Author Topic: Thunderbird II (Rsm) (Read 5234 times)

Norvaldo · « **on:** October 02, 2006, 02:25:10 PM »

Hi.
When looking trough Stunt news result, i see surprisingly few Thunderbirds...
Not that i will compete in Classic in the US ( i am Norwegian) but i have ordered the T Bird II from Rsm.
Will put a RO-Jett .40 RE BSE in it.
Any experience , ideas and pictures on this one are welcomed.

rob biddle · « **Reply #1 on:** October 02, 2006, 08:44:46 PM »

Hi Norvaldo, I too am currently building an RSM Thunderbird 2 kit and it is coming along well.

I have just finished cutting the hinge slots (my least favourite job!)

and am now in the process of hooking up the pushrod from the flaps to elevators. I should be "boxing in" the rest of the fuse in the next couple of days and then starting on the cowl.

Unless you are running a 3 bladed prop you will more than likely run into ground clearance as pointed out to me by Bill Little. The gear provided in the kit really only allows for 10" props.

I am getting around this by bending up a wire gear and mounting it to the rear most ply former. I need the extra clearance as this model will be running an LA.46 with 11-12" 2 bladed props and will only be flown from grass. I have said a few times that I will try to post some pics soon, hopefully my wife will be able to bring the digital camera home from work tonight.
I look forward to seeing some shots of yours also.
Cheers, Rob.

Bill Little · « **Reply #2 on:** October 02, 2006, 09:34:35 PM »

The RSM T-Bird is a great kit, and makes a great flying plane.

As Rob said, be mindful of prop clearance! You will need quite a prop with the PA 40 to be able to load the prop on the T-Bird. The PA 40 UL will fly a WHOLE lot bigger airplane!

Bill <><

Norvaldo · « **Reply #3 on:** October 03, 2006, 12:48:03 AM »

Well . It's a RO-JETT .40 with muffler and running on muffler pressure.
I will be using a 3 bladed 10x5.5 .
I have a friend who makes carbon gears. I have one that is a little bit higher.
I am currently using the .40 in a profile Cardinal..
About the same size i think..

Bill Little · « **Reply #4 on:** October 03, 2006, 06:23:38 AM »

Quote from: Norvaldo on October 03, 2006, 12:48:03 AM

Well . It's a RO-JETT .40 with muffler and running on muffler pressure.
I will be using a 3 bladed 10x5.5 .
I have a friend who makes carbon gears. I have one that is a little bit higher.
I am currently using the .40 in a profile Cardinal..
About the same size i think.

I'm sorry!

I wrote PA, and you wrote Ro-Jett.

Actually, I would say there will be the same situation. You'll need that 10-1/2" 3 blade, at least.

If you're going with CF gear, you can always lengthen them with out a problem, so I think it will be a great set up. For sure, the RO-Jett 40 will never have to work hard to fly it!

The T-Bird, IMHO, has a great corner for a Classic plane, better than most!

Bill <><

George Waters · « **Reply #5 on:** October 03, 2006, 06:29:50 AM »

I have two rsm tbirds with rojett bse/re motors in them. They fly far better than I can. I use 11/5 prozinger on one and an 11.25/4.5 gator on the other. You'll probably want to bore out the venturi to .205 to get the right power range. The rsm kits are nice, just watch that you get the wing tips staight. Both planes balance on the edge of the spar with the rear exhaust header muffler. I used the kit supplied horns and subbed a 4' tom morris belcrank, theis setup gave 40 elevator and 30 flap. I also put the belcrank mount between the r1 ribs and centered the wing making the span 55.5 in. Enjoy the plane. George

Norvaldo · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2006, 04:26:33 PM »

<centered the wing >
Does that mean equal length inner and outer winghalfs?

George Waters · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2006, 06:06:22 AM »

Yes mine has equal span panels,I just duplicated the left flap for the right side. George

Greg L Bahrman · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2006, 06:04:40 PM »

Quote from: Norvaldo on October 03, 2006, 12:48:03 AM

Well . It's a RO-JETT .40 with muffler and running on muffler pressure.
I will be using a 3 bladed 10x5.5 .
I have a friend who makes carbon gears. I have one that is a little bit higher.
I am currently using the .40 in a profile Cardinal..
About the same size i think..

Norvald,
If you have any pictures of this I would be interested. I am thinking of doing the same. Thanks

Norvaldo · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2006, 02:17:22 AM »

Greg.
If you are referring to a pic. of the Ro-Jett, i include the one from Richard. O.
This shows the engine in the nose of a JD Falcon.

Also mine .. currently in a profile Cardinal

Norvaldo · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2006, 09:38:48 AM »

Greg L Bahrman · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2006, 11:03:08 AM »

Thanks Norvaldo,
This is exactly what I wanted to see. I am also putting the Ro-Jett 40 on my Cardinal profile. Can you tell me what tank and size you are using. Do I need to get a special muffler to clear the tank?? Are you happy with the performance of the Ro-Jett 40 etc. Does it have plenty of power for this plane?. I haven't run mine yet. I noticed that your needle adjustment is on the bottom of the plane. Looks like it would be hard to get to?.
Thanks

Norvaldo · « **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2006, 03:31:40 PM »

As for the tank, a 4 oz. is plenty for the pattern.
You can see from the pictures that clearance is not a problem.
Even the plastic on my cardinal is OK.
A 'normal' 4 oz. mounted on a profile would give problems though.
As for performance: This is a very strong engine for it's size. I run it (as already said) on muffler pressure. I run at the edge between 4 and 2 stroke.
I strongly recommend to follow R.O's advice on fuel which is 20% synth and 5 to 10% nitro. I actually use 18% synth and 2% castor but that is because that blend also goes with my other engines. I have not yet tried it with the 3 blade Bolly but i will do so in the weekend.
I had this engine on a JD-Falcon (which i crashed) and that one had to run on 4 stroke. Considering that the Thunderbirds used to be powered by a Fox .35 , this one will give plenty of power. It is also very broad on the needle setting.
As for the needle adjustment..I took the engine out of a full body plane and have not bothered to change it.
Norvald

Bill Little · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2006, 04:11:12 PM »

I can tell you now that a Ro-Jett (or PA 40) is more than enough power for a profile Cardinal, and also for any .35-.40 size Classic plane. I can also tell you that a PA 40 UL will fly a 58 oz. stunt ship without breaking a sweat!

Those "purpose" made stunt .40s are way more powerful than any of the other .40s out there.

Bill <><

Greg L Bahrman · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2006, 08:20:29 PM »

Thanks Bill and Norvaldo,
I am excited to get mine finished now. Let us know how that 3 blade works for you?

Norvaldo · « **Reply #15 on:** October 14, 2006, 02:48:10 PM »

As often happens , this tread has diverted over to a discussion of the RO-Jett .40.
(Which i flew yesterday with the 3 blade10x5.5 Bolly. It was just fantastic).
Anyone ot there have some nice oictures of T-Birds they can post ?
Norvald

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #16 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:59:42 PM »

Norvald,
Sorry to hear that you crashed your Falcon.

The RoJett.40 should really make the Thunderbird perform well.

Norvaldo · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2006, 02:42:38 PM »

Perfect match..
The fuselage front of the T.bird matches the Ro-Jett perfectly.

The Elevator horn is a survivor from my deceased JD-Falcon.

Also the carbon landing gear is 3/4 " higher.
The alu gear from Rsm fits in another .25 model i have.

George Waters · « **Reply #18 on:** October 26, 2006, 03:57:13 PM »

This is a 2006 RSM Thunderbird with a Rojett engine. This is a view of the engine and cowel installation. Hope this helps!

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #19 on:** November 05, 2006, 11:51:53 AM »

Very nice. Very sanitary engine compartment. The engine looks like a perfect match.

Does anyone know;
Is it true that Mr. Gerber from CO crashed his gorgeous red and white Thunderbird II? It was the nicest, closest to original Thunderbird I had ever seen.

Chris...

Bill Little · « **Reply #20 on:** November 05, 2006, 12:08:06 PM »

Quote from: Chris McMillin on November 05, 2006, 11:51:53 AM

Very nice. Very sanitary engine compartment. The engine looks like a perfect match.

Does anyone know;
Is it true that Mr. Gerber from CO crashed his gorgeous red and white Thunderbird II? It was the nicest, closest to original Thunderbird I had ever seen.

Chris...

Hi Chris,

I haven't heard anything about that. I sure hope it isn't so! It is/was a gorgeous plane!

Bill <><

Hofmarg · « **Reply #21 on:** April 13, 2008, 11:52:53 AM »

Hi this question is for George Waters.Hi you talked about keeping wing tips straight.I am currently rebuilding my (RSM) Thunderbird.My first attempt came out too heavy so I stripped her down and am redoing covering,controls and paint.I nopticed that my wings near tips were what looks to be warped on the TE.How did you keep the wing straight or how can I restraighten it.I found the balsa in this kit to be very brittle,maybe it was just an old kit,I`ve had trouble with it from the get go-
Any help appreciated-Thanks Ron

George Waters · « **Reply #22 on:** April 15, 2008, 06:34:29 AM »

I had trouble with the wood curling because it was so soft. I replaced the pieces with stiffer wood laminated from i/16& 1/8 stock, then sanded the edges and finished as usual. Hope this helps ypu. George

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #23 on:** April 15, 2008, 03:23:23 PM »

My T-Bird is also an RSM kit, slightly changed, as you can see. Upright engine and turtledeck. Power is OS MAX-S 35 and 10-6 B-Y&O. Slightly marginal on power, but OK with 15% nitro.

Floyd in OR

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #24 on:** April 17, 2008, 10:10:39 PM »

Floyd: I use an OS-35S in my Smoothie. Try an RSM 10-6 prop. I have tried it back to back with a BY&O prop and it made a big difference...for the better. Same results with a RSM 11-6 vs BY&O 11-6 on a plane with a "Silver" Fox 40. I'm a believer, Eric got this one right.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #25 on:** April 19, 2008, 07:54:27 AM »

The RSM props are a truer 6 pitch as my flying partner pointed out to me after I gave him a couple to play with. The Brodak BT&O props are much less pitch than listed. The ones I have measured a good 1 inch less pitch if not more, but, have a lot more blade area. Also that is what makes this hobby/sport so interesting, in that we expeirment til we find what works. Later, DOC Holliday

Bill Little · « **Reply #26 on:** April 21, 2008, 09:04:08 AM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on April 19, 2008, 07:54:27 AM

The RSM props are a truer 6 pitch as my flying partner pointed out to me after I gave him a couple to play with. The Brodak BT&O props are much less pitch than listed. The ones I have measured a good 1 inch less pitch if not more, but, have a lot more blade area. Also that is what makes this hobby/sport so interesting, in that we expeirment til we find what works. Later, DOC Holliday

Hi John,

I can back you up on the Brodak BY&O props be light in pitch. We used to by BY&O 10-5 props to get the right 10-4s to run on Aaron's OS 32F. We took the Prather and marked them all and made sure they were trued side to side and balanced. The strongest 10-5 we EVER had was a 10-4.5 on the Prather.

As long as you know ahead of time that they are weak..........

Bill <><

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #27 on:** April 21, 2008, 05:44:48 PM »

Ditto all the prior thoughts on prop pitch. I think the bigger problem is different pitch from blade to blade. I used to run Rev-Up 1x6EW's. They were generally conceded to be pretty good props but I notices some sem to really work better. Got checking and found pitches ranged from 5.0 to 5.75, and some varied by .5" blade to blade! A lot of them varied from mid stations to the tips.

I just built the landing gear longer so if I godd one I could protect it!

Hofmarg · « **Reply #28 on:** May 10, 2008, 12:00:23 PM »

I just redid my T-bird. I first covered it with Sig coverite and it came out way heavy so, I stripped her and redid with doped fues and Ultracoted wings and tail.As she sits weighs in at 47 oz now.I may still have to add abit of weight for final balance.By the way what is the exact balance point anyway,can someone let me know? I`m running with Fox 35 stunt with ABC conversion and Hemi head and stuffer plate.
thanks Ron

Shultzie · « **Reply #29 on:** May 10, 2008, 02:49:03 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on October 12, 2006, 04:11:12 PM

I can tell you now that a Ro-Jett (or PA 40) is more than enough power for a profile Cardinal, and also for any .35-.40 size Classic plane. I can also tell you that a PA 40 UL will fly a 58 oz. stunt ship without breaking a sweat!

Those "purpose" made stunt .40s are way more powerful than any of the other .40s out there.

Bill <><

BILL! WHAT IS THE HONEST BARE-METALBONES TRUTH about the actual weight of the PA40UL including pipe and also how many oz. in fuel & weight to complete the pattern?
With careful building practices...say using a 670 +or -sq.inch Hunt wing and stab...and a light weight finish.
Is 53 TOTAL OUNCES INCLUDING FUEL LOAD POSSIBLE???

Greg L Bahrman · « **Reply #30 on:** May 10, 2008, 02:58:04 PM »

My PA40 Ultra Light is 8 1/2 oz. engine only. pipes vary

Hofmarg · « **Reply #31 on:** May 11, 2008, 06:46:29 AM »

So the T-bird is common,new to me cause I just got back into C/L.I`ve been flying RC last 10 years and wanted to get back to my roots(1950s).Reasking question,Anybody know the balance point on the wing??(rsm T-Bird)

thanks Ron

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #32 on:** May 18, 2008, 09:41:40 AM »

Previous comments regarding the RSM 10-6 prop encouraged me to order a couple. On my OS 35-S and T'Bird, it made a big difference. More line tension on overheads, and generally more line pull (greater speed, I guess) I was using a B-Y&O 10-6 previously.

Floyd Carter

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #33 on:** May 18, 2008, 09:56:03 PM »

I'll kick in a few T-Bird II photos from my archives...ones I really liked.

One thing I really like about Stunt Hanger is that the photo titles go into the post. With my "system" (1/2A!), that tells us something about them, like who, and what it's powered by.

I think a B.40 would be great in a T-2, or an RM-40, or that PA .40UL. The original was powered by a Veco .35, for the record, just a tad heavier than the Fox .35 that Norvaldo mentioned, but not much! An old McCoy .40 would be killer in this plane, but they make a lot of noise. Anyway, the T-Bird II is one of my most favorite Classics...so, why don't I have an RSM kit of it? Might have to acquire one as a birthday present (2 myself!) pretty soon...

Steve

Hofmarg · « **Reply #34 on:** May 20, 2008, 08:06:06 AM »

I checked the scale I was using(Berkeley Fish Scale) seemed to be off about 5 oz.So my T-Bird actually weighs in at around 52oz with sheet Al cowl and no fuel.I don`t think she came out too bad for first attempt at a full body C/L plane in 50 years!

Ron

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #35 on:** July 10, 2008, 08:33:04 PM »

In a magazine somewhere, I read that Bob's 1960 WC Airplane weighed 43 ounces.
Wow, that's a pretty big airplane to get in at 43 ounces. I too have the RSM
T-Bird II kit. I will build it after I get done with my Akromaster.

Jim Pollock, Audacter et Strenue

Bill Little · « **Reply #36 on:** July 18, 2008, 09:04:56 PM »

Actually, Jim, 43 oz. isn't THAT hard to hit with the T-Bird II. My first was a porker at 46 oz., remember it is easier to build a bigger plane at a relatively lighter weight. More *air* in the structure.

Mongo