Matt I don't think anyone considers picking an airplane to mate a prop.  You really need to do it the other way around.  You DO mate an airplane to a chosen power plant.  For the Jett .61 on a pipe 630 is acceptable but minimal.  You'd better build it very light.  Your 53 ounces?  Good luck with that.  The hardware alone including engine, coupler, pipe, tank, wheels, prop, spinner, and fasteners will be about 25 ounces.  Most covering and finishes will average 10 ounces.  That leaves something like a Ringmaster for an airframe to maintain your 53.  Odds are you might build a little heavier than a master so your wing loading will run pretty high for 630.  I'd suggest a known design over 660 sq. inches and find the right prop for your finished product.

Dave

Matt I remember now a thread you had about this engine.  I know Jett's very well and think this one of yours is suspect.  If it were me I'd send it to Dub Jett for a shakedown before I'd wrap a new airplane around it. 
On your weight budget,  it seems quite optimistic to me for an airplane that will stand up to the daily rigors of flying.  Inquiring minds want to know so keep us informed. 

Dave

Brett,
Without the tests, I would not be able to see for the first time the effect of the pipe.
It is not getting nowhere - it is learning the things still new to me.

Building light and structurally weak models is undesired but building lightly and structurally adequately to the task is, I believe, the Holy Grail of the entire exercise.

Regards,
Matt

Guys,
They have not found the Holy Grail yet but they (whoever they really are...) keep searching.
I have not found the design yet that can be treated as my perennial 60+ size stunt plane but I will keep searching.

I will design and build something in the 600+ sq.in wings category with Jett60 with pipe as is right now. It will be build as light as feasible using the mixture of available structural materials (balsa, Depron, carbon composite etc.) and will have partially build up fuselage for stiffness.
The weight budget will be published on this forum and I will update it while the project progresses.

When the thing is RTF, I will fly it first and then ask two of the best pilots in my club to fly it and assess it. If they tell me it is ok., I will fly it happily ever after practicing those tight corners that will become my personal Holy Grail for the next season.

If the thing does not fly well with Jett60 with pipe, I will install Jett76 and repeat the drill. I may also remove the ICE mount and the tank, clean everything, and install one of my 60-70 size electric motors.

If the thing does not fly well because the aerodynamics of it is at fault, I will retire it to my garage and keep searching for the perennial 60+ size stunt plane.

Regards,
M

 

Hi again Dave,
I completely agree with the flying part.
I was trying to fly as much as I could this season and, finally, after three years and four good planes smashed to splinters, I am able to fly the entire pattern more or less ok. but the quality is poor. I have lost a lot of flying time repairing my RToucan with Evo60NX in May and trying to tune my electric LGW to fly better. Because I smashed my best flier (Toucan with Magnum Pro 45) and seemingly indestructible Parrot (with EVO36 CL), for two months LGW was the only flying object I could use.

It was LGW (Little Great White) with Cobra 2812/14 that finally allowed me to fly the entire pattern. This ugly paper-foam-paper(PFP) kit plane flies now so well that I would recommend it for anybody who wants to learn the pattern for the price of roughly $300 CAD for the kit, motor, three 3S batteries and KR governor. The plane was repaired seven or eight times after crashes but, because it has the front crash zone, such repairs are fast and easy. You simply cut out the damaged front part, glue new PFP pieces, insert the cassette with the motor and off you go.

I will be practicing indoors this coming winter and, hopefully, the quality and consistency of my pattern will improve a bit.

This thing with Jett60 is the attempt not to give up on a good engine that, I believe, is simply misunderstood.

Yes...I could have sent it to Dub for treatment but in total it will cost less if I simply buy new 60-61-65 bar stock Ro-Jett. It is total cost as I spent already more than $200 USD trying to repair Jett60 after the terminal crash of my Great White and so on and so on..

I have Ro-Jett76 and big plans for it so I am simply trying to use the existing Jett60 for something.

Lets stay in touch,
Best Regards,
M

 

 

We will clarify this : watching the world superbikes , nothing personal , BUT ,

Though the  GP1 or whatevertheycallit top line ones WILL get around ' the Track ' quickest . Its Not Where youd start .
Because say you could get around two laps without falling of , or getting spat off , wouldnt mean it was a good idea
to enter a RACE on one , at first .

Generally someone starts somewhere less expensive in every respect , particularly in regard to ' miscalculations' , while
becoming acustomed to the proceedings .

Not to say that putting around the couse for a few laps wouldnt be intresting . But one wouldnt go balls out untill
theyed cut their teeth on something more manageable , also becomeing familiar  with dialing in the equipment .      THUS ,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will that thing run pipeless ? Equvalent of a Toungue Muffler ??



Bob Hunt says He is of the Opion that THIS Works , & His Saturn is purloined from it, in print . So fairly safe there as He would apear to be qualified to comment on such things . .
Planes can be like motorcycles & Cars , and Trucks now too I guess .
Youd learn far more on say a J.A.P. 1000 twin , a 31 Crysler 75 roadster , or a 41 chev or Dodge 6x6 than you ever could in one of these consumer friendly ergonomically something wonder toys .
In fact someone who was licenced in one might not even be able to get a Real W.O. Bently In Gear . Let alone moving . Saying nothing of winning Le Mans with it .

Getting the Hours Up would seem to be your soundest proposition , rather than making expensive holes in the ground .. A few of the classic 35 things are remarkably close to ' modern ' numbers ,
The Sig Chipmonk rib set being popularly used for many .

Thatr Cobra 7 with solid sheet aft would be quick n easy & help to balance it . YOU need something thatll take the odd glancing blow without  destroying itself . Wing Gears being dubious there .
Something that can & WILL be nailed back together to continue the fight , till your happy & even ENJOY going out in a 15 - 20 Knot battle with the elements would seem more logical .

A ultra light IS likely , as described , to Blow Apart in severe turbulance . A Good Mainspar , Belcrank platform , bulkhead & bearers tied together securely ,
a Stiff twist Resitand control system and aft fuselage , to maintain alignment in severe conditions would be of use , where a 10 Oz Sq Ft sucker would be blown into the next century in turbulance .

A design I have for balmy warm summers days would do a better emulation of a helicopters rotor if ' the blow ' was 25 or over .

Two Hundred Hours of Flying the Schedule , and you should be able to hold your own . 20 Hrs Nightflying earlier iihe war had Hurricane Night Fighters suffer about 90 % terminal difficulties .
Latter 200 Hours pre hostile engagement had them making a meal of the nasties , with about 10 % casulties max. overall .

So get out & FLY , ANYTHING . If its a dog youll learn twice as much taming it .  Formular Vee has better apeal ab initio , than hitting a wall at 200 mph plus in ' pro ' racing . Get the Hours Up .