't seem to affect the flight performance so I will not recover the wing.

The weights for the overhauled model are:

Rebuilt & Overhauled Cassutt 21 April 2014 to 6.0g BMFA rules:

Nose Weight                                        0.00g
Fuselage                                              2.47g 
Undercarrage  (new)                           0.26g
Tailplane     (new)                               0.40g
Wing (lightened)                                 1.93g
Canopy  (new)                                    0.08g
Propeller 10" x 15"                             0.86g
Stint 50% for 0.110" x 10" Loop        1.50g
Rubber:  0.110" x 10" Loop               1.50g
AUW                                                     9.06g
CG      48mm aft of LE, 1mm aft of plan  41%  chord               
Airframe                                              6.01g   Perfect!                 

All Up Weight                                      9.01g

Right Thrust              4.0º
Down Thrust            2.5º

Before the crash I was experimenting with 12" propellers and found that I needed 3/16" motors to get a climb. I built new propellers with less chord and with less pitch but didn't have time to try them all.

Don speculated that my rubbber may be at fault and also gave details of a propeller design that he had success with (reply #36). The blade planform was given for a 10" x 15" propeller. I constructed this and was kindly given some Oct 97 Tan II rubber to try. Since I fly under a 25' ceiling I used a 50% motor and stint to simulate the 50' ceiling of the Nationals venue. The motor was 0.110" wide and simulated length of 20" as Don recommended (reply #40).

I only managed a few flights with the model under a 25' ceiling but the best was:

Wind to 990 turns and 0.82 oz.in torque
back-off to 910 turns and 0.51 oz.in torque
Landing turns 240 turns  and 0.24oz.in torque

The model performed a stally initial climb and took about 50 seconds to reach the ceiling before landing at 2m15s. This smashes my previous best of 1m30 by a country mile. I notice that the model landed with rather a lot of turns left, but I was not winding the motor to anywhere near the maximum and should be able to get more out of it. I might try winding to higher turns and backing off to the same torque.

I quickly tried an identical motor made from my Super-Sport, but the trim was off and I didn't manage a comparison flight. So, I cannot really tell if the rubber is the culprit or the propeller. I believe that my 12" propellers required such thick motors that the total model weights were 11g to 12g. My model is now around 9g total and flys more slowly for it.

So, now I am happy that the model is in the same ball park as Don's.

Find attached a picture showing the new rear motor hook position


Attached files
* Cassutt Overhauled.png (0 KB - downloaded 98 times.)
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #52 on: April 28, 2014, 07:06:03 PM »

Attempt to attach picture
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Cassutt NoCal
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #53 on: June 30, 2014, 08:13:33 PM »

I entered the Cassutt in the UK nationals held at Boubly Potash mine on 20 June 2014. The usual NoCal rules applied with a minimum weight of 6.0g

I am pleased to say that the model won the completion!

This is my first win at such an event and I am very pleased with my progress since the debacle of my MB5 last year.

The site is a wooden structure that measures 150ft at the base, by approximately 65ft high with bracing wires attaching to a central boss 50ft from the floor. A roofed single storey partition contains a gym and forms one side of a 5 a-side football pitch and a 4ft high partition along the other side of the pitch divides the floor into a pit area for the model flyers. The roof of the gym is protected by a sloping net that forms a hazard to model planes.

I had regularly practiced under a 25ft ceiling with 50% motors, of similar size as recommended by Don (10.25” loop of 0.111” wide, 1.5g) and had recorded a best time of 2m15s. So, I was hoping for double that time in the dome.

My flight used the same partial motor as in practice and found the familiar pitch trim problems as I had in practice. The adjustment of the down-thrust and elevator was very sensitive and it proved difficult to get the model to climb without stalling or being totally under elevated. I ended up putting a 0.3mm shim on the aluminium propeller bracket as I could not make fine enough adjustments when using pliers to bend the propeller bracket.

The elevator was adjusted in 0.15mm increments (about 0.1º) since the impact on the flight path was so great! While this may indicate that the CG is rather aft;  I had confirmed that the CG was with 1mm of the plan and the model recovered from hitting obstacles quickly. Perhaps the tailplane was flexing and causing trim problems.

I changed to a full motor; a 20.5” loop of Tan Jan 2014 Super-Sport weighing 3.0g. I managed a 4m23s flight after hitting the wires a couple of times and stalling at the start of the descent. The propeller locked at 5ft altitude due to bunching round the propeller Z-hook.

I next put in my first competition flight using a fresh motor and achieve 4m33s despite a mid-air with a LPP and flying through someone’s legs! A memorable flight! I had split the delicate tail boom in attaching the motor to the fiddly rear hook – up till now I had only attached a wire stint since I had used partial motors. The flight time was near double that obtained using the 50% motor in practice sessions at a 25ft high site and so I was very happy.

The second competition flight was not as good; the model performed low, tight circuits without climbing for the first 30 seconds and only reached halfway up to the wires. This flight had a fresh motor with more turns and less torque so I don’t know what caused this. The top of climb was stally, as was the descent. The flight time for this disappointing flight was 3m48s.

But, this was enough to put me in the lead, the nearest model achieving two flights of 3m09s.

Although I had a comfortable lead I decided to try and beat my best time. A fresh motor with slightly less turns and torque gave the perfect climb, without a hint of stalling. But, the model brushed the wires and performed a perfect landing on the boss in the middle of the dome. It stayed there until the end of the competition, until dislodged by a balloon when it performed the perfect descent. That flight would have been cracking…

This was very frustrating, but my model kept its comfortable lead throughout the rest of the day.

So, I was very happy with the result but was not impressed with my hang-up and that I didn’t achieve many competition flights. I was hoping to achieve a progressively improving time on each flight. Large differences in flight times indicate a poorly sorted model/flyer.  I believe that a 5 minute flight was certainly possible in the site and that will be my aim for next year. I noticed that the model was landing with 20% to 30% of winding turns, so I may next try a thicker motor (0.120” ish) and back-off turns more.

The air conditions in the afternoon for my third flight became difficult due to turbulence and unpredictable drift. This was attributed to the dome being covered in dark felt tiles and the effect of the sunlight, in combination with air conditioning units for the gym. The LPPs and lighter models really suffered.

Although I used different motors on the three competition flights, they were close enough to be identical and I used less turns and torque on the last flight. However, the air in the dome had heated up during the afternoon, and reached about 27º if I remember correctly. It is more likely that my model is not performing consistently, perhaps due to tail flexing than the air conditions or rubber power increasing with temperature causing the extra height on the third flight.

I unpacked my recently completed spare Cassutt model and had it performing nice low-powered circuits after 3 adjustments of the tail angle. I was delighted with this model and look forward to more flying in the next indoor season. I intend to explore different motor lengths and thicknesses to get the most out of the model.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Cassutt NoCal
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2014, 08:14:23 PM »

The dome!
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Cassutt NoCal
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2014, 08:15:36 PM »

Cassutt and spare Cassutt (I should have given the new model a different number)

Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Cassutt NoCal
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,223



Ignore
« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2014, 08:54:58 PM »

Congratulations PC - what a good report too.
That was a fitting reward for your careful analytical approach. What were you using to achive such small tail incidence changes?
Good luck with the new one.
John
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 55
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,441



Ignore
« Reply #57 on: July 01, 2014, 04:36:50 AM »

Very interesting piecost and a great story, thanks for sharing.

Stephen.
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #58 on: July 01, 2014, 05:08:22 PM »

Thanks John & Stephen,

I measure the tail setting angle by measuring from the top of the tailplane, near the tail plane adjustment post, to the top of the fuselage. I used to use a 7inch rule, but now use a digital caliper that I bring along for rubber stripping etc. The model is somewhat flexible so my claimed fidelity of setting/measurement may be imagined rather than real.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Cassutt NoCal
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #59 on: July 01, 2014, 05:21:42 PM »

The thrust line measurement may be of interest. I use a spare nylon nose bearing with a length of wire threaded through, held in place with adjustable collets. I mount the device on the model and adjust the length of the wire so it just touches the tube. From measuring the length and knowing the gap between the wire and the tube at the nose bearing I can calculate the right thrust. Similarly I use the wire to determine downthrust by eyeballing the length of wire needed to intersect the top edge of the tube when viewed side on. Hopefully the picture will explain better than the text.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Cassutt NoCal
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #60 on: July 01, 2014, 05:22:51 PM »

I made a graph to aid adjustment.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Cassutt NoCal
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #61 on: July 03, 2014, 05:00:19 PM »

Finally, I have had problems with the tailplane warping so I have gone to elaborate lengths to prevent this by clamping both tailplanes between foam board. THe over-complex box holds the wings in jigs with the correct dihedral and washout.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Cassutt NoCal
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,223



Ignore
« Reply #62 on: July 04, 2014, 08:46:16 PM »

Thanks for that PC. Its a different world of flying - small accurate adjustments while dealing with a liavery light and flexible airframe. Another fascinating area of aeromodelling.
John
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #63 on: August 19, 2015, 01:55:51 PM »

A tip for anyone building a Cassutt with a removable wing; avoid putting the rear hook exactly inline with the wing trailing edge. If the rubber knot is at the back then it pushes the wing trailing edge up a couple of mm and causes the model to dive-in. When I moved the position of the knot forward it touched the motor tube so I ended up unbending the rear hook to move the motor down and away from the tube. This caused the tube to bend more with high turns and needed a change in side thrust.

Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Cassutt NoCal
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #64 on: October 05, 2016, 06:52:44 PM »

I haven't posted for a year, but I am pleased to say that I won the NoCal class at the 2016 UK Nationals. Thanks to Don and others for the freely given advice. I had built two identical models for the competition 2 years ago, won with the first model and have now won with the second.

I was confident in this class because in previous years I had only seen one other Cassutt (with a small propeller) and no Hosler Furys. My plan was to record two times quickly on the first day of the competition, starting competition flights once I had achieved over 4 minutes in practice. This achieved; my first competition flight recorded an attempt at 5m11s since, gallingly, the removable undercarrage had fallen off! I then set a first competition time of a mediocre 3m33s. I wonder if I had hit bad air as it was, only the 2nd wind on a fresh motor. The second and last competition flight that day was at 4m17s. I was not entirely satisified with my times being below 4m30s but noted that I was in the lead and packed the model away. I thought that I had done enough. I mantained the lead on the second day of the competition.

I was enjoying the last afternoon of the competition flying Legal Eagle and noticed a nice looking yellow Cassutt at high altitude. I had not seen this model before and was startled from my complacency to see times of 4m29s and 4m31s posted. The tight grouping of the scores almost rattled me as much as their value. I quickly flew both competition flights on my Legal Eagle and re-assembled my cassutt. The removable tailplane was set with a digital caliper and I flew a competion flight without bothering to check the trim. My hands were trembling so much that I had trouble attaching the motor to the rear S-Hook (why did I have to make it so difficult to attach a motor?). This rushed flight managed to reach 4m30s. My 2nd best time of 4m17s left me in 2nd place. It was going to be close.  There was no time to rest the motor so I selected a similar, fresh, motor and wound harder and backed off less. The model only climbed to 45' (10' under the girders) but acheived 4m58s. Fantastic! That put me into the lead again.

Since I was so near to 5 minutes and the other Cassutt had one competition flight left I decided to go for broke and try to beat the 5 minute mark. I reasoned that there is never a better time to hang-up a model in the ceiling than at a national competition. I selected anoher fresh motor, wound and backed-off to a higher launch torque than before. I was careful to launch between the girders. The the model climbed at 30º until level with the girders. It edged closer on each circuit to a Warren Girder and went out of sight for a couple of seconds in every circuit until finally touching, diving a few feet and recoving. My heart was in my mouth. Luckily it didn't have too much climb left and circled just below the structure and descended safely for a 5m08s, out of turns. The competition only had 20 minutes left to run, so I had done it!

It proved to be a thrilling afternoon!

Data for the 2 best flights:

Prop: 12" P/D = 1.2
Temperature: 19.5ºC
Rubber: Tan II May 97, 3.26g/m, 18" Loop, 3.04g
Wind to 1670 turns & 1.47 oz.in
Back of 68 turns to 0.71 oz.in
Landing turns  110, torque 0.17 oz.in
no touch, max height 45'
4m58s

Prop: 12" P/D = 1.2
Temperature: 19.5ºC
Rubber: Tan SS 17 Jan 2014, 3.21g/m 18" Loop, 2.93g
Wind to 1600 turns & 1.45 oz.in
Back of 70 turns to 0.73 oz.in
Landing turns 0
Touched girder at 2m56s
5m08s

I wonder if I can push the duration a little further in the next session, since the 4m58s flight did not reach the girders.

Finally, at the Nats someone mentioned building a Holser Fury. This has upped the ante, so I bought a plan from Volare. The structure seems quite chunky (presumably for ourdoor use) and I was thinking of applying the Cassutt structure to the plan outlines. In another thread/forum Don recommended using up to a 14" stick (a 40% increase over the Cassutt). Now, if I keep the mass/length of the rubber constant then the model mass will increase by 33% whilst I the wing area is 16% higher. So, the wing loading will increase by 15%. Even though the wingloading has gone up I wonder if I can get away with the same propeller as the Cassutt (12" dia, P/D =1.2)? Or do I need to reduce the pitch to get more power? (higher rpm offset by the longer motor).

I only want to build a Hosler if I can expect a significant duration increase. Would it be reasonable to expect a 6 minute flight under a 56' ceiling?
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,223



Ignore
« Reply #65 on: October 06, 2016, 02:36:22 AM »

Congratulations and thanks for such a detailed report. What a way to win!
John
Logged
dslusarc
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 768



Ignore
« Reply #66 on: October 06, 2016, 09:17:49 PM »

Congrats on the Cassutt win. I will let my dad know it will make him happy :-)

As far as the Hosler Fury. Once you build one you will not go back to the Cassutt. The Hosler does the time easier in my opinion. At the Kent state contests, which is a 50 foot site we could get just over 6 no touch flying at 6.2 grams. I would have to go look at my plan again to see what I would now make the motorstick to. I built mine with an 18" stick thinking it will fly on long thin rubber on a smaller prop and was completely wrong. It likes a big prop and heavy loops of rubber. My dad was flying his on 1/8" wide rubber, mine was using around .115" wide and Larry Loucka uses around .110" wide and is due to prop variations. Larry is running a symmetrical prop, and my dad uses a LPP style prop. As long as you can keep it under 7 grams it will fly good. The tissue is a lot of the weight, using Gampi will save weight but you have to dye the tissue red however you get to have more weight in wood structure. Mine was Esaki covered and was exactly 6.2 grams and was difficult to get there as the tissue is about 3 grams due to all the area. My dad and Loucka used gampi so were under wight around 5.5 grams so could use ballast to trim as needed. The Hosler needs about 1/8" positive in the wing and about 1/8" neg in the stab. Make sure the boom gong back is strong and also tie the outline to the tailboom in a few places to stabilize it in twist. You don't want the tail wobbling. Also it will need right rudder and setup essentially the same as the Cassutt. The Hosler likes to fly nose high so just let it. They also usually need about 3 degrees right and 2-3 degrees down thrust. If I were to make a new one I would also put about a 2% airfoil in the stab instead of flat no airfoil. My dad and I have flat and Loucka has an airfoil and I think his handle high torque better as his tail lifts some to hold the nose down when climbing out. Visually he looks like he has less down thrust than my dad and I do. Also one day when really humid the flat tissue sagged to upside down airfoil and the model flew horrible, so we did a test and if we pushed the tissue up again the model was in trim, if it drooped then the model stalled. So we decided having dedicated ribs and an airfoil would be good in the stab.   

Don    
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #67 on: September 21, 2018, 09:55:35 AM »

I entered the Cassutt in the 2018 nationals after taking a break from flying. I wasted much of the previous
day dealing with accuracy problems on my digital torque meter and ended up sharing a wire torque meter
the meter with a friend flying an F1R. This employed a shorter length from meter to winder than needed
for my Cassutt. So, I opted to use the shorter length rather than incurring the complication of both of us
having to adjust the length prior to each flight. Whilst, the actual torque readings could not be trusted
incremental changes could be used. Also, I could not stretch wind hard for fear of breaking the shared
torque meter and of tipping the tripod over!

l started at very low launch torque and increased it progressively each flight. Despite my care; I still
managed to hit the roof beam and so lowered the launch torque on the next flights by 0.5g.cm. This
reduced the maximum climb by over 6 feet! This was surprisingly sensitive, especially compared to the
torque dropping by well over 1g.cm after winding as the motor settled and I massaged the knots away

There were only four entries in the competition and two were Cassutts, including the yellow model that I
encountered two years ago. I saw it flying with well-judged flights skimming the bottom of the roof beams
progressively increase its duration from 2:18 upwards. It employed what looked like an 8" prop so I was
confident that I had the edge with my 12" airscrew
My first competition flight of 2:42 exceeded the best time, so far, of the other models. Subsequenty; the
other Cassutt reached its limit at 3:01, with one flight remaining. My second competition flight reached
3:18 with plenty of allitude to spare. This put me ahead. The yellow Cassutt did not use its last flight
perhaps realising that there was no more time to be gained.

Since I still had four competition flights left and was not skimming the ceiling; I planned to wind harder
and back-off to the same launch torque. A third competition flight was not needed and I moved on to
flying Osprey. I had not reached the full potential of the model in this site, but had won the competition
I was delighted that the model remained in trim after not touching it for 2 years. The care in making a
complex foam-board box to hold the components true had pald otf. I found that I did not even have to
remove the wing to load the wound motor, but did break the removable undercarriage a couple of times

The UK NoCal rules are being changed to reduce the minimum weight to 4.0g in a bid to end the
dominance of the Cassatl's (a case of sour grapes). But I have been told that an infamous Hosler Fury
will soon be under construction. I think that my model will remain competitive even if someone builds a 4g
model next year

Data for Ihe best flight:
June 16 Super Sport 3,12g/m x 18 loop & 2.93g
Wind to 1130 tuns
Back off 6 turns
20' max height no touch
Avarage rpm 284
3m18s

I had a similar axperiance to LPP in this competition. I had employed the same motor optimised for a 56
celing under 28 conditions. I was barely winding the rubber and only employing 80% of cruise turns! A
switch to a lighter mator, wound harder, should yield Improved flight times
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,223



Ignore
« Reply #68 on: September 22, 2018, 06:08:10 AM »

Thanks for that PC -the trimming info always fascinates me - even though I'm predominantly a RC Glider pilot.

John
Logged
Mefot
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 293




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: September 29, 2018, 03:21:03 PM »

Congratulations on the win Piecost  Smiley

Looking at the Hosler Fury as a 4 gramme model. Do you think it is possible to build one to that weight. It seems to me,as an outsider to this type of model, that the tissue would be 75% of the weight, leaving very little for the structure ?
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #70 on: September 29, 2018, 05:43:47 PM »

No, the Hostler is a 6 to 7g model, it seems. If we were still flying in the Brabazon hanger then I might be inclined to build one. I am not sure what the most competative 4g nocal would be. Since we only has 4 entries this year; I am wondering if anyone will build to the lower weight for 2019
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #71 on: November 07, 2019, 02:46:34 PM »

I did not devote enough time to this class at this year's nationals and managed to break the motor stick at the nose. I wonder if the model had sustained previous damage since it did not have a hard landing. The model was very nose heavy and I resorted to tail weight in an
attempt to trim. It was also flying in rather tight circuits.

 I had not flown it since last year's competition and it clearly needed some attention. Not having used the model for some time it becomes possible to make a fairly objective judgment about it; almost as if it were constructed by someone else. I found the propeller S-
hook too tight on the O-ring when installing motors and the rear S-Hook ridiculously difficult to remove the rubber. The location beneath the wing trailing edge did not help.
.I no longer removed the wing to install/remove the motor as this was a pain and risked damage. The removable canopy was very fragile and was damaged, the balsa broken and the tissue peeling off.

 I will modify the broken model. I will remove the stick and boom and move the rear peg 1 inch aft, away from the wing to ease motor loading/unloading and to help with the nose-down trim. I will also open out the propeller S-Hook to aid installing the motor. I will employ a conventional rear hook. It was annoying to break the model and not have time to rig the spare since the winning time from the best  two flights were only 4m15s. Something I should have been easily able to surpass.
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 431

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #72 on: November 07, 2019, 02:47:11 PM »

Broken motor stick
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Cassutt NoCal
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!